So, as I ponder the massive pressure group assault against passenger aviation and comparative per capita emissions (the city of Aspen having wonderfully shown us the horrors of private planes), far worse than Hummers as they are typically employed: a half-full G-II [not typical, per Aspen, but usually a single passenger] has a per capita carbon footprint of a Hummer carrying only a driver!], something occured to me. Commercial airplanes are just as much the mass transporation that we are supposed to be so enamored with as buses or metros: far bigger than any bus, and the long-haul planes certainly holding more passengers than any train. The objection to air travel comes down to the old "use what you make, make what you use" argument against long-haul transport of anything. They just don't want people going places, and this offers an instance where this is easily demonstrated. They want you on mass transport instead of your car...locally. You have no need to go anywhere else. I'm certain this has occurred to many of you, but it struck me as something they get away without having to say. Make them say it. There seems to be no better time, what with HMG officials in the UK insisting that the aviation levy they are considering is most definitely not designed to force people off of airplanes, but to incorporate the true social cost (read: greenhouse impact) of air travel in the price of the ticket. Begging another question of course: since that proposal is 5-10 pounds, what does that say about claims of anthropogenic warming? Fortunately, recent polls also suggest that the UK public see such green taxes for what they are: another revenue grab dressed up in social responsibility.