We are used to conscience-toting celebs doing it: lecturing us on the imminence of global disaster as the earth warms up, while using private jets. Harry and Meghan are likewise guilty.
It always reminds me of the old Soviet Union, which preached communism and equality while senior regime members enjoyed the best flats, the best dachas and the best shops.
It does, however, take the phenomenon to the extreme when a government wrecks its own country’s industries in the name of saving the planet and then not only imports carbon galore but decides to expand airports.
The hypocrisy is so blatant it would be funny if the impact on Britain were not so bitterly brutal.
To guarantee its future survival, a country needs to be self-sufficient in energy, in basic foods and in defence. Britain fails on all three counts.
Yet we could, oh so clearly, be self-sufficient in energy. We have large reserves of oil and gas in the North Sea, and we have coal mines.
Labour's latest hypocrisy would be funny if it were not so brutal. This needs more attention - Ann Widdecombe
|Getty Images
Yet in order to achieve net zero, regardless of China and the United States belting out 45 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions between them, we are content to destroy our own industries, even though the UK contributes less than one per cent.
So how come that at the same time as doing all that and Ed Miliband polishing his green halo, the government approves the second Gatwick runway, thereby increasing flight pollution?
The politest comment one can make is that the policy is incoherent, and that is a masterpiece of understatement.
Once upon a time, the British public approved of net zero. It seemed a benign sort of concept.
Then, as voters realised that what it actually meant was a massive hit in their pockets for different types of boilers and electric cars, the enthusiasm dwindled until now there is a positive reaction towards Reform’s promise to abandon the ridiculous target.
The recent sanctioning of a second runway at Gatwick in the name of promoting air travel will likely cement the disillusionment.
As for imported carbon in goods and chattels which are made elsewhere, the portion has increased from 34 per cent to 61 per cent over the last thirty years, so even as we have been reducing our own production of carbon, we have been increasing our use of other countries’ production.
Consistency and common sense have flown out of the window under governments of all persuasions: Labour, Tory and Coalition.
And on top of that, there is the glaringly obvious consideration that not only are we importing goods made using fossil fuel technology, but that the emissions involved in transporting them here add to global emissions even if they do not originate in Britain. Daft.
Britain is waking up both to the hypocritical moral posturing of the government and the bitter realisation that it is Joe Public who will bear the brunt of the economic reality.
Earlier, I also mentioned food and defence. We pay farmers not to farm instead of encouraging them to use all their land, and we maintain a nuclear deterrent which these days would not deter the Sealed Knot, let alone Russia.
Now, to add to that, we use all the carbon we need but only so long as we do not produce it ourselves.
Has anybody seen the men in white coats?