BA - the corporate conscience of the UK? Hardly. To all intents, their plan looks like this: take a fixed fee off customers and hand it to a charity based in Oxford. After deducting their overheads (Oxford rents aren't cheap, you know, and everyone deserves a holiday, eh?), the green people use the money to convince people in South Africa and India that they should be more environmentally aware, using energy-efficient lamps, stoves and so on. Wow. That's inspirational. We can all feel less guilty about taking that weekend break to Prague, now that we know some bloke in Chennai isn't polluting the atmosphere too much when he makes his dinner. Funny, funny, funny. BA - I've no intention of paying for your silly marketing ploy, and I'll continue taking the cheapest fare I can find. Concentrate on your core business, which was going down the tubes since before that ridiculous strike. Jonathan Jones, London
I have not flown for over 20 years and will not out of principle. I am not a super green, I run a diesel car. I feel satisfied knowing that the greenhouse gas emissions from my vehicle over the course of a year are less than that for one average short haul plane journey per passenger. Peter Chisnall, Colchester
I am a 14-year-old GCSE student and have recently done a project on air pollution and learned that aeroplanes are one of the biggest contributors to the atmospheric green house gasses. I feel very strongly that BA should charge this "green fee". Even though they may lose a few passengers this will help the environment and they should see no loss in profit as there will be extra money coming in from the fee. It would also give BA a good name and maybe the other ailines should follow suit. I think the new giant air bus is a bad innovation - it will need a lot of fuel to power it, so that's more pollution (and if it crashes it will be a huge loss of life). I am completely behind BA on the new fee and I hope that other transport companies do the same. Jonathan Ball, Hethersett
I wouldn't pay. Firstly, I don't believe BA would invest all the money donated to reducing carbon emissions. If only part of the money (including administrative costs) is invested then you are doing nothing but increasing their profits. Secondly, I believe that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to improve fuel efficiency across the world, not just in developing countries, and that their green fee investment plan is too narrowly focussed. Thirdly, while I believe the idea of trying to offset the carbon footprint of air travel via increased charitable giving/ sustainable development investment when you do fly, I just don't trust BA. But next time I fly I will instead donate £20 or so to an NGO that works with sustainable development. Darla Danya, London
No, I would not. There are plenty of organisations currently giving money to the greens. Politically-correct companies are so transparent. A firm's responsibility is to make money for investors - just do that and fly us safely and we'll all be happy. Walter Sutherland, New York
This is all feel-good business twaddle. If you want to help the environment then don't fly. Only when masses of the population vote with their feet will airline companies and governments get the finger out and develop cleaner air travel. Dr Derek Sinclair, Dundee
With regard to the comment "A firm's responsibility is to make money for its investors" Surely its long-term responsibility is to keep on making money for its investors. In which case BA is keeping one eye to the horizon by realising that by offsetting its carbon emissions it will hopefully have a future in which to make money. This fear of carbon dioxide may turn out to be nothing or nothing we can do anything about, but it surely does not hurt to try and be a bit sustainable just in case? It will certainly allow those who are concerned about such things to take their far-flung holidays without troubling their conscience. Alan Berridge, Bristol
No, I wouldn't. At least not willingly. These types of surcharges should be factored into their operational cost and consumers should veto any additional costs. After 911 we are all paying all kinds of surcharges, but the safety of international travel remains to be a joke. If anything these costs should be absorbed by the big corporations and federal government. Isn't that why people pay taxes? Zak Mir, New York
Yet more cynical posturing. How is it that what used to be one the most hard headed nations in the world has fallen so completely for dishonest, shallow emoting that avoids all difficult questions, and thinks that wearing wrist bands or making simplistic gestures or token sacrifices is sufficient to solve the world's problems. We are becoming a nation of (ignoble) savages both in our behaviour and our primitive beliefs. Michael Salt, Norwich
Walter Sutherland's comments explain a lot about global foreign policy if they are representative of other Americans. His awareness of the world around him seems slightly larger than the eye of a needle. To say that a firm's responsibility is to make money for investors and that's the end of the story demonstrates a complete lack of consciousness. How, one wonders, can Mr Sutherland think of himself as a civilised or intelligent person when he can't seem to see such obvious truths such as no man is an island and our actions have impacts on the world around us? An environmental awareness is not the preserve of tree-hugging cardigan-knitters: it should be a prerequisite for any conscientious or indeed conscious individual in 21st century civil society. Matthew Wootton, Lancaster
Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Please include your name, town/county/state of residence and e-mail.
