out for the long haul

I love this picture from the Guardian: "Oh no - it's rising!"

"You must pay the rent!"

"I can't pay the rent!"

"You must pay the rent!"

"I can't pay the rent!"

Tony Blair rejects the idea that he should set a personal example by taking fewer long-distance holidays. He told Sky News that he doesn't think anyone should have to make such a sacrifice, that even in the teeth of global warming it would be "unreasonable" to expect such a thing of us. He says he's telling it like it is. He said, grammatically, "I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that."

So, come on! How many long-haul flights (return) a year do we think constitute our right as human beings? Let me know. We'll take a poll and send the results to Sky News.

Let's take Ms B as our first example. I fly only to the States. Since January 1987 - that's right, in 20 years - I have been there I think seven times (it might be six). I thought it was because I didn't have the money. I took that as it came, because that's life - it would have been the same if I'd moved somewhere in the States, which people do, and then you get settled, have a job, kids, friends. Plus I love it here. But have I been making an unreasonable sacrifice all this time?

If my lack of long-haul flights is unreasonable - and you could argue it is, considering that I've missed my siblings and cousins, neices and nephews, aunts, uncles and parents getting older - does that mean Tony Blair will make it so I no longer have to make this ridiculous & uncalled-for sacrifice?

Or do we think he should just get real?

Oh, but not to worry - Downing Street says this is not about the Prime Minister's travel: "'This is not about the prime minister's travel', a source said."

And anyway, science will save us: "I think that what we need to do is to look at how you make air travel more energy efficient, how you develop the new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less."

"I'LL pay the rent!"