A cynic might observe that any group trying to disrupt Heathrow over an August weekend would have its work cut out having any impact on the chaos already caused by terminals at the limits of their capacity. And it's not just the terminals. Runway capacity is also at its limits.

The case for expansion is easy to make and frequently made. Heathrow deals with more passengers than any other European airport but has less runway capacity. A progress report released by the government last year, on the white paper that outlines current aviation policy, argues: "Without additional runway capacity, Heathrow's competitive position will diminish to the disadvantage of the UK economy and to the advantage of continental hub airports." The value to the economy of a third runway is £5bn, it argues, adding - with rather less precision - that it should be built "only if we can be confident of meeting the strict environmental conditions set out in the [2003] white paper". But refer to these strict conditions and you find only a vague aim to "minimise environmental damage" and to tackle the industry's emissions by seeking international agreements. The clear message is: "We have to increase capacity."

This is the policy background to what our environment expert Mark Lynas, reporting from the climate-change protest at Heathrow, calls "the most important protest of our time" (page 12).

We have all the evidence a rational person needs that flying is the single most polluting thing any of us do. The exponential growth in aviation, fuelled by cheaper flights (and richer people), is by far the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas. But, though committed to clear carbon reduction targets, the government is ready to contemplate a doubling of the number of passenger flights passing through UK airports to almost 500 million in 25 years.

Gordon Brown said when he came to office that he wanted to "build a shared national purpose to make Britain a world leader in tackling climate change".

But Labour's policy on aviation does not do that job. Everyone in cabinet knows that, if the third runway goes ahead, if a sixth terminal is given the all-clear, we will not be relieving congestion - we will be preparing for a dramatic increase in flights in and out of Heathrow, an increase entirely incompatible with the Prime Minister's climate-change ambitions.

A just-published report from the Department for Environment lays to rest the myth that cheap flights have democratised foreign travel. A third of flights are made by just 4 per cent of the population. More than half the population doesn't fly at all. We should also be clear about why flights are so cheap. Air travellers are not paying the real costs, let alone the environmental costs. That airlines do not pay fuel duties at the same rates as other modes of transport is well known. Less quantified is the extent to which airport operators are able to hugely reduce the costs to airlines of using airports because of the profits made from the shops, thus adding considerably to the need for further capacity. BAA is, in effect, seeking planning permission to carve up acres of countryside to create out-of-town shopping malls.

As Mark Lynas graphically argues, the cost of all this to the planet is too high. The planning decisions we need now are imaginative proposals for reducing flying. In 12 weeks' time, London's new Eurostar terminal opens, promising a fast carbon-neutral way of travelling to mainland Europe. Will it be able to compete fairly on price against the hidden subsidies of flying? Will the government reform Air Passenger Duty so that empty planes pay as much as full planes? What about rationing flights?

Meanwhile, we hope the Climate Campers' protest passes peacefully. A handful of protesters may marginally add to the airport chaos typical of an August weekend in Heathrow. But we salute these eco-campaigners, many of whom, unpaid, year in, year out, study the figures, uncover the deceitful arguments, compile evidence for planning inquiries - all in the painstaking detail that can challenge the bogus arguments of airlines and airport operators. Their protest really is the most important one of our time.

Holidays are a serious business

Gordon Brown has attracted criticism for abandoning his holidays and taking a summer "break" which ended up being only four hours long. The man's a workaholic, said carpers, dour, a killjoy.

But in a week where the Russian president arranges to be photographed fishing topless and the French president's wife almost sparks a diplomatic incident by not bothering to turn up to lunch with George and Laura Bush, perhaps we should be glad that our PM is such a serious fellow.

A more flamboyant style may amuse, but would we really prefer to swap our soberest of premiers for a leader who goes around wearing a pirate-style bandanna (Silvio Berlusconi), a premier who releases an album of Elvis songs (Junichiro Koizumi), or even one who renames the months of the year, including one after his mother (Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan)?

True, such characters are certainly entertaining. A smile still comes to the lips when one remembers the official dinner at which Boris Yeltsin greeted the then president of Kyrgyzstan, Askar Akayev, by playing the spoons on his balding head. We may be sure, too, that all of the above took their full quota of holidays, and in places with better weather than Britain.

When one compares their records as leaders, however, our Prime Minister's Presbyterian work ethic suddenly seems rather more attractive - even if four hours was taking attention to duty just a little far.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website