i am one of the protestors at climate camp and i vote . I believe that our society has become far too comfortable with the amount it consumes and for its own health should slow down and reflect the direction it is taking. My protest is not just about the expansion of heathrow (which by the way i am opposed to) but is more widely a protest against individualism, over consumption and immediate gratification.

james hawkins, london,

Environmentalist vegan couple with four children? Surely having four children who will grow up and continue consuming for the next 70 years is about the least environmentally-friendly thing you can do?

Jon, Winchester,

This piece is an inane re-hashing of the received green wisdom. I live about half an hour from Heathrow and I'd welcome another runway or two. It's not all about gap years and middle class holidays - London will not be a world financial centre much longer if Heathrow carries on as is. Other major airports in Europe have more runways. Finally, these protestors have nothing serious at all to offer by way of a solution - they are just the usual rag-tag of superannuated hippies, lefties, anarchists and ne'er do wells.

Jumbo, Reading,

The Stern Report (page 352) states that aviation emits 0.7 Gt of CO2 = 1.6% of global GHG, which could rise to 2.5% in 2050. and ,adding the non-CO2 elements, to 5%. The concentration of venom on this small element of climate warming seems a good research area for psichologists.
- The family in the camp with 4 children are not eco-terrorists but are certainly eco-sinners. They could have made a real contribution to saving the planet by stopping at 2 children. Each of us breathes 1.08 kg of CO2 per day and causes the production of several tons of CO2 per year just to keep alive and well. It is amazing that so little is said about the root cause of the problem : the growth of population, projected to increase by 50% by 2050.. A far more effective measure than the "personal carbon allowance" would be a hefty and progressive tax on having any child in excess of 2. Indeed eco-warriors would be far more rationally deployed camping by Catholic and other churches encouraging big families.

R.A.Zambardino, Stafford, UK

So thats why we can't find an eco warrior when you really need them - their all at Heathrow! If it ain't high profile they can't be bothered. The last open space on the Costa Blanca - Orihuela Costa goes under more concrete from the developers. NOT a tree hugger or eco swampy in sight. A fight to stop the massive overbuilding and destruction of coastal open space habitats has again stalled. It's a ”done deal” for more than 1700 dwellings, mainly residential tourist homes to blot out the landscape.

Local opposition has been quite strong, but the Valencia government are unwilling and unlikely to intervene!

No one seems to have the staying power to challenge, stop or even amend this crime against nature. Can Greenpeace do anything? Only if it has high media attention.

The Spanish Coast, Mar Menor included, is currently “up for grabs” by the construction industry; 2nd or Holiday homes are not CARBON Neutral.
Come back swampy!

Mike, London,

Like Richard from Houston, I don't see why such a fuss is made about aviation when it is a tiny contributor to global carbon emissions. These protestors seem less motivated by protecting the health of the planet than they do with limiting human aspirations. Our efforts should be focused on more positive activities. In particular, research into greener sources of energy like fusion power, and increasing the commercial viability of wind and solar power. We should also be investing A LOT more money and effort into reforestation programmes around the world. These would have a much more beneficial effect on the planet than making people feel guilty for going on holiday. Ultimately, the camp at Heathrow is a cultural rather than a scientific protest. It is a campaign against human activity itself, which is tragically ironic, because what the world really needs is more human activity - more innovation, more experimentation, more research, more real science - not less.

Toby Donovan, London, UK

It is sad that the issue of climate change amounts always to the same stupid arguments. In particular here in Britain where buildings are not energy sufficent, recycling is not more than a buzzword and a reason to raise more tax, no public transport system exists to speak of and so on I would have expected the media (however that is) to be more critical in discussing the issue and actually contributing to the debate in a meaningful way.
What emerges though in those 'contibutions' like the above is, that you really have a problem in grasping the meaning of a democracy. It seems that you really need and want to be told by politicans (who themselves have no problem whatsoever jetting through the world and driving 4X4s!) what you are allowed to do rather than think for yourself.

Susanne, Edin,

Hello, you don't know me but if you did you would know someone who thinks Heathrow is one of the most fantastic places on the planet. Everytime I go there I look at the screens and see the destinations that flights come from and go to and I'm enthralled. Seeing the joyous reunions as well as the sad scenes as people leave to find new experiences around the world is so much a part of the human story. Heathrow is a monument to the progression of our species and we should be proud of it.

But of course it's ever so fashionable to be on the self-righteous bandwagon that the author has latched herself to.

Jason O Murchu, Corcaigh,

Alice Miles preaching again.Get in the real World,if we dont expand our airports France Holland and Germany will and the same aeroplanes will fly around and over the UK.
Alice where are you taking your holiday this year the Iceland Hugging huskies?You seem to have turned against your Green Hero Cameron now he has done a another U Turn on his Green Agenda.

Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall

When BBC reporters attempted to enter the "climate squat" (or whatever) they were told "your may not enter here as it is private property" - and meekly they whent away!

In true BBC tradition however they failed to mention that while there is no doubt that the land IS someone's private property, it is not that of the squatters!

So much for the new BBC approach to impartiality.

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

Dear Richard of Houston, TX.

Hear hear! Couldn't agree more.

My utopia is a is a country that has no yobs, chavs, terrorists, and more importantly, enviromentalists and animal rights fruitcakes.

Oh, and throw that chairman Mao wannabe, Gordon Brown, out, for good measure.

Pete, Cov,

As one who lives in the path of the proposed Stansted expansion I'm obviously in favour of any anti-airport protest. But even if I wasn't a potential victim, I'd still think that a habitable planet was preferable to a cheap flight once or twice a year.

To say that planes only add 'a little bit' to global warming and so we shouldn't bother to do anything about them is totally specious. If a thousand people came and started demolishing your house, would you think it was OK if each person removed only one brick or tile?

Greenie, Saffron Walden,

If we need more airport capacity in the South East we need a properly planned new airport, not further expansion of Heathrow which was never planned but just grew. Oxford would be an ideal location. I suggest Dan Smith starts lobbying his MP now.

Jake, London , London

The reason the protesters look at air traffic is it's easier to target as it makes them feel better about driving everywhere and using fossil fuels to heat their homes and cook their dinner, as it's easy to cut the flying.

No, the author forgot to mention that most protesters at Heathrow usually cycle, they are not motorists , and if so, they only use eco-fuel. Sure they will manage to not over use fossil fuels . To cut the flying is not easy but it's unpopular. It's easy to portrait these protesters as a danger to the working and middle-classes using Easyjet or Ryanair for a holiday once a year. They should get clearer on this point.

observingmaid, Manchester, Great Britain

Richard from Houston or Milton Keynes.The people living in Sipson have got used to the noise.It's having their houses knocked they're objecting to.Talking of piggy back rides,as you were,this may be the fastest method of transport around the streets of West London in the future if Heathrow gets expanded

Dave Robins, West Drayton,

Heathrow is a vital economic asset.

People often lament the decline of the manufacturing industry in the UK and exclaim "why was it let happen"? We have an opportunity to keep Heathrow as a world leader in transport and allow it to continue to contribute to the growth of the City as a world leader in finance.

The current way of the commercial world is either grow or decline. By standing in the way of Heathrow expansion, we risk our future stability and prosperity. In that eventuality, the climate (which has been changing for the last 4 billion years) will be the least of our worries!

Fergal, London,

If they care about climate change so much then start protesting at the the massive burden that population increase is causing. Try picking on a major source of emmissions, flying contributes 2% of greenhouse gases, the destrucion of the Indonesian forests now makes Indonesia the third biggest emmiter in the world, try protesting against that. Cattle belching contributes about 18%, so get some corks. The problem here, just as the anti SUV brigade, is that the only protest being made is for equality of poverty. They'll all go home when terms starts.

Giles Mitchell, London,

Shouldn't this issue be looked at in a broader sense? Compare out Co emmissions to say that of China and we pail into insignificance. If these people are going to protest about something then how about the amount of Chinese goods flooding into our market or the child labour issues involved.
Disrupting someones hard earned holiday will only put peoples backs up and, as quite rightly stated, as soon as there is any violence involved the whole issue misses its point.

Mike Jones, Farnborough, Hampshire

Sorry but for most of us who live beyond the flight path, a tird runway and a 6th terminal is exactly what we want so that when we use it we can get through the airport and to our destination as quickly as possible, there is even an enviromental argument in that if the Airport is operating at beyond reasonable capacity too often planes will be flying in circles above it belching fumes into the atmosphere while waiting for their slot to come up to land.

In terms of Global climate change the point is it is global, we are a very small country which can not seem to accept that if we turned off every electrical appliance in the UK for ever from tomorrow and went back to the rural idly of the 17th century China would make up for the saving in equivalent growth in approximately 9 months.

Climate change is going to happen and a 3rd 4th or 5 runway at Heathrow will not make a blind bit of difference.

Dan Smith, Oxford, UK

In response to Jon from Winchester - I think it's very sad that bringing human life into the world is regarded as "environmentally unfriendly". This reflects an impoverished conception of what humans are all about. We are not merely consumers and polluters - we are also creators and inventors, incredibly resilient and ingenious life forms.

As many here have pointed out, the aviation industry contributes a tiny fraction of global carbon emissions. Rather than stressing about aviation, we should be focusing on the many positive things we can do to make a big difference - like research into green technologies and alternative energy sources (particularly fusion power).

The camp at Heathrow isn't really about saving the planet. It's a protest against human activity itself. Which is sad, because the world needs more human activity - more science, more technology, more experimentation - not less.

Toby Donovan, London, UK

As George Walden said in his recent column, why on earth do business people need to travel so frequently in this age of advanced communications systems? And why do people need more than one foreign holiday a year when there's so much of interest in Britain? Without these there'd be no need for airport expansion or overcrowding. David Cameron had a good idea earlier this year - allow everyone one tax-free flight a year. Proceeds from taxing the rest should be used to fund improvements to land-based public transport.

Barry, Wallington, UK

Dan G - your comment does not make sense. If the world aviation only accounts for three per cent of CO2 emissions, how can the UK account for six per cent? I assume you mean six per cent of the UKs emisions. This is irrelvent, as what is required is the reduction of the world's CO2, not the UK's. If the UK's six per cent is reduced this is still only going towards the three per cent world wide emmisions, so is still pretty ineffective. Also, six per cent is still a drop in the ocean compared to the real offenders. The reason the protesters look at air traffic is it's easier to target as it makes them feel better about driving everywhere and using fossil fuels to heat their homes and cook their dinner, as it's easy to cut the flying.

If you're worried about the noise, don't live so near an airport.

Leigh Thompson, London, England

Voting has never worked because it is biased. Why can I not vote against someone? Why must I always vote for someone?
I have never found someone worth voting for--hence I haven't voted for 27 years. If I do vote for a candidate I like, and he gets in ,HE IS TOLD HOW TO VOTE by party whips.???
So whats the point?
To get what I want I have to be "unreasonable" .
I abuse the Bank to get my charges back, I have to abuse the Gas Company to get the right rate.
More power to any protestor---if you conform and do the right thing you end up nowhere.
Hit the swine where it hurts!!

Bill Armstrong, Hrrogate, UK

I'm personally sick of 'climate change'. Earth's temperature has gone from extremely low degrees to extremely high over the course of history. I am not for one second convinced that we are suddenly changing anything that wouldn't happen anyway. This is now simply a political bandwagon except that politicians are too afraid to say things like "hang on a minute...". People seem to attribute all sorts of weather 'phenomena' to climate change, or global warming as it used to be called before it was rebranded, but yet there is no coherant and consistent evidence on display. I will attempt to save energy, but only so that our supplies last a bit longer.

Oli, Bicester, UK

These peopl are probably pinkies trying to hit Mr nasty "big business"

Ships put out a far greater amount of CO2 - most stuff goes by sea - so why aren't these people picketing the sea ports?
Not fashionable - and difficult to single out "Mr Corporate"

Phil, Preston,

The environmental question no-one seems to be asking at the moment is how long will the oil last.It's only a couple of years ago that George W. Bush said that America had to end its love affair with the stuff.No-one seems to know just how great are the reserves but at the rate China and India are expanding oil isn't going to last forever.How will we fly off on holiday then? In air-ships(having driven to the airport in an electric car)?.

Dave Robins, West Drayton,

Dave Robbins...

Richard is actually English, and normally lives in Milton Keynes. And has previously lived in Ealing and Acton.

Whilst living in London, I looked at a few properties in Shepperds Bush, where I noticed the noise. So guess what I did? I didn't live there...

This article relates to climate change. And the Heathrow protesters are there because of their percieved danger of carbon releases. If you want to stop avaiation expansion on noise grounds, well, that's a different story.

You're piggy-backing your noise agenda on the back of the climate agenda. That's fine, and if I was stupid enough to buy a house near an airport then I'd do the same.

Richard, Houston, TX

Its easy to talk about climate change when you have the kind of benefits you get in this country. Developing nations like China, India and Brazil are turning out to be biggest culprits. What is required is a more measured approach to the problem.

People are not going to stop flying, using cars, living in houses and producing things. Its time the contribution of the environmentalists is utilised more productively.

No matter what changes they force the govt to bring about, we all know that banning the building of a runway is not the solution.

SB, London, UK

Heathrow isn't just about British people taking holidays. It's about millions of people from the Far East, the rest of Europe and the Americas coming here to visit. It's about people going off to family reunions and family visits in India, Australia, Pakistan, America. It's about millions of people coming and going on business. It's about a world in which hordes of people wish to travel. You want to tell the Japanese, the Chinese and the Americans to go to Paris or Amsterdam or Vienna instead? You want Granny to take a bus to Melbourne to visit her grandchildren?

Harry Collier, Malmesbury, England

Of course nobody WANTS an extra runway but we need one. I would love to see a poll of who is opposed to this runway and how many holidays abroad they take. The fact of the matter is that people want cheap holidays, people want to take them abroad and because so many people want to take holidays abroad you need to support that.

If all of the people REALLY concerned about climate change refused to fly abroad then there wouldnt be any need for an extra runway.

And finally its worth pointing out that as long as a plane flight is cheaper than a train ride more people will fly within the uk and to europe. Make trains cheaper and look into alternatives to flying like ships.

Paul, Stevenage,

Interesting article!
Development and environment issues such as carbon emissions are paradoxes. There are stronger oppositions when many perceive that development is going to benefit a small section of people, especially, some vested interests.

Instead of further expansions of saturated areas such as Heathrow airport, why not divert these to less congested nearby airports? Of course, here some will talk of cost-benefit analysis and so on. It will be better to have decentralized developments instead of concentrating most of them in one place!

Middle class in known as whining class and they generally don't vote. They assume: all are same. This is a pessimistic way of looking at an important right and a responsibility. At least we can vote for the best amongst the bad lot!

Issues such as environmental ones need sustained campaigning to have some impact and polished publicity, which is an art by itself!
Regards,

Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India

Michael Nye,

I assume the polution levels you refer to as exceeding recommended limits are nitrogen or sulphur oxide levels.

I don't have any facts to hand, but the contribution to those pollutants from the road network you also talk about is significant.

Yet nobody is camping out by the roads. They are targetting Heathrow. That seems a little unfair...

Richard, Houston, TX

Someone here mentioned Water Vapour, which is the strongest Greenhouse gas, contributing 66% to 85% to the overall effect when you include clouds, 36% - 66% for vapor alone. It is however, not considered as a climate "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air varies basically as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times), similarily, due to the abundance of sea surface, if you somehow removed water from the air it would quickly be replaced through evaporation. CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will significantly absorb any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to have substantial and even longer lasting effects of the climate system.

Peter, Chelmsford,

As Richard lives in Houston he clearly doesn't know the full facts.What the residents of Sipson are objecting to is not aircraft noise;it is having their houses knocked down for the projected third runway at Heathrow.The increased noise caused by the expansion of the airport is going to affect not a "few" but millions of people across London and in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire.

Dave Robins, West Drayton,

I can identify with both sides of this argument. But the real truth of the matter is that Heathrow, not directly, is slowly poisoning the whole historic village of Colnbrook. Obviously the low level and the intensity of the aircraft taking off, yields high level of pollution under the flight path. Coupled with that, the motorway network that feeds, albeit very inefficiently, (anyone who uses the M4 or M25 around Heathrow will know the gridlock), all adds to the level of pollution that is currently 15% above EEC Health Guidelines around the Colnbrook area. Now because the area is so central to the motorway network, M3, M4, M25 & M40, every developer now wants to build on every piece of greenbelt left, and extract gravel from the small reserve of farmland that is still worked. Even BAA has threatened one developer with “you build it & we’ll knock it down” as it will interfere with the 3rd runway. Anyone want to live in an historic 16th century village?

Michael Nye, Colnbrook, Slough, U.K

I find Alice Miles's piece at odds with reality:

The aircraft industry is between a rock and a hard place ...

With increasingly affluent people developing the taste for flying off to exotic places for their hols, the industry is genuinely working to develop engines and aircraft that produce less polution. And also aircraft that will carry more passengers per flight.

One would assume that Alice Miles takes her Summer hols in Blackpool, not Teneriefe! (Unless she's a bl***y good swimmer!)

Tony J, Swanage, UK

The environmental question no-one is asking at the moment is just how long will the oil last.I've seen different estimates but no-one seems to know for sure.At the rate China and India are expanding you can be certain it won't last forever.Just how will we fly off on holiday in the 21st century? In airships(having first driven to the airport in electric cars)?

Dave Robins, West Drayton,

Environmentalist vegan couple with four children? Surely having four children who will grow up and continue consuming for the next 70 years is about the least environmentally-friendly thing you can do?

Jon, Winchester,

I am a long term moderate who has always voted and never protested. Despite my voting any government does exactly what it wants which is frequently exactly what I dont want.

Voting does not work...

Bruce, New Milton,

This isn't about masses of air polution, it's about corporations making large amounts of money building a run way (construction etc). When, in the distant future it has been completed, it is highly unlikely we will have the oil to put that volume of planes in the air.

It is reasonable assume that all the oil we have will be cracked and burned one way or another till we run out. Whether it is now or later really makes little difference as far as I can see. There is a finite amount and whether we use it now or the Russian economy uses it in 5 years time is really a moot point.

Andy Easten, Leeds, UK

CO2 emissions are only part of it. The sheer hell of living anywhere near a major airport or under a flight path is intolerable. Have you been to Kew Gardens recently? It always had some planes flying over, but now they are at a rate of about one a minute and in this former haven of tranquillity you have to shout to make yourself heard. Just who are all the people who fill so many planes? I have a pretty good idea: selfish oafs who take repeated short breaks and long weekends overseas throughout the year.

And then there's the question of the destruction of communities to satisfy the greed of these people (and the airline operators) by building this additional runway. If the Government were to say 'No', they might be surprised at the support they will get from the public at large, far outweighing the loss of commercial goodwill.

Garry, London, England

I think we should have a new runway if the airlines say we should.

Robert, London, UK

Its interesting that Dan G brings aircraft noise into the debate. I thought we were talking about carbon releases?

Aircraft noise is obviously a problem for the very small proportion of people living near a major airport.

Although none of these airports are particularly new, and its not the sort of thing you miss when you're buying your house, so you can't complain about that. There's a history of things like airports (and BUNCEFIELD) being built well away from people's houses, but then new houses are built closer and closer, and people still buy them.

If you buy a house next to an airport, well, then, erm... It aint gonna be silent, is it?

Richard, Houston, TX

It would be a more interesting topic to debate if the author of the article informed us how many of the the hot air campers are on benefits and social welfare? Perhaps if they were contributors to society instead of spongers they might gain some credence even if their argument is baseless.

joel joseph, Epping, England

Completely agree with Richard. Aviation accounts for a relatively insignificant amount of carbon pollution and is unfairly demonised, especially as it is proving to be one of society's great levellers (making holidays abroad accessible to all).

Cars, energy production, cows, all these things produce far more carbon, and then the latest news is that its not carbon that's the culprit at all, but water vapour!!

Just goes to show that no-one has a clue if global warming truly exists or whether it is man made. So lets try to allow people to express doubt without hysterically decrying them as dangerous heretics that must be silenced for the sake of our children etc etc

John, Southampton, UK

Get real! Airlines are the most fuel-concious transporters in the business. Gravity ensures this. Focus on the real targets first. Or doesn't the green lobby read its own literature? Greener trucks, more use of electrified railways with low-carbon (yes - nuclear!) power sources, less use of cars, low-energy homes, more efficient window insulation on modern buildings that resemble large jam-jars - the list is endless and air travel is pretty low down.
The next step - more space development. If you want to develop energy-efficient and reliable systems, develop spaceships and space habitats. Re-deploying the technology to terrestrial use will lower the carbon footprint tremendously.

KR, Stockport,

Richard is right - I completely disagree with the sentiments here that everyone is neccesarily opposed to the runway. Air traffic is a very minor contributing factor to the problem of green house gasses. why are the protesters not concentrating on the real harmful things, such as road traffic? The government does not have to agree with the protesters, as they have to show they have green credentials. Brown could simply point out that there are worse contributers and work on this (eg make public transport affordable and reliable, rather than expensive and unreliable). Also, maybe they do not vote as there is not realistic candidate to represent them. Those parties with the green credentials they favour are in all likelihood unfit to govern as they have such limited manifestos concentrating on the environment, and not taken into account the plethora of other topics which they would have to take a view point on if in office.

Leigh Thompson, London, England

"Worldwide avaiation accounts for 3% of human carbon releases." - it's a pity for you that we're talking about the *UK*, not the world, where air travel is actually responsible for more than 6%. More to the point though, it's rising very rapidly, while all other CO2 sources are declining. On top of that, much of England is already blighted by airliner noise, and we don't want more.

*That's* why it is being targetted.

Dan G, Reading,

If you really cared, that is if you would sacrifice not just a week of your holiday but your time over the years. Would a viable Green party not be established to run at General elections? When the existing parties try to choke it out by stealing its environmental clothes then its best response surly would be that they all have failed to consistently be green.

Even a minority party of 10-20 would have considerable impact if run effective on the existing parties policy. Otherwise we can leave the part timers to it.

Euan Taylor, Switzerland,

Renta mob, unemployed "socially irresponsible" trash.
Are more the terms that come to mind.
Trespassers, law breakers, are some of the others.
The field is a convient place to squat for now, and the so called protest a cover for a new home rent free.
If they really want to look at the cause of global warming try looking at the size of the population, the earth can only hold sooo many people and animals.

Darren, London,

I plan to vote *and* possibly protest this weekend (assuming it remains a peaceful, non-disruptive protest). And I will vote for the party I think will take the hardest line on carbon emissions.

Maybe it's because I haven't read enough of the climate-camp literature, and had the impression it was a pretty diverse group down there.

Pav, London,

Although I hope violence doesn't break out at Heathrow, no matter how well represented the protesters are you can be sure government won't give them lip service unless direct action actually occurred. Democracy is a misused word in Britain as it doesn't really exist. The politician you vote for toes the party line rather than his manifesto and the electorate is then dis-enfranchised. History is covered with protests against governments that refuse to listen or change discriminatory laws against the population. Be it working practices, the right to vote men and then women or the ill fated Poll tax, every repeal of unfair laws was preceded by direct action and rioting of some form or another. For fear of being arrested for inciting a riot, I am not encouraging these protesters to do such a thing, BUT laws that are used against the people, are unfair or unworkable but are convenient for governments to have on the books, never get repealed until some form of direct action happens.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

I think we should have a new runway if the airlines say we should.

Robert, London, UK

Individual carbon allowances that could be traded and inherited? Would that mean filling in a form each time you drive to the shops? Going online to the government website to tell them where you went on your Summer holidays and how many times you drove a car?

How can anyone think that this volume of paperwork and official nosiness would be a good idea?

Patrick, Reading, UK

Alice Miles hits the nail on the head when she says;
"Your holiday this winter or your daughter’s gap-year trip.."

The 'gap year trip' probably goes on for most of the year, much of it in public transport, most of it not in planes. Whereas many people fly long distances out and back again in one week, polluting the atmosphere far more - and learning nothing about the countries they visit; nothing about the real people outside the hotels.

So why do they travel at all? For kudos? How sad.

For sun or snow? In that case why not take the main holiday of the year in winter - and at least stay away for a month and meet the locals. Put something back into their economy.

A lot of rubbish is being spoken about carbon footprints - by people who fly. Perhaps if politicians/civil servants were reduced to, only opening their mouths to say something sensible, we would all benefit - and they should say it at home.

Protest? Thank goodness someone still does!

Charlotte Peters Rock, Knutsford, Beautiful England

Some years ago BAA said that if planning permission was granted for Terminal 5 there would not be any need for new runways to be built. That undertaking has been quietly forgotten by the government, the press and of course BAA.

Roy Hartington, Middlesbrough, England

I can assure Richard from Houston that if he lived in the footprint of the Heathrow flight path, as does much of London's population, he would not regard the protest as "plain stupid"

Jake, London , London

I agree that a well intentioned protest has every right to be held, but I'm not so sure you can plan one at one of the world's foremost targets for terrorist activity and expect NOT to be subject to rigorous searches and surveilance, particularly in light of recent events at Glasgow Airport.

Craig, London,

I agree with most of what you say bar the last paragraph. I vote because people have died throughout history to enable us to do so,because as a young adult I watched the pictures of black South Africans queing for days on end in order to do so. As to wether I think we live in a true democracy where the wishes of the people are taken into account, no I don't, weren't the majority of people in Britain against the too hasty invasion of Iraq.Yes of course I'd rather live here than say Saudi Arabia but please don't try to tell me that voting against the Heathrow expansion would make one iota of difference once its has been decided that it is the profitable thing to do.Your reference to"the anticapitalist dream of overthrowing the entire political system",is not only glib and immature but also shows a shocking lack of insight into how many people feel about our political system and the rebalancing needed to make it truely democratic.

R Steel, Montpelier , France

Individual carbon allowances are the scariest idea yet from any government. Each time you go shopping, you fill in a form telling the government how many miles you drive. And each tome you drive to school. And don't forget trips to Church!

Every holiday would have to be accounted for on a daily basis with each trip itemised and all carbon accounted for.

At what point would we say "Stuff the planet, i want some privacy"

Bad idea - please don't promote it again.

Patrick, Reading, UK

When the protesters and the media apply logic and become fully informed of the subject. then I'll join them.
It is a known fact that the largest emmitters of CO gases are fosil fueled power stations, yet the protesters march against non CO emmitting nuclear fueled power stations. They express concern over nuclear waste even though no one has died from it, but ignore the fact that coal waste killed over a hundred school children at Aberfan.
I'am all for stopping the third runway at Heathrow, only because, I want more international flights transferred to Cardiff International and other regional airports. This will reduce road miles and internal domestic fligths, which in my eyes will result in a good reduction in CO gasses

AMJ, Alton, UK

Let's see how they behave in the coming days before lauding them.
By the way, they're trespassing too.

Stan(expat), USA,

Alice, if we had any sort of democracy, then voting might help. We don't, so your argument is null and void.

Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville, 51st State

Worldwide avaiation accounts for 3% of human carbon releases. And that's after its been doubled from 1.5% for no better reason than 'good measure'.

If you want to reduce carbon releases, at least start with the current biggest sources. Power generation, industry or heating your home. Perhaps you could try and control the oceans, while you're at it?

Going after a minor CO2 contributor when there's plenty of other fish to fry, is just Plane Stupid.

Richard, Houston, TX

It's all very well to laud the power of the ballot box. But surely any analysis of recent history shows the contrary? All issues that really matter to people -- mass immigration, road taxes, rubbish collections -- are not put to a vote. They are simply imposed with a stale lie or two.

While I object to these people making air-travel difficult, they are surely correct in the basic question of how to get something done. In our society you can achieve nothing through the ballot box.

Roger Pearse, Ipswich, Suffolk

All good stuff - if you really do believe that human activity is more than marginally responsible for "global warming". Where is the hard science ? I have read that 13 million tons of poisonous chlorine are released annually from the oceans : what are we going to do about that ? What about the toxic gases and chemicals spewed out by volcanoes ? What about variations in the activity of the sun ? What about cloud cover ? Clouds are the most prolific "greenhouse gas". To me it seems that a lot of people are making a good living out of climate change one way and another based on highly vague and unquantified computer simulations and predictions.

Dai Lewis, High Wycome, UK

Come off it Ms Miles. Did you not know that if you could change policies by voting it would be banned?

michael murphy, brightlingsea, essex

The Vegan family with four children are hypocrites - overpopulation is the greatest threat to the environment. These breeders ought to look to their own irresponsibility before pointing fingers at the traveling public.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

The protesters have a point - Heathrow is too big for its location - a 3rd runway will be a nuisance for west Londoners. Far better to build a new airport out on the marshes. If the military firing ranges around Foulness, a huge area, could be used, all approaches would be over the sea.

michael clarke, london, uk