A lot of hay was made recently about Al Gore's flying miles. It has been pointed out that he flew hither and yon promoting his movie, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. He flew many places in Europe and America just to receive awards for the movie. At the same time he flies about, he's pointing to the pollution caused by air travel.

Seems a bit hypocritical of Gore, doesn't it?

Brother Gore is not the only "green" mouthpiece being criticized. Here is another example, a punlit article, "A Green Snag They Emitted to Mention" in the London Times:

"THEY are the green jetsetters — environmental campaigners who are leading the fight to restrict aviation and cut greenhouse gas emissions, but who also clock up hundreds of thousands of miles flying around the world on business and pleasure.

"In the past year the directors and chief executives of groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association have crisscrossed the globe, visiting the Falklands, Japan, Africa and Brazil.

All are running high-profile campaigns to persuade people to change their lifestyles and cut emissions of carbon dioxide."

LINK TO THE FULL ARTICLE

This raises an issue for the inmates of the Arboretum. Some of us will soon be flying to Italy (The usual reasons: Never been there, dream to see Rome, want to talk to the Pope about a few things) and some of us are flying to Paraguay (Family reasons, meet the relatives, etc.)

So, are we hypocrites as well?

We think a number of our friends will tell us off, particularly Jim over at OIL IS FOR SISSIES but we would appreciate comments. Is ir proper to stay home? Is it sufficient to say that the planes will be flying with us or without us?