YAY OR NAY: Is Emma Thompson a hypocrite?

Emma Thompson has become the most vocal celeb-campaigner against the proposed and approved expansion of Heathrow, supporting Greenpeace in their Airplot scheme, which encouraged opponents of the plans to buy plots of land near the development site.

Thompson has spoken out against the plans, making the very reasonable point that any government claiming to have the planet's best interests at heart is somewhat hypocritical to allow such a polluting scheme to go ahead. But it's not Thompson herself who's being branded a hypocrite; not only by Geoff Hoon who one might expect to have a problem with the actress's position, but by fellow environmentalists as well...

Keith Fanish of the Unsuitablog is also distinctly unimpressed with Thompson - who one can only assume is herfelf a 'frequent flier' and her position on Heathrow. He also believes that her statement (which Greenpeace endorsed) that "this is not a campaign against flying" but one against excessive expansion, is extremely ill-advised:

"If the campaign is not against flying then how are you going to prevent airport expansion - or are Greenpeace staff still flying around the world, as they were when I was a volunteer?"

So what do you think? Is it better to take Thompson's stance; that flying is a valuable form of transport we simply need to keep below a reasonable threashold, or Fanish's assertion that change starts with the individual, and that only by completely reversing our reliance on flying and other polluting activities can we expect to make an impact on climate change?

Comments