The Guardian reported yesterday that the 10:10 campaign - aiming to get organisations to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% in 2010 - had accepted missile-manufacturer MBDA's wish to sign up. 10:10 had previously rejected an application from Manchester Airport, on the basis that it's main activity and aims are to encourage more air travel.
Many of the missiles and weaponry produced by MBDA, apart from being lethal and (in my opinion) morally repugnant - are entirely dependent for their useage on a military machine that burns fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow. I've not heard of solar-powered fighter jets or tanks running off chip-fat yet.
So MBDA is just as mutually dependent on a fossil-fuel-consuming-carbon-dioxide-emitting way of behaving as Manchester airport is. The one difference is that neither Manchester airport, nor the airlines that use it market products that are "...small, lightweight and easy to use and will provide an unprecedented mix of lethality and mobility".
I'm sorry 10:10, but if it was a choice between the two, I know which I'd go for.