Until I was 28, and got my first job in television, neither my family nor I had any money. One result of this relative penury was that, by my mid-20s I had only been in an aeroplane four times: twice in infancy aboard internal flights in the Socialist Republic of Bulgaria, and then by Vickers Vanguard return to Lyons at the age of 13. That was it. Every other trip abroad or at home was by train and ferry or Bedford Dormobile. I didn't cross the Atlantic till I was 27.

It is, then, with something more than jaundice, that I read the words of those who have, since their youngest days, left microscopic traces of their privileged DNA in airports on all continents, but who now rail against the “hypermobility” of others. Hypermobility - the capacity of millions of people to move around the world - we are told, destroys communities, weakens social bonds, creates pollution and threatens environments. “The business plan [for air travel expansion] cannot be faulted,” says George Monbiot. “The more hellish our lives become, the more we seek to escape from them.” Who has never been on holiday to, say, a Greek island for any reason other than a need to flee from Hades? What bloody condescension!

The relatively rich have always travelled - first by coach and boat, then by car and plane. Hypermobility is the fancy name for when the not-so-rich can travel as much as the rich used to. Mine has opened the world to me: Cairo, Colorado, Berlin, Beijing, Dublin, Rio and Bombay. And I have loved being in all these places. For others it might be Skiathos, Ljubljana and New York for work. Naturally most - since their time is limited - want to travel by air, and so we require more and larger airports and a greater number of flights.

Of course, there are big problems. Most obviously there are the carbon emissions, with air travel probably making an increased contribution to the greenhouse effect. But any overall plan to reduce emissions doesn't necessarily have to impact on the number of flights we take, providing the slack is picked up somewhere else. In other words, if we think that the ability of the mass of people to see the world into which they were born is a good thing, then we may trade it for other reductions. It's our choice.

Still, the desire to limit carbon emissions is the best reason for opposing the proposed expansion of Heathrow, on which the Government will decide this summer. I can respect those demonstrators who are prepared to scale high rooftops - always provided that they themselves renounce any air travel, and even if their leader, by all accounts, managed to get in two round-the-world-trips in his gap years, before seeing the light.

But what about all the other objectors? Which, to judge from the comment pages of the main newspapers, consists of just about everybody. The National Trust is against the Heathrow expansion, as are all the important London mayoral candidates. The Lib Dems are opposed, as are it seems - though it is hard to be sure - the Conservatives. My guess is that the Archbishop will come out against it soon.

The campaign is largely co-ordinated by a group called Hacan Clearskies, originating in the Heathrow area. To its credit Hacan is not just against a Heathrow expansion, but against expansion at Stansted too. In fact there's an evening event soon featuring Zac Goldsmith (whose family travel everywhere by camel) and Terry Waite, OBE. “We”, says Hacan, “oppose the Government's aggressive go-for-growth policy.” But it isn't primarily the Government's policy, it's the traveller's policy. No one, except civil servants and soldiers, flies because the Government tells them to. People fly like I fly and you fly, because they want to see Prague.

It isn't surprising that people who live in the vicinity of Heathrow are unenthusiastic about expansion. A few will have to move, and many Londoners may get extra flights overhead, though the noise will still be far less than in the days of Concorde. In August we were told about a poll being conducted in West London by Friends of the Earth to see if local people were willing to take the train instead of flying, if rail travel was made more affordable. But I can find no trace whatsoever of the result. Was it possible that many of these Londoners actually wanted the Heathrow expansion to go ahead? Is this the great secret we are all sharing, that actually we hope the third runway and sixth terminal get built as quickly as possible, but we really don't want to be heard to say so?

But wait, says Baldrick, I have a cunning plan. Never mind emissions, the problem is that Heathrow is in the wrong place. Let's put it somewhere where it won't offend anybody. An island, say, off the coast of Kent or Essex. The idea has been suggested here by Kit Malthouse, also by Sir Peter Hall, president of the Town and Country Planning Association, and by Boris Johnson. .

Ooooh! It'd be like Singapore moving its airport to Changi on reclaimed ground, claim excited proponents. It'd be like China opening the new Beijing airport. It'd be like that island airport in Japan.

Changi airport is seven miles from Singapore city centre: an offshore London airport would be at least 35 miles from Charing Cross. Let alone how far it would be from Birmingham or Southampton. That's a lot of new road, while Heathrow currently has the Express, the Underground, the M4 and the M25. By the way, the Japanese airport is sinking and the Chinese Government enjoys certain advantages over ours: it doesn't have to hold inquiries and it doesn't tolerate objectors.

As Boris may discover. The Essex Echo last week carried comments by local Conservative MPs and councilors who were “dismayed” at the idea for an international airport suddenly appearing just offshore. The report ended in the familiar coda, “Despite repeated attempts by the Echo, Mr Johnson could not be contacted for further comment on the issue.” In the past year airport expansion plans have been fought off successfully or abandoned at Luton, Manchester and Birmingham. It would be, as a correspondent to this paper wrote yesterday, 2070 before Estuary airport was up and running.

My conclusion? You don't want the Heathrow expansion, fine. But to be consistent, please don't step on an aircraft yourself.

Times Recommends

• Never believe Demjanjuk is a ‘victim’
• A strong City is not just good for Britain
• Class warrior ready for one last battle