Aviation policy has been the subject of public protest and media frenzy in the last week in both Ireland and Britain, but for very different reasons, writes Oisín Coghlan
Across the midwest, people have been up in arms about Aer Lingus axing its Shannon-Heathrow routes.
Meanwhile, at Heathrow, hundreds of environmentalists were camped out to draw attention to the threat that increasing air travel poses to any effort to contain climate change.
Here the protesters are in sudden state of shock at the sight of an empty stable. Where were the 200 Fianna Fáil elected representatives, the 5,000 street protesters, the bishops and the business leaders when the Government was making the decision to privatise Aer Lingus? That was the moment when concerted political pressure could have made a difference.
Then, we had a profitable State-owned airline which could balance the bottom line and the national interest. Now, it's just another private company making commercial decisions to maximise shareholder value. The Government's regional policy no longer counts.
It's hard to fathom why the first question to every media interviewee this past week has not been "Did you support or oppose the privatisation or Aer Lingus?" followed-up with "So, do you regret that now?" or "So, this comes as no surprise to you then?", depending on whether they answered Yes or No - but perhaps that would undermine the politics of the latest commotion which gives the media such sport.
At the very least, can we learn the lesson this time? After Eircom and Aer Lingus, if our political leaders come calling a third time saying the only way ESB, Irish Rail or Dublin Bus can get the investment needed is by selling it off, will they be told where to go?
The protesters in Britain are also infuriated by the incoherence between government policies. The Climate Action Camp highlighted the fundamental contradiction between the British government's aviation plans and its climate change policy. The government is going to enshrine its climate pollution target in law - a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 - but it also supports airport expansion to accommodate a doubling of passengers by 2030.
In that case, aircraft alone will take up half of all Britain's legal limit on emissions in 2050, according to the respected Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University. The Tyndall research goes on to say that in fact, much steeper cuts in emissions will be required to keep global warming below the EU's agreed threshold for what would cause dangerous climate change.
If Britain wants to meet these more challenging targets, while allowing aviation to continue growing as planned, then the research finds that all other economic activity in Britain would have to stop forever in 30 years.
United Airlines used to proclaim "Fly the friendly skies" - now we know the more we fly the less friendly they will be. Just ask those stranded in Cancun airport this week as Hurricane Dean made landfall, or the millions of Bangladeshis, left homeless by the recent monsoon floods, most of whom have never flown and probably never will.
In Ireland, air travel is increasing even more quickly than in Britain. Passenger numbers at Dublin airport doubled between 1997 and 2006 and the official plan is for them to double again by 2030. The Taoiseach said in October: "It is Government policy to foster airport development . . . by the middle of the next decade, passenger numbers at Dublin airport are estimated to reach 30 million or more. These growth rates are phenomenal and they augur well for the future of aviation in Ireland."
He was opening a conference, "Towards Sustainable Airport Development". Sustainable here obviously doesn't mean environmentally sustainable. It means passenger numbers and climate-changing emissions that keep on rising.
As an island nation, we may well decide that in future we will use more of our share of carbon emissions for flying than other countries do. That is our democratic right, but only if we use less of our share on ground transport, heating, light, powering computers or some other essential of modern life. On current trends, however, aviation would use our entire share by about 2037.
The bad news is that unlike other aspects of the climate challenge, there are no win-win solutions to reducing aviation emissions. Triple glazing and insulation won't save cash and cut emissions in the air like they do on the ground.
There is no alternative aircraft fuel or revolutionary technology on the horizon and there's no easy substitute. Video conferencing can and will replace much business travel, but the Grand Canyon is not quite the same online.
Then there are the "love miles", the distance we cover to visit loved ones scattered around the globe, particularly at landmark moments in their lives. We have just begun to take air travel for granted and now we learn how much of a threat it poses to the rest of our way of life.
Weaning ourselves off flying may well be the most wrenching thing we have to do in the years ahead, but the alternative is to wreck the climate for posterity.
• Oisín Coghlanis director of Friends of The Earth; Mary Rafteryis on leave