I blame both sides. On the one hand, you could cynically ask, "why
shouldn't gas be $4 a gallon?" After all, people have hardly changed their behavior at all. Do you know of anyone who has significantly changed their commute, neighborhood, monster SUV, etc? Is
is supply and demand, and if you don't like paying $4 a gallon for gas, then use less of it, etc.
Of course that is very simplistic. The environmentalists at their core are not about clean air and water--they are about an anti-capitalist, anti-modern agenda that would have us all living in caves--except for them of course. They would continue living in their Upper West Side townhomes, sipping nonfat decaf soy chai lattes, congratulating themselves with how utterly hip they are.
How else could you explain the following?
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7261214.stm
Kenneth Richter, of Friends of the Earth, said the flight was a "gimmick", distracting from real solutions to climate change.
"If you look at the latest scientific research it clearly shows biofuels do very little to reduce emissions," he said.
"At the same time we are very concerned about the impact of the large-scale increase in biofuel production on the environment and food prices worldwide.
"What we need to do is stop this mad expansion of aviation. At the moment it is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases in the UK, and we need to stop subsidising the industry."
Greenpeace's chief scientist, Dr Doug Parr, labelled the flight a "high-altitude greenwash" and said less air travel was the only answer.
"Instead of looking for a magic green bullet, Virgin should focus on the real solution to this problem and call for a halt to relentless airport expansion."
Just another version of the Taliban, but with a different ideological motivation.