Skip to content

John Humphrys Wants Us To Stop Flying

January 22, 2020
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

John Humphrys wants us all to give up flying:

 image

A new passport has just arrived in the post. I remember my first one, more than half a century ago, almost as clearly as I remember the arrival of my first child — with one big difference.

The baby demanded responsibility. The passport promised freedom. For a scruffy kid who’d never actually ventured ‘abroad’ this majestic blue document with its gold crest meant a new world opening up.

My ambition was to fill its 24 pages with stamps from ever more exotic destinations.

By my late 20s I was a foreign correspondent and within a few years that’s what I had done. I have no such ambitions for the new passport. Exactly the opposite.

In 2018 one in 12 of all international travellers was British. And we do it regardless of the damage to the planet and to our children’s future. The past decade was the hottest on record and we can’t just bleat: ‘Oh, but temperatures fluctuate all the time’

When it expires in ten years I hope its pages will be as nakedly pristine as they are today. My single exception MIGHT be Greece, where my grandchildren live.

The reason? I have given up air travel. I want to save the world from climate change. Greta Thunberg has a competitor. Or at least, that’s what I tell myself. The truth is rather more commonplace — and a great deal more selfish.

I do not see my self-imposed ban on air travel as a sacrifice — and I don’t think I’m alone. Be honest with yourself. Air travel has stopped being fun.

I have no such ambitions for the new passport. Exactly the opposite. When it expires in ten years I hope its pages will be as nakedly pristine as they are today

You only have to look at the litany of complaints on social media. Once, newspaper stories about travel evoked adventure and glamour.

Now they are about drunken passengers or interminable delays or lost baggage.

This week’s story of a Delta plane dumping fuel over a Los Angeles school seems a grisly metaphor for our relationship with air travel.

The most positive recent coverage I can think of was the inaugural 19-hour direct flight to Sydney.

But it was actually a story of human endurance. What effect would that have on your organs, never mind your spirits? And that’s before you even board the plane.

The airport is the first circle of hell, divorced from all natural existence. No real light, no real air, no escape. Just enforced shopping and snacking and being ordered about like naughty children by officious staff. But still we do it.

We are flying more than ever before. And there is every sign that we will keep doing it. Note the fuss this week over Flybe.

The Government’s justification for keeping Flybe in the air is that it’s used by people living a long way from big cities.

Fair enough on one level. It’s five hours by train from Newquay to London.

I have given up air travel. I want to save the world from climate change. Greta Thunberg has a competitor. Or at least, that’s what I tell myself. The truth is rather more commonplace — and a great deal more selfish

But at least the train takes you into the city centre and, assuming you’ve booked a seat, it’s an infinitely more civilised way to travel. If the Government really wants to intervene, it should make rail travel cheaper.

As for long-haul flights, why would anyone cross the world for the sake of a selfie? We travel because we can, but without any real purpose. There is nowhere left to discover, only to despoil.

And we do more of it than any other nationality. In 2018 one in 12 of all international travellers was British. And we do it regardless of the damage to the planet and to our children’s future.

The past decade was the hottest on record and we can’t just bleat: ‘Oh, but temperatures fluctuate all the time.’ Not at sea they don’t.

Oceans absorb more than 90 per cent of greenhouse gases emitted when we burn fossil fuels, and the measurements over the past ten years are the highest since records began.

This is for real. Which is why David Attenborough says the planet is heading for disaster.

The airport is the first circle of hell, divorced from all natural existence. No real light, no real air, no escape. Just enforced shopping and snacking and being ordered about like naughty children by officious staff. But still we do it. London’s Luton Airport is pictured above

And air travel makes a massive contribution to climate change.

I had a heated exchange with a friend about a trip he’s planning with a group of other friends to the Far East.

He said they’ll be offsetting the C02 they’ll be spewing out with a tree planting scheme. He’s a well-meaning chap but I’m afraid that, like so many others, he’s been horribly misled.

Tony Kirkham, of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is one of the world’s most respected tree scientists.

He tells me it takes at least ten years for a ‘shade tree’ such as an oak or elm to mature to the stage where it just begins to ‘bank’ carbon.

All being well, after 100 years it will have banked about 20 tons. But at least half of newly planted trees die within five years because they don’t get the care they need. And anyway, we don’t have 100 years.

The Health Secretary Matt Hancock suggests technology will sort out flying.

We could have electric planes one of these days, he claims. Sure. And I ‘could’ sprout wings and fly to Paris this weekend. These things take time. I repeat: we don’t have time.

So all doom and gloom? Not in the least. Giving up flying is not making a sacrifice. It’s the opposite.

I spent the Christmas break walking the coastal path of West Wales. It is easily the most beautiful in this country — perhaps in the world.

The rock formations take your breath away. From the clifftops of Cardigan Bay, the only thing between you and the peaks of the Snowdon range in the far distance are the dolphins leaping and lunging.

What you don’t see are crowds of people. I have walked all day and seen barely another soul.

It’s true that if you fancy a dip the sea is probably a little chillier than the Aegean, but this is where the terrible threat of global warming delivers a perverse benefit.

When package tours started to take off in the Sixties, we all went abroad for the sun.

From the clifftops of Cardigan Bay, the only thing between you and the peaks of the Snowdon range in the far distance are the dolphins leaping and lunging

Now that it’s getting to the stage where we won’t have to, we can rediscover the glories of holidaying at home without moaning about the weather.

Children might experience again the wonder of rock pools. Remember them? We have wonderful forests and lochs and mountains and ancient cities — all within reach without the hell of a sleepless night on a long-haul flight.

And how much nicer to be in tune with the seasons rather than face the misery of jet lag.

Ah, you might say, but what about the allure of those faraway places, mysterious and wonderful?

To which I would say: find them if you can. You may very well be disappointed.

Foreign holidays were once a chance to experience the exotic. No longer. The exotic has been homogenised.

The allure of the Taj Mahal is lost when you fight for a glimpse with a million other tourists and their selfie sticks.

So strike a blow for the environment. For the British economy which benefits so much from local tourism. For your own wellbeing and happiness. Stay home!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7901205/Why-Im-planning-NOT-use-new-passport-think-says-JOHN-HUMPHRYS.html

It is a remarkably self indulgent piece, from someone who has spent decades flying around the world, both for business and pleasure.

Now it’s a case of “sorry suckers, but you can’t have your turn, and anyway you would not enjoy it now!”

This is compounded by his wish to carry on flying to Greece to see his grandkids, no doubt at least once a year! Does it not occur to him that most ordinary people can’t afford more than one foreign holiday a year?

He does though make a relevant comment about carbon offsetting:

I had a heated exchange with a friend about a trip he’s planning with a group of other friends to the Far East.

He said they’ll be offsetting the C02 they’ll be spewing out with a tree planting scheme. He’s a well-meaning chap but I’m afraid that, like so many others, he’s been horribly misled.

Tony Kirkham, of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is one of the world’s most respected tree scientists.

He tells me it takes at least ten years for a ‘shade tree’ such as an oak or elm to mature to the stage where it just begins to ‘bank’ carbon.

All being well, after 100 years it will have banked about 20 tons. But at least half of newly planted trees die within five years because they don’t get the care they need. And anyway, we don’t have 100 years.

In any event, I always wonder just how many “new” trees actually get planted in these stunts.

 

But what impact on emissions does air travel actually have?

In the UK, domestic flights only contribute about 1.5 MtCO2, which represents half a percent of UK carbon dioxide. In other words, inconsequential.

Emissions from international aviation, however, are not included in UK emissions, but are instead added below the line. This is the methodology employed by the UNFCCC. These emissions are calculated from the use of fuels from UK bunkers. In other words, a US flight, say, which lands at Heathrow and refuels there would count in the UK figures.

Latest figures for 2017 put emissions at 35 MtCO2, about a tenth of all other UK emissions.

Globally, emissions from international aviation are estimated at 918 MtCO2. Significantly these have increased by 32% since 2013.

With total world emissions of CO2 running at 34 billion tonnes a year, eliminating all flights into and out of the UK would clearly not make any difference at all.

52 Comments
  1. Immune to propaganda permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:00 pm

    I’ll make sure I make up for John’s silly choice by making more flights. Like all the eco socialists, they have no idea that CO2 was much higher during past ice ages than today and that world temperatures dropped sharply between 1940 and 1970 whilst CO2 levels rose. The Sun drives climate that’s why our ancesters used to worship it.

    • Duker permalink
      January 22, 2020 9:40 pm

      Yes, unless he decided to have a stay-cation for ever, he will find that airtravel is a highly efficent use of carbon, probably better than driving to the south of France. (His ‘2nd choice’) But of course hes really only being fashionable about his carbon miles not really trying to reduce them at all.
      Much the same goes about ‘fashionable vegetarianism’, unless the cows, sheep and pigs have found a way to mine and eat fossil fuels they are merely eating grass and recycling existing carbon in the air.

    • bobn permalink
      January 23, 2020 1:37 am

      Yes, CO2 is good for the planet and its negligible effect on climate is a good thing anyway; the world needs to be a few degrees warmer. Hence i will try and fly more in the future to help the planet.

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        January 23, 2020 1:54 pm

        Yep. Bonfires, fireworks, fast ( thirsty ) cars and plenty of jet use is the way forward. Also burning coal for heating.

  2. M E permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:03 pm

    That’s all very well for British people who can take a train and a boat to go overseas. What about New Zealand? The only way we can get to anywhere apart from Australia and the Islands of the Pacific is by plane. The flight from Manchester to Christchurch takes about 27 hours but that is better than the sailing ship which took weeks.

    • stephensparrownz permalink
      January 22, 2020 8:40 pm

      Yes I live in Christchurch and consider eco socialists to be killjoys

  3. jack broughton permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:04 pm

    Humphrys won’t be pleased about my plans for a couple of holidays over the winter then: too bad! If there was really a “Carbon emergency”, the immediate solution would be to stop China, India and other developing countries from developing, with reductions by the developed economies as a lower level contribution. I suppose that Attenburgh would be happy to use a few nukes to achieve this as it could simultaneously get the world population down.

    Quite funny to read the fake-news Davos reports about Trump’s speech: they cannot believe that anyone does not believe in their “proven science”.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 22, 2020 8:46 pm

      Jack: Precisely. Last year an ’emergency’ at Gatwick closed the airport for what, three days or more – because of planet-killing drones(!!)? If CC was such an emergency and it was clear that people should not fly the airports would be closed down – to reflect the ’emergency’.

      Then again, those who are saying they don’t want to fly to protect the planet should surrender their passports. But they don’t want to. They’re like teenage boys who don’t want to get up on the dance-floor until others have made a go of it. Pathetic. Priceless. Pointless. Pretentious. Paranoiac. Pathological. Pileous. Parvenus. You get the idea…

  4. Athelstan. permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:11 pm

    He’s right about one thing, flying ain’t fun and more especially if you’re daft enough to fly from and into Heathrow.

    • jack broughton permalink
      January 23, 2020 8:41 pm

      Birmingham, East Midlands and Leeds-Bradford are great airports even if you get stuck: gave up all London airports years ago!

  5. JRET permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:20 pm

    The internet with all the new streaming services probably emits at least the same C02 as air travel and is growing fast! Which is more damaging to humans?
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/25/server-data-centre-emissions-air-travel-web-google-facebook-greenhouse-gas

  6. Broadlands permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:33 pm

    Stopping global aviation? Somebody hasn’t done the maths. “With total world emissions of CO2 running at 34 billion tonnes a year.” And for last year closer to 40 gigatons. Thus to lower them to Net Zero by 2050 must mean reducing them by an average of ~1.3 gigatons a year. While that huge task is taking place CO2 will still be added in a declining fashion and the atmosphere could reach 500 ppm in the end. Not a very well thought out plan…especially for transportation.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 22, 2020 9:37 pm

      Seem to have ‘lost’ my last comment…

      My point was that we must stop arguing the case for (not) CC on the same ground as the activists. There is a perfectly goo argument for no MM CC and we should stick to it. Do not try to argue with the activists, they only flourish with our contempt and enjoy that we enjoin them in argument – on their terms. We have to make them fight on our field.

  7. Ebbe Ankeraa permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:36 pm

    I can’t barely read this many-words-piece, a man so deeply believing in what he thinks is the coming apocalypse, that he forbids himself to fly..! Where is his common sense?

    • January 22, 2020 10:17 pm

      Maybe virtue signalling is less tiring than travelling for some oldtimers.

  8. Andy permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:38 pm

    This was the lad who took advantage of a grammar school education in Cardiff and is happy that current children can’t do the same thing. So his nonsense about flying runs along a similar theme. A pompous cultural Marxist, it shows how far the BBC has fallen that he was regarded as one of the better presenters on Radio 4..

  9. charles wardrop permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:55 pm

    Humphrys has been making £1 million p.a. from us via the wretched BBC so pushing his 9th decade, is wise to minimise travel except to wander the coast paths.
    If he thinks his “sacrifices” will help the climate deluding himself, best of luck, but I believe those who travel are taking freedom seriously. If they want, that wonderful thing allows that too. We must not take his nutty beliefs seriously but enjoy the freedom.

    N.B., 1)there is no evidence that decarbonisation helps anyone except troughers;no evidence of benefit from decarbonisation. It likely hampers Greening of the Earth.
    2) USA, China, India etc. emit most greenhouse gases.
    3) UK contributes one third of 1% of the planet’s CO2.

    • Mack permalink
      January 22, 2020 9:18 pm

      Bit generous there Charles. The UK emits @1% of total worldwide anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But anthropogenic emissions barely make up 3% of the total CO2 emissions, the majority of which come from totally natural sources. If the UK had a CO2 football match between the planet’s termites and plankton we wouldn’t even register on the scoreboard by half time so much more do these creatures outgun us in the CO2 stakes! Our contribution of planetary CO2 is so derisory we could return to the Stone Age tomorrow and the planet wouldn’t even notice.

      • terryfwall permalink
        January 23, 2020 3:54 pm

        Very interesting stats regarding the proportion of CO2 that is manmade. What is their scientifically reliable source, as they are a very strong argument against the obsession with CO2? If they are correct, and the measurements of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere are also correct, what is the explanation for the alternative source of the gas?

  10. January 22, 2020 7:55 pm

    I read somewhere that almost 14 million trees have been chopped down in Scotland to clear the land for building wind farms. Also in Scotland vast areas of peatland have been destroyed to build wind farms. Something doesn’t seem quite right here!

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 22, 2020 9:41 pm

      quite a lot have been cut for HS2, Phillip. I wonder if they are planned to be replanted. Maybe that’s the reason why the cost has rocketed to over £100M .

      • Gerry, England permalink
        January 23, 2020 1:49 pm

        A lot are cut to fuel Drax – once they have crossed the Atlantic. We also have the Sandwich plant that has been drawing in truck loads of wood from as far as Wales to keep up with its demand. From my experience within forestry circles, I have yet to come across anyone who is sending mature trees to Sandwich other than those that have disease, for which it provides a good outlet. It is providing a good outlet for thinnings and brash but there was a discussion over chipping thinned birchas opposed to seeing it have a proper wood use.

      • dave permalink
        January 23, 2020 6:25 pm

        .”..cost…over 100M pounds..”

        Over 100B.pounds, actually…

        A-hundred-thousand-million pounds here, a-hundred-thousand-million pounds there. Pretty soon you are talking serious money.

  11. Tim Spence permalink
    January 22, 2020 7:59 pm

    Isn’t air travel one of the most CO2 efficient means of travel (on a full plane, which most are) on a per-person basis?

  12. Joe Public permalink
    January 22, 2020 8:12 pm

    Trusting none of the 20,000 – 30,000 attendees to Glasgow’s COP26 will fly in.

    To do so, then demand ordinary people reduce their carbon footprint, would be rank hypocrisy.

  13. January 22, 2020 8:14 pm

    Another fool

    Get Outlook for Android

    ________________________________

  14. Coeur de Lion permalink
    January 22, 2020 8:14 pm

    Just topped up my oil fired central heating and booked a couple of return flights to Tashkent. Got some coal in and paid overmuch for firewood. As I drive my diesel Citroen around France quite a lot I’ve the three statutory yellow jackets. Decarbonise me if you dare.

    • dave permalink
      January 23, 2020 9:47 am

      Here is something I did not know.

      The atmosphere of Mars is thin, but consists almost entirely of carbon dioxide. It is not a trace gas there.

      In bulk volumetric relative terms, there is, in fact, forty-five times* as much carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere as in the Earth’s atmosphere. Yet, with all this, the temperature on the rocky surface at the bottom of the gas layer is only 215 K versus a grey-body temperature for the whole planet of 210 K. That is, the total effect of all the carbon dioxide is an increase of 5 K.

      Now, admittedly, we have to scale up the observed effect on Mars, of the carbon dioxide in that atmosphere, fivefold**, for Earth’s atmosphere; because Mars is colder than Earth, and the rates of the absorption and re-emission radiative mechanism vary with the fourth power. But, practically, we can say that the total direct effect of 3600 ppm* of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Earth would be to raise surface temperatures by 5 K compared to having none at all.

      Because of the logarithmic nature of the effect, we can say that much of that 5 K increase already happened, a very long time ago on Earth. The scope for present increase, over the next few decades, seems small.

      Of course, this is all very rough and ready, does not take account of the shape etc. etc.; but it is interesting that there is this completed experiment on primary forcing – under our noses, so to speak – on Mars.

      * The partial pressure of CO2 is 600 pascals compared to 40 pascals on Earth; but we have to remember that gravity on Mars is much less (1/3) ; and then 3 x (600/40) = 45.

      ** 210 K versus 300 K – it is roughly (3/2) ^ 4 = 5. Divide by this; forty-five-fold is reduced to nine-fold.

      ***The present 400 ppm times nine.

      OT

      The Sun is spotless again.

  15. terryfwall permalink
    January 22, 2020 8:20 pm

    You would think someone who, until recently, had “earned” over half a million pounds a year (because, we are led to believe, being part of a pool of BBC “talent” that had to be paid that much or they would go elsewhere) would have a mind that could avoid saying total rubbish like this:

    “I had a heated exchange with a friend about a trip he’s planning with a group of other friends to the Far East.

    He said they’ll be offsetting the C02 they’ll be spewing out with a tree planting scheme. He’s a well-meaning chap but I’m afraid that, like so many others, he’s been horribly misled.

    Tony Kirkham, of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is one of the world’s most respected tree scientists.

    He tells me it takes at least ten years for a ‘shade tree’ such as an oak or elm to mature to the stage where it just begins to ‘bank’ carbon.

    All being well, after 100 years it will have banked about 20 tons. But at least half of newly planted trees die within five years because they don’t get the care they need. And anyway, we don’t have 100 years.”

    A tree is not planted this year to replace one that is 100 years old, it’s planted to replace the one year old stock which will all have aged by a year, as will all the older trees, and therefore soaked up more CO2 than they did the year before.

    So, don’t cut down the old trees!

    • mikewaite permalink
      January 22, 2020 10:30 pm

      Do the comments from Tony Kirkham not increase suspicion of the oft – quoted “carbon – neutrality” of biomass burners such as Drax?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 23, 2020 1:54 pm

      Sorry that is rubbish. Foresters will select what they need to fell for income and to supply demand and then will replant accordingly. If harvested trees are not replaced there will be none in the future. It is like growing crops but on a bigger scale and longer timescale. If you are lucky, then you might get some good natural regen that saves the cost of planting but there is no certainty to that.

  16. Smoke&Mirrors permalink
    January 22, 2020 8:21 pm

    I think it’s time to debunk this idea that rail travel is green and energy efficient.
    Sure, a steel wheel on a steel rail is frighteningly efficient and that the amount of fuel needed to propel several hundred tons of kit at great speed is remarkably small. But, and it’s a big but, it’s very easy to compare transport modes by just looking at the cost of travel.
    Cost is energy. Energy is cost. It’s as simple as that.
    Money is just a proxy for energy.
    So, compare the costs of travelling by train and by air and by coach per person, per mile. What do you see?
    Rail travel is eyewateringly expensive. Never mind the bucket shop discounts. They’re only for a few seats on some trains.
    The fuel used may be small, but there’s the provision and maintenance of rolling stock and of the infrastructure – that’s the signalling, the track, the structures and the stations. There’s the costs associated with staffing and the whole beaurocracy.
    Train travel is NOT green. It is NOT energy efficient.
    On the other hand, coach travel – cheap as chips – is much greener!

    As for reducing the price of travel – this would cause utter bedlam. The trains are full now. What to do? Build longer trains, increase capacity with resignalling and extra tracks. That’ll cost even more. What did I say about cost and energy?

  17. Michael Adams permalink
    January 22, 2020 8:22 pm

    Our author can’t seem to make up his mind whether it’s climate change he is concerned with, the horrors of flying (agreed) or his natural preference to slow down and enjoy a slower pace of life. Nice to have the choice but many people (and businesses) don’t have that luxury. Ask any jet lagged executive if they enjoy the flying part of their job or thing away from home and you’ll get the same answer. I’ll leave it to you to provide the answer.

    Paul called it right by calling it self-indulgent.

    • Neil Wilkinson permalink
      January 22, 2020 8:34 pm

      As Private Eye used to say …”Pass the sick bag, Alice”

      • Mike Ellwood permalink
        January 25, 2020 2:26 pm

        Although as you probably know (but others might not), they were quoting John Junor of the Sunday Express.

        https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1050,00.html

        Must admit, it’s one of my favourite phrases. 🙂

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Junor

        (Must admit that I either didn’t know or had forgotten that “I think we should be told” (also a Private Eye favourite) came from him as well. My parents used to buy the Sunday Express, so I am familiar with his oeuvre).

  18. john cooknell permalink
    January 22, 2020 8:41 pm

    Always thought of Humphreys as a ego driven Tw*t, he has now removed all doubt.

  19. martinbrumby permalink
    January 22, 2020 8:46 pm

    Humphrys seems to imagine that Glowballs Warming provides a “perverse benefit” for those opting to bathe in the chilly Cardigan Bay.

    As (allegedly) the oceans have warmed 0.03°C, he may have quite a wait before they compare with splashing about in the Aegean with his grandkids.

    I would hope that even the Gretard might spot this tiny problem with his ignorant rant.

  20. It doesn't add up... permalink
    January 22, 2020 8:53 pm

    There’s a quaint little steam train out of Aberystwyth, but it only goes a few miles inland up to Devil’s Bridge. It’s quite a lengthy drive to get there, or the Pembrokeshire coast, and the roads really aren’t built for large volumes of tourist traffic. But I wonder how else he gets from the coastal path to the Classic FM studios.

  21. Phil O'Sophical permalink
    January 22, 2020 9:24 pm

    With all such articles everyone gets drawn in to discussing the amounts and the hypocrisy. But the real response should be: so what?

    CO2 emissions are irrelevant, whether huge, minuscule or negligible. The very small warming effect of CO2 has long been exceeded such that rising levels will add virtually no more. And since there is no climate emergency anyway, even that discussion is meaningless. But the one thing that CO2 does do is green the planet. We need more CO2, not less, to continue that very real greening, that no one ever acknowledges, to grow more food, faster, for the growing population.

  22. Bertie permalink
    January 22, 2020 9:37 pm

    He’s only 76 yrs-old. At least Attenbollocks can claim senility!

  23. January 22, 2020 10:05 pm

    Hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. Probable reason for not flying is he is too old. I would suggest if the Beeb were still funding him to fly around the globe he would be doing so. Classic do as I say not what I do.

  24. roger permalink
    January 22, 2020 10:22 pm

    He has been there, done that, and now wants to pull up the ladder to prevent others from seeing the world.
    Selfish self righteous b@st@rd.

  25. Jonathan Eastwood permalink
    January 22, 2020 10:36 pm

    Just wondering what will happen to all those places that rely on tourism to keep their economy going if we all stop flying to them?

  26. BLACK PEARL permalink
    January 23, 2020 12:47 am

    Isnt this the John Humphrey who after securing his pension from the BBC came out and called them for being a propaganda outfit

    • Immune to propaganda permalink
      January 23, 2020 5:15 am

      Yes he was, hypocrites are crawling out of the woodwork everywhere!

  27. Paul Piercy permalink
    January 23, 2020 2:46 am

    An old man with nothing to do who can now criticise people for doing what he did all his working life. He ranks up there with David Attenborough, Prince Charles and the new messiah Greta.

  28. George Lawson permalink
    January 23, 2020 9:00 am

    John Humphrey is not as bright as I thought he was.

    • dave permalink
      January 23, 2020 9:59 am

      Obviously, his preferred mode of transport is “band-wagon.”

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 23, 2020 2:12 pm

      Too many years at the BBC?

  29. Gerry, England permalink
    January 23, 2020 2:00 pm

    This tree planting hysteria does have a slight problem – where are they all coming from? Tree nurseries are supplying the current demand for new trees but can they expand to meet this huge increase in demand? So there is space to grow them, manpower to tend them and most of all, a source of seed. And with the plastic hysteria there are concerns about planting using tree tubes – these protect against deer, rabbits and reduce the need to water. I use some in my garden and have not needed to do any watering as the tube creates a humid environment.

  30. Crowcatcher permalink
    January 24, 2020 7:30 am

    As a prominent religious leader once said “There’s nobody more boring tha a convert!”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: