Prince Charles & Copenhaagen

I read Charles' speech on the environment, or the article about it rather, a speech given to people at St. James Palace. (is that right? palace?) and then I saw a blog article by a man who made a point of how Charles took a private plane and Gordon Brown took a non-commercial flight on the same day to get to Copenhagen. So the point of the blogger was that it seems hypocritical to discuss how changes must be made within 7 years but that he took a private plane.

I think Charles' work is good. But the blogger also brings up a very good point. I think that there would be more continuity of the idea if Charles and Gordon could have taken a commercial flight. Obama, I think, also doesn't fly commercially.

Unless it's a safety risk, it doesn't square. If it's a safety risk to fly commercially, I think this point should be made and explained in some detail. This would create more support for the other ideas to begin with.

It was a new step, I guess, for the Queen to take a public rail, and yet this was very smart. It saves on expense and she's not even talking about saving the environment.

The only excuse for flying on a private plane, especially if one is concerned about environmental things, is perhaps for safety because if someone important was on a commercial flight it might be more difficult to ensure security and that a hostage situation wouldn't take place. It might be that public figures like the President and others, don't have enough security to examine all those on board commercially or have a difficult time keeping the time of travel under wraps to prevent an exuberant fan or fanatic to board.

I think they fly privately for safety reasons, and it's also safer for the public, in general, if they are not also put at risk simply by being around a possible "target". However, I think it should be explained in some way to alleviate the appearance of double standard.