The Pain of Plane is Hard to Explain

Actually it's not hard. All those who have elected themselves to speak on our behalves are plane bonkers: Plane Speaking

'I use these commentary pieces and the replies they provoke (often popping in a few of my own to spice the pot) as one would pan for gold. Sadly, I am having to sift through more and more dross to gain any nuggets of use, as the debate seems to have been hijacked by those from extremely entrenched positions (fair enough, if tedious) who are using this space more to try and knock literary spots off each other, and/or make dubious political points at the expense of reasoned debate (not so fair enough).

From those invited to comment, I'd like to have a sense that the medium is seeking those with some expertise, a fair case and the ability to make it. But what I'm seeing more of (across all media) is the ratings/readers-driven wheeze of getting one extreme to pop in their 2p-worth, and then let loose the hounds from both sides and lick up the blood-money from the crowd that gathers.

So it seems we have a naughties 'loadsamunny' live now, pay-later lad telling greenies they are all kill-joys and, if there is global warming it’s too late/not our fault/not worth worrying about, making the point by slagging off an obviously passionate, but rather unrepresentative (I too find prayer meetings on runways a tad OTT, though on reflection did blog at the time of the Greenpeace/Land Rover chain-ganging that it would be ironic if all the luvvies found their weekend ski-trips halted by disgruntled car workers) and didactic enviro-activist. However his response seems to be to get down from a self-created moral high ground (recently vacated by most of our political estsablishment and even some high profile green elites when practicality met self-interest - conferences to speak at; books to sell. Examples to no longer set. Hypocrisy accusations to fend off) into the gutter to simply trade class, who is backing whom, and new/old money insults with few facts or helpful opinion.

I long ago gave up on Radio 1 when such as Chris Moyles and Sara Cox thought I was more interested in who had dissed whom in The Sun or at the Ivy last night rather than the music. Plus I got older (if not wiser).

Now it's taking place in the environmental world too.

I am trying to run a family and ensure that what we do now works for them, AND can sustain a future for their families.

For that I need reasoned debate, information, solutions or, in the absence of the latter, honesty enough to say we don't know (and to err on my more the green sympathies, the acceptance of the notion that if we don't, maybe siding on caution wouldn't hurt) everything and that it would be way better to get on and do worthwhile things rather than talk, or worse divide and rule out anything by getting into camps, and denying opposing views with abuse and swapping tirades.

There is a vast, disenfranchised majority out there who I reckon is finding this all very unhelpful, which is putting them off engaging. Sadly this serves the deniers more than those of us who would seek to engage positively and pragmatically. For instance, frankly, having had several summers in the UK, I’m up for a bit of sun, sand and sea I can get more than a toe into. Now, how about those train fares to somewhere the kids won't get chundered on by a £50k+ hen-nighter who can't afford BA, or WAG off her LearJet with a travel and showbiz journalist in tow....'

I could have had some sympathy with what this guy is trying to do, if not the way he's trying to do it. His defence here shows him no better than the rest, and IMHO, hurting the cause of getting to rational solutions.