"Non-essential flights"

This is another one of those pat phrases that people like to trot out to refer to something that can be universally regarded as A Bad Thing, a bit like people turning up their noses at "'urban sprawl", despite the fact that ninety per cent of us choose to live in urban or suburban areas.

But what on earth does it mean? It is perfectly possible to imagine a world without air travel. For example, had there been many more plane crashes in the early years then aeroplanes might have gone out of fashion in the same way as airships did after The Hindenburg crashed. Or there might have been better lobbying from the shipping and rail industries, and so on. In that case, can it be said that any single (non-military) flight is 'essential'?

But conversely, can it be said that any flight is truly non-essential? 

A surprising amount of perishable goods are transported by air, epecially flowers, exotic vegetables from land-locked African countries with little infrastructure apart from an airstrip*. The produce may hardly be 'essential' to the rich consumer in the West, but that income is 'essential' for the grower in Africa.

Yer average Brit could survive without his week or two away in a nice, hot Mediterranean country (given exchange rate movements, it looks like a lot will have to manage without this year), so is that 'essential'? Perhaps not, but what about the economies of the Canary Islands or Malta or Cuba (OK, that's in the Caribbean), without air travel, their income from tourism, a large part of their GDP, would more or less disappear, so is each flight not 'essential' to their economy?

I suppose I could ask whether it is 'essential' for actresses to fly from London to Los Angeles to attend an award ceremony, not really, I suppose, but if that actress can further her career and future income by doing so, why shouldn't she?

Just sayin', is all.

* It is broadly accepted that the total CO2 emissions are often a lot less than what they would have been had the same produce been grown in electrically heated and lighted greenhouses in Europe, but that still does not answer the question of whether that produce is 'essential', of course it isn't - we could live off potatoes and do without flowers.

Nulab appointee jumps on bandwagon

The hypocrisy of these actor luvvies complaining about the Heathrow expansion was covered admirably yesterday by the Institute of Economic Affairs and rather more robustly by The Daily Mash.

From today's Evening Standard:

CELEBRITY critics of the third runway at Heathrow were accused of "hypocritical behaviour" by a government minister today. Transport minister Lord Adonis suggested that vocal opponents such as Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson should explain why they regularly flew all over the world themselves. In an interview with the Evening Standard, he said: "People who are frequent flyers have to square that with wanting to deny others the opportunity to fly by constraining airport expansion... therefore rationing flights and making them more expensive."

I hate this government so much that it causes me great pain to admit that they've done something right for once. 

Hypocrite of the week

Emma Thompson