Blair seems to have gone mad again, this time on the theme of climate change. A few months ago, he had this to say on the subject:
Climate change won't just affect hot countries or those in the developing world - it will affect us all. The report is clear: We are heading towards catastrophic tipping points in our climate unless we act…Creating cleaner energy whilst using less has to be the key.
Today it is reported that he said that asking Britons to consider not going on quite so many long-haul flights for mindless recreation was "a bit impractical".
What a good example set by he, our inspirational leader, who (strangely perhaps) holds significant influence over people throughout the world, no?
This despite the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research's report in 2005 concluding that aviation is a "huge threat" to the Government's own carbon dioxide reducing targets. This despite his own environment minister saying just a few days ago that Ryanair was "the irresponsible face of capitalism" for trying to avoid measures that would lead to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This despite the Government's own central website Directgov giving you hints and tips on cutting your aviation emissions saying:
Air travel makes a growing contribution to climate change and can have serious impacts on local air quality. Forecasts suggest that emissions from flying could make up a quarter of the UK’s contribution to climate change by 2030. There are alternatives, and any reduction in air travel will help.
It apparently being too much to ask to even mention cutting down a bit on flight to the UK population, he would rather see the oh-so-simple task of making an environmentally friendly aeroplane that runs on nice green fuel appear out of nowhere. Nice idea, but as Greenpeace said:
Tony Blair is crossing his fingers and hoping someone will invent aeroplanes that don't cause climate change. But that's like holding out for cigarettes that don't cause cancer. Hoping for the best isn't a policy, it's a delusion.
George Monbiot has an interesting open letter to Blair on the subject detailing why holding out and hoping just isn't practical when we're talking about the end of the world. He also draws the perhaps-not-quite-the-same-but-point-is-taken parallel that Blair's reluctance to give us friendly advice resulting sacrificing a few of our overseas holidays is a little strange when in previous times when our very planetary existence has been threatened - for example during World War 2 - millions of people were forced to sacrifice their entire lives.
Comments
I think his point was that
I think his point was that no one would take any notice if you askde them to stop going on long haul hols and I think he has a point, Egypt ring any bells? I think he just put it a bit unfortunately and the papers jumped on it. Not that I would normally stand up for the man but I am not sure I am ready to give up travelling yet, which makes me bad and wrong and selfish but I'm not that bothered.
I'm guilty too
Sure - I can't imagine anyone, myself included, deciding to give up travelling entirely anytime soon - not until fuel is actually so expensive that we can't afford it (or rather, only the rich can afford it)! And yes, this is clearly selfish on my part.
But I'm not the Prime Minister, and nobody is going to act on what I say. Hypocrisy, yes :-) I would nontheless have expected and hoped that as one of the world's leading statesmen (in some people's opinions...) who claims to have a pro-environment agenda, he could have brought the issue up rather than dismiss it as silly - tho I appreciate he may not have meant it this way, but that's what the report made me feel. I should admit I briefly tried to find a full transcript to put his words in context but couldn't do so.
Not in any way to suggest that he should make a law forbidding such travel, but to provide advice and education (as directgov does) to allow people to make up their own minds. To put it in the minds of people who are deciding whether to jet over to Spain for the weekend, or visit Cornwall for instance, to make us think twice about whether we really want to go on a trip or not.
Environmental cost is a factor in my decisions, and I'm sure it is in yours. Clearly not a big enough one for me to actually sacrifice going on holiday now and then, and like you I am sure this year I will be up for another flight-based adventure! Well I am already actually, just don't know where, suggestions welcome :-) But I certainly think it unlikely I would ever fly to somewhere I didn't really have a huge desire or requirement to go to in a way that I would get the train on a whim because I'm bored. And maybe I would do the old carbon-replenishment things if I feel guilty enough, tho I am fully aware of people's views on their limitations.
Perhaps a bigger problem is the countless unnessecary business flights? Plenty of business people seem to fly within the UK which in most cases isn't exactly essential. For those international business people I really think far more use should be made of technology. There are so many instances where flying people over for meetings could be avoided via e.g. video conferening. Not every time maybe but I know the company I work for sends plenty of people on foreign excursions that really are not needed!
Go while you still can?
It seems that Blair was only a minor offender in the grand scheme of things. Check out this cover of the supposedly righteous Independant on Sunday, complete with a big article about how given the world is about to end we might as well give it up and go fly everywhere whilst we still can even if we know it causes such problems.
Again, not to say I haven't had an idea like that...but I have to ask why promote irresponsibility to all and sundry?!
Media Lens have taken them to task over it (no response yet as far as I know) - see their media alert "IN THE SPIRIT OF NERO".
Post new comment