A recent report for the UN World Travel and Tourism Organisation - entitled Climate change and tourism - responding to global challenges, has been exploring how tourism (and aviation) is affecting CO2 levels and climate change.
Unsurprisingly, it reached a conclusion which would not look out of place on our agitprop: "While there are many options to reduce emissions [in the tourism sector], by far the greatest potential is related to air travel; reducing flight numbers and flight distances will achieve more to make tourism more sustainable than most other measures taken together."
Put's Branson's "I'll fly my jets on chip-fat" claims into perspective somewhat, doesn't it...
Regional airports might not get too much media attention, but rest assured - they're dead keen on expansion. And being out of the public eye means they often get away with the most ridiculous claims - as this latest humdinger should demonstrate.
This gibberish started with Southampton Airport and now Bristol International Airport is following suit. They're claiming that expanding regional airports means a gross reduction in CO2, because instead of driving to the nearest long-haul shopping mall, people will fly from whichever airport is closest too them.
Say what you like about the aviation industry, it's never short of a good junket. Seems like every week a new bunch of businessmen crawl out of the woodwork pleading that aviation is being unfairly demonised for pumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The latest lobbyists to be paid lots and lots of money to persuade you that flying is super are Flying Matters, who claim that "Flying is no longer a luxury reserved for a privileged elite", because 50% of people flew at least once last year.