Very sensible of the Gunners -- not that it did them much good; they looked as though they'd walked rather than flown. Funny how selective these Eco Warriors are regarding their targets. Quote: "It is absolutely absurd. I cannot see any reason why they would have flown, other than it being a rather ostentatious display of the players' and the club's wealth." Does she slate Delia and Michael when they fly to away matches for ostentatiously displaying their wealth? No? I thought not.
Do they charter a private jet to do it? I'd have thought they'd simply fly business class. There's a difference.
Rich people flying short distances well I never! One massive problem with travelling to Norwich or anywhere east of Cambridge for that matter is the roads nothing but A roads for miles which baring mind there are ports, airports, holiday resorts and national parks in the region it's absolutely ridiculous the government hasn't invested and would probably benefit the economy in the long term.
I can't see what the problem is. What's wrong with it? The plane was available for hire and a window existed to take off and land. I'm off to Winchester on Friday and wish I was flying rather than tackling the A303. Why do so many people drive to Carrow Road when you could walk in half an hour? Because its what they chose to do.
Back in the inaugural season of the Prem in 1992, Robert 'Fat controller' Chase opted to charter a plane from Norwich to get the team to an evening game at Oldham. (Mark Robins hat-trick in a 3 - 2 win to take us top of the league ) Any spare seats were filled by loyal fans. And all this from the tightest chairman the game has ever seen and before the zillions were invested by sheiks and rich Americans!
People have an issue with how terrible for the environment air travel is. Without wanting to cause an argument, short-haul flights really get my goat for that very reason.
But surely short haul means they are up there for less time so cause less damage. Isn't long haul worse?
Indeed, but a great deal of the energy used (and thus the emissions produced) by planes is produced on take-off. Therefore, I have much more of an issue with 'unnecessary' short-haul flights than 'necessary' long haul ones.
I know its unlikely to be used at Norwich Airport but isn't the Dreamliner a step forward in aircraft emissions?
There's an awful lot of research and development that is going into how to limit the impact of aviation in terms of emissions - obviously this is a good thing. However way you spin it though, currently there is no excuse (environmentally-speaking) for a journey such as this. Taking a plane is significantly more detrimental to the global environment than a train or coach journey. There's no arguing otherwise in my opinion.
But isn't that justifying the eradication of cows? One of the most unecessary animals on the planet based on its detriment to the environment.
That is one of the more extreme environmental arguments, yes! You could do some sort of comparative study on the amount of useful produce derived from cattle compared to cattle methane emissions. Then you could follow that up with whether it is more environmentally friendly to eradicate the cattle and replace them with genetically modified meat that can be grown in 'vats' (actually something scientists are toying with)... ... that's probably a discussion for another day though eh?
On the subject of the environment there are a lot worse offenders then those who fly, just look at the industry in China and also in developing economies like India and Brazil it's totally unregulated and they couldn't give a toss about biodiversity etc.
