The BBC is whingeing on about people flying. The premise is that, basically, people shouldn’t fly because it’s “bad for the environment”.
WTF? Seriously. What have they been smoking? How did this get on the air? Have they gone completely mad?
Really, what does it mean? Assuming it means anything, of course. We are supposed to travel by what, exactly? So instead of paying 1,000 quid to go home by plane, I, what, walk to Hong Kong and then take the QE2 to S’hampton (about 7,000 quid), then er the train to Wales and then the ferry… and so on…
Who watches this bollocks? Who is it for? Do people actually watch this and think “yes, what a jolly good idea it would be if no-one flew anywhere anymore!”
Believe you me, I am totally willing to return home for Christmas on the QE2 and the Orient Express rather than on Virgin Atlantic Airways! So which tree hugger is going to give me the extra £11,000 it will cost?
And I have a new respect for Simon Callow who goes on a private plane so he can smoke.
(Now they are having a go at movie stars and so on for owning private jets. In Ireland we call this begrudgery.)
Now we have some sincere-looking fop telling us that airlines are reducing the size of their spoons as a response to climate change. Yeah right. Not to save money then. By the way the smoking ban on planes saves them a fortune in reduced drag from lower rates of air recycling.
But this BBC World programme is mindboggling. I think they are saying that basically we should go back to the 19th Century in terms of travel. Remember how clean the air was in the 19th Century?
Well, I’m off to write fan letters to Simon Callow and Tom Cruise (he has three jets and the Eco-nuts call him “Emission Impossible” - I would sue for libel there, ahem, but anyway) and create some carbon.
Why doesn’t the BBC stick to radio? It was good at that.