With the possible exception of the Bastille in July 1789, Heathrow Airport appears to have become the most loathed building in history. An extraordinarily wide range of people seem to have nothing but contempt for it.
This coalition stretches from City types who condemn the time it takes to pass through check-in and security, more humble folk who find their flights delayed because the place is operating at well above capacity, almost anyone in West London whose life is blighted by aircraft noise to environmentalists who have fingered it as the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the country and who are targeting the place with “direct action” reminiscent of Greenham Common in the 1980s.
And at least some of this criticism is fair. It cannot be said that any of the terminals there are exemplars of architectural beauty (incidentally, when so many people are frightened of flying, was it such a smart idea to call an airline hub a “terminal”?). The security measures are tiresome and open to the charge that they are designed to prevent methods employed in past terrorist attacks being duplicated, rather than to anticipate the techniques that might be devised in future.
The advent of the smoking ban has led to the surreal spectacle of those addicted to the weed not merely being condemned to stand outside but also directed to a ludicrous small white box painted on the pavement which is the only spot where they are allowed to indulge their habit.
Heathrow seems, therefore, to be the only place in Britain which investment bankers, al-Qaeda sympathisers and Friends of the Earth have all decided for various reasons that they would like to be shot of. There is a consensus that the airport and what it represents – inexpensive flying – is “unsustainable”. Who would be mad enough to defend it and, indeed, the aviation industry more broadly? I would.
For this airport is the victim of an unappealing mixture of hypocrisy and hyperbole. The analogy with Greenham Common is more appropriate than merely the appearance of the professional protesters who turned out then as now. The essential argument of those who set up camp in Berkshire in the early 1980s was that the deployment of cruise missiles on British soil made nuclear war, and with it the destruction of mankind, more probable. This, as history would illustrate, proved to be precisely the wrong thesis. The willingness of the West to match Russian rearmament would actually be the undoing of the Soviet Union. The Camp for Climate Action is similarly aiming its fire at what is a false villain.
There can be fewer hypocrisies greater than the rising percentage of people who claim to agree with the statement that there should be “less flying” and the surging proportion of the public who turn to the websites of easyJet and Ryanair in the hope of finding a seat to Venice for less than the price of a tank of petrol.
When most commentators demand less unnecessary flying, what they really mean is that other people should fly less, or that those poorer than themselves should be forced to fund the “full” cost of their travel through the imposition of new taxation on aviation fuel. It used to be said (correctly) that travel broadened the mind. It has become fashionable instead to portray it as a wanton act of rape and pillage upon the planet.
Yet is it? Most serious analysts concede that flying is not at present a significant factor in overall carbon emissions, though they warn darkly that it might well become so at some unspecified moment in the future, with estimates ranging as high as a quarter of the British total of emissions in perhaps no more than two decades.
A sense of proportion here would be helpful. Airline emissions now account for 5.5 per cent of the 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide output for which the United Kingdom is responsible (which is to say, a rather small amount). To ratchet up the 5.5 to a prediction of 25 per cent in 2025 (by which time the UK’s percentage of the entire carbon stock is forecast to fall) demands extrapolation that Malthus at his most apocalyptic could not have managed.
It involves assuming that the phenomenal increase in passenger numbers of the past 50 years will be maintained at an equivalent rate (which is incredible) and takes little account of technological innovation by the industry. This innovation has already been substantial and there is every incentive for the airlines to continue to clean up further and faster.
So the charge that the present pattern of air travel is “unsustainable” is both true and immaterial. It is true in the sense that low-cost travel of the sort that has become familiar in the past decade will not be reinvented every decade hence, and so will not be sustained. It is immaterial because, even if the Camp for Climate Action were awarded its wish and flying priced out of existence, the effect on the environment would be meagre.
It is convenient to pick on a big airport and those who own it, but the reality is that most of us are responsible for more carbon emissions through our lax attitudes to energy efficiency in the home, and more pollution because most of our car journeys are trips of two miles or less.
Heathrow will become a much less hellish experience when Terminal 5 is opened in March and the third runway is finally constructed. It will never rival the Taj Mahal as a visual landmark, nor will standing in line at security ever be enjoyable. But to treat Heathrow as if it were the Bastille and besiege it is crazy.
“Let them eat cake” was the wrong response to events in France in the 18th century. “Stop them flying” is scarcely more rational now.
As a phenomena who's understanding is based in science (and of which we would be blissfully unaware without scientific reasoning) the treatment of global warming deserves, and indeed needs a clear scientific approach.
The fact that this article openly ignores the UK's own acknowledgment that an 'uplift factor' increases the detrimental impact of aircraft emissions 2.5 time above ground level emissions (P. Upman, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (6)) shows the author either has not read the relevant literature or is deliberately biasing the debate.
The figures relating to air-emissions are in fact higher, as explained by the UK's independent Center for Alternative Technology. The green lobby is not necessarily calling for taxes to squeeze the bottom bracket out of flying. Many advocate the CAT's trade-able quotas which would reduce social inequality, benefit local trade networks and reduce dependence on foreign imports.
Understanding this is crucial to open debate.
Robin Lovelace, Bristol, UK
Madrid's Barajas , thankfully, is not a cash cow of Ferrovial, a Spanish company that continues to prosper mightily at British expense. Think of the decades of British tourism in Spain, the infrastructural development grants from that most generous spender of other people's money - The EU.
Mark Lyndon, London, UK
I can't belive the head in the sand attitude shown bythe reader, not to mention the author. Heathrow
(and flying) is a hideous monster which does and will heavily pollute when compared with other methiods of transport. The vast majoirty of flights from Heathrow are to Manchester and Paris FACT when taking a train or even driving would be much less damaging by around 90-95%. There is also the issue fo the two towns which BAA are trying to destroy not to mention the surronding area which already has to cope with high levels of noise and air pollution. Climate change is here, it is real and unless we do somethng soon it will be too late. My only weapon is peer eviewed science!!!
Ally, Wallington, Surrey
Climate research during and after the grounding of flights over the USA post 9/11 showed that flights contribute to what is called 'global dimming'. The midwest experienced a rise in temperature of around 2 degrees C. I am not, of course, saying that high altitude jets reduce global warming, but just that the problem and, most importantly, the solution is not simple. Going back to living in mud huts and keeping four cows per family would, in all probability, increase the output of greenhouse gasses. We need an unemotive and balanced assessment of the full impact of air transport before we can even consider solutions. An unemotive and balanced view of Heathrow is that it is a dump.
Derek Smith, Brighton, UK
I wonder where Tim Hames lives and where he grew up? I have done both in this area close to Heathrow airport and I have had enough of the unrestricted expansion here. You might suggest that I move, but I have strong roots and memories here and I would like to ask those who don't live here to consider why this area has to be obliterated, when there are several regional airports that could be expanded. I suggest that other regions share in the destruction of their surroundings which the country seems to consider necessary for the benefit of our economy. This would help frequent fliers to think about the effects of their flights by experiencing the disruption of noise and traffic themselves if they lived near to a large airport. People who do not experience these problems are too ready to moralise and condemn those of us who have to suffer the consequences of their selfish lifestyles using spurious arguments to justify themselves. Come and live here first, then we might listen to you!
v raine, sunbury, middx
The author has quite clearly not seen the Heathrow I have. It is a filthy shambolic affair that really is an embarassmnet to the country. There has been a systematic failure for even basic maintenance resulting in a horrid customer environment. The advent of Terminal 5 will not cure inadequate failing management of the airports facilities.
Michael Spencer, London,
It could so easily stop being hellish if they would post a few INFORMATION signs. Management forget that many visitors are there for the first time and procedures aren't so obvious to them. Info on the tube about which terminal to go to isn't clear enough. There was a sign on a door which said Something Bank, so you didn't go in there. It wasn't a bank at all, just an advert. I met an American couple who decided to waste a day of their holiday doing a trial run for catching their plane next day because the place was so confusing. (Last time I was at Stansted the huge clock in the lobby was an hour out - that sort of thing doesn't help anyone). It isn't rocket science to employ a few non-English speaking, first time visitors to find their way around, monitor all the problems they meet and fix them.
John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England
Heathrow is an eyesore. It is one of the most depressing major airports in the world. It is heavily crowded, mainly because the terminals are about half the size they ought to be.
Access off the M4 is incredulous. Sometimes 1 mile backups off the exit and it's bumper to bumper from there on. Also causes huge delays for other M4 users who wish to pass Heathrow - only two lanes left. Desperate need to 6 lane this part of the motorway, else what use increased capacity.
The terminals are soulless in design. Harrods has a monopoly on duty-free shopping. How many of us could ever afford to shop at Harrods, VAT notwithstanding. Harrods pays dearly, but more than gains in advertising and prestige.
Contrast with Amsterdam's Schipol or Madrid's Barajas. Design classics (Madrid certainly). Uplifting merely to look at. Our Heathrow has a very long way to go I'm afraid.
Fred Joseph, Weston-Super-Mare, UK
Well said! - I wonder how much carbon the "protestors" added to the environment with their methods of transportation to the Camp and for that matter the gas stoves they presumably use. In an unrelated way the recent nude photo shoot at some melting glacier in Switzerland probably helped to accelerate the melt due to body heat!
Grant, Aviemore, UK
Never was a truer statement made than the sign that adorned the tunnel exit from the central area of Heathrow (Terminals 1, 2 and 3). I don’t know whether it is still there but it said Welcome to Britain just before you vanished into a black hole in the ground!
Chris, Vancouver, Canada
More C02 emissions are more more C02 emissions. I don't believe people should stop flying, just halt the expansion and growth, so emissions from aircraft remain a small percentage. A precautionary measure. If that is the intent of these events then this action is justified.
Andrew, Cardiff, Wales
Alex McGregor
First, I just did the sums, you would need more than a 75% decrease in all other emissions. In fact, you need them to become just 15% of their total.
Second, that is not going to happen any time soon and completely ignores reductions in airplane efficiency gains, so airplanes aren't going to come even close to making 25% of the UK total
Third, if aircraft emissions remained the same and all other emissions were reduced to 25% of their current amount, UK emissions would be 28.75% of their total now, which is more than is required by the government's plans, which are based on 60% reduction by 2050, I think.
So your scenario is not likely to occur and even if it did, we could afford not to reduce aircraft emissions
Flying is the wrong target, but its one of the few emissions creating activties most people use purely for fun and is therefore the only target protesters can aim for
Will, London,
A rational argument at last.
The problem with the anti-flying arguments, especially argument like don't eat air-freighted produce from say Africa is that presume that we should keep Africans poor, against tourism that it would be better for exotic countries to stay poor and open to only a privileged few.
Assuming arguendo that CO2 is the cause of global warming, world society is going to have to make choices in cutting back. Aviation is one area where there is no clear alternative to fossil based fuel that is likely to be on-stream inside 50 years. The sensible argument is that we need aviation, so lets get on with the low hanging fruit of CO2 emissions, which by the way are much bigger consumers, such as households, industry and ground transportation -- a 10-20% reduction in those areas is relatively easy and each would more than equal aviation's share. And for the UK - high-speed at cheaper than flying prices would be nice, and lets face up to using nuclear for generation.
Colm MacKernan, London/Washington,
Let us not jump to a hopeless conclusion sir:
Why are they there any way is the question? Not London, Mumbai, Dubai, Perth, Munich or any airport. There has to be a sensible reason. I mean people don’t just hitch up the tents berceuse they want to. No sir, they are fighting against the rain and the snow and what they thing is right. The global warming is on. We know this and the Eskimos know this better. Russia has pitched a flag in the Arctic stating that the gas herein in Russian. Canada now states this is illegal. So who is right? You care? No. the guys are right. We are in a heap of a mess we created and cannot get out of this so we now fight for the right course. Who will give I have no idea as all at the moment are bankrupt or looking dismal. All know not when their mortgage will falter.
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania
You are mistaken. Air travel is growing at 3% p/a in the UK. By this growth rate at 2050 the air industry will be 3.5 times bigger than it is now. It would make up 19% of the UK's current emission levels based on your 5.5% figure. The government has set a target of reducing the UK's emissions by 50% by 2050. Therefore air travel will make up 38% of emissions in 2050 if the government target is to be met and if air travel is allowed to expand at its current rate. Clearly either air travel must be curtailed or we will have to drop the 2050 emissions target.
Strephen Grindle, London, UK
I noted in another story about the protesters, that one will no longer fly on her holidays. She will drive instead. Brilliant. By taking a driving holiday, she is actually putting out more carbon dioxide than if she had flown. Driving is inherently more INefficient than flying. What are theses people thinking? [And I use the term loosely.]
Steve S., Hershey, PA, USA
Because planes create (CO2) at high altitutudes, I've read various reports that claim 2-3 times the damaging effects of the same amount of CO2 on the ground, where plants use it quickly. This was effectively studied in the USA after Sep 11 studies as planes were grounded for days after and was a rare chance to study the damage planes cause.
Rather than the olympics how about putting LHW in the T.Estury with a rail link to Fenchurch/Liverpool st - plus the chance to regenerate parts of the East end.
How about a level playing field: VAT and tax on air fuel; Airlines and airports have got away with too much for too long.
LHW - is flawed by Retail design, the checkin area is small so people move to the departure area where the shops are. The side effect of this; is any small problem and people back up - spilling out of the terminal.
Terry, london,
Wayne from London said:
"Aviation has an extremely high carbon footprint per individual flyer."
Yes, but extremely low per mile. There is a widespread puritanical meme that says that environmental problems are caused by decadent consumerism, and that therefore the problems can be solved by wearing hair shirts. This simply isn't true - taking it upon ourselves to do fewer things and have less fun helps no one. The attacks on flying are a good example of the meme in action. Wayne here is suggesting that flying is bad because people can use it to travel an extremely long way. It is sinful, in Wayne's world, to travel long distances.
Felix, Nottingham,
What a breath of fresh air! We life in democracy and citizens have the right to spend their heavily taxed income as they chose not as some self-appointed people say we should.
Geoff Saunders, Glasgow, Scotland
There is a good article about this "ostrich" behaviour in the Independent today:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article2878783.ece
Smell the smoke filling the room.
Roger Wood, Hitchin, UK
"An extraordinarily wide range of people seem to have nothing but contempt for it."
What is extraordinary about this? What surprises me is that such contempt was not as widespread years ago.
Heathrow is hideous and the only way to improve this disgrace of an airport is to make demands of the Government, BAA and the airlines. If we put up and shut up then we get what we deserve.
Russell Farmer, KL, MALAYSIA
Lets get this straight:
No-one can prove satisfactorily that a carbon footprint contributes to global warming, FACT!
Many now think that methane or water vapour COULD be factors, or that this is the hot spell before an ice age -many scientists think it is due soon!
Flying does not significantly hurt the environment, relative to other forms of transport.
Flying does benefit the poor (and the economy, not unconnected all you socialists out there) and society at large!
John, Southampton, UK
Most passengers detest Heathrow, not because of its environmental issues, but because it is a grim, dirty, poorly managed hell-hole. There are no chairs, the toilets are disgusting, there are never enough lanes open at security or immigration and the baggage handlers often lose or steal your possessions.
Opening all the security lanes, giving the place a clean and maybe a few new carpets (rather than taping them up with silver tape!) would be inexpensive and would make a measurable difference.
I used to always try and fly from Heathrow. I now will fly from anywhere else if I can. The massive increase in private air travel (boo hiss) is fuelled by the hellish experience that is Heathrow. If you can afford £4000+ for a first class ticket, why would you subject yourself to treatment that is good enough for a cow at an abbatoir.
It is bad management pure and simple. Get a grip BAA.
Zac Smith, London,
Nicely put on the hypocrisy. I wonder how many of the Climate protestors have told their children that they will NEVER go on a foreign holiday.
To put the UK emissions in even greater perspective, don't forget that we produce only 2 per cent of worldwide MANMADE CO2 emissions, and aviation produces only about 5 per cent of that. This all pales into even less significance when one remembers that manmade emissions represent only about 5 per cent of total global CO2 emissions, with nature being responsible for the rest. I feel a holiday coming on.
Kevin Browne, Reading, Berkshire, England
Tim Hames dismisses concerns that aviation significantly contributes to greenhouse emissions. The fact remains that a round trip flight from Heathrow to San Francisco creates 2.47 tonnes of CO2 per person; this voyage by a family of four creates as much CO2 damage an average household does in one year.
Wayne, London,
Alex McGregor said:
"If this [an imagined scenario] were the case, aircrafts' emissions would form 25% of the new total UK output. If flight-related emissions were to double, and all other emissions were to halve, we'd have the same scenario."
Yes, but given that this hasn't in fact happened, it provides no reason to victimise air transport.
(My gratuitous ideology: carbon restrictions do nobody any good anyway, even people who wish to control the climate.)
Felix, Nottingham,
Why overload Heathrow with freight when there are airfields closed by RAF and USAF with adequat runways
PETER MOWBRAY, Boston, Lincs UK, UK
I saw the protestors displaying a sign saying 'Mke planes history'. This demonstrates, yet again, their hatred for people. I think it was Julie Burchill who once siad that inside every animal lover you will find a people hater. The same could be said of 'environmentalists'.
CG, Liverpool,
The manner in which figures are presented in this article are very misleading.
The average UK household is estimated to emit 10 tonnes of CO2 per year [http://www.trucost.com/pressreleases/CarbonCounts2007.html] . A return flight from Heathrow to San Francisco is estimated to create 2.47 tonnes of CO2 per person. [http://www.climatecare.org/guardian/] Four members of a family making this journey would represent an increase of 98.8% of carbon emissions over the average household figure. A return flight from Heathrow to Sydney is estimated to create 5.61 tonnes of CO2 per person. Just one return flight for a family of four would create 224% of an average family’s household CO2 emissions.
Aviation has an extremely high carbon footprint per individual flyer. Climate change cannot be tackled unless individuals' behaviours are factored in. For this reason, any responsible approach to climate change must challenge the assumption of an unimpeded right to fly.
Wayne, London,
Heathrow is justifiably criticised becasue people have woken up to what a low quality experience it is. It is a blight on the people and reputation of England.
The M4 is congested, so is the M3, and the M25 and of course so is the airport spur road. The tubes are over crowded. You queue to check in ( or bag drop ) queue for security and are crowded in the departure halls whilst surrounded by empty shops full of over-priced goods nobody wants to buy.
As an extra, the odds of losing your baggage would appeal to any gambler.
It is reassuring to know that passengers living in Kent etc. have spent hours driving around the M25 and queuing through the airport - and if they are travelling to the continent, will fly back over the very house they left 3 or 4 hours previously.
No sir - the answer to an overcrowded airport with surrounding infrastructure that is woefully inadequate is not another runway !
Roy Higgins, Basingstoke, UK
The Climate Change Camp at Heathrow is nothing more than an attack by the left on capitalism. The usual rabble are there, goading the police who would be better employed stopping youths stabbing and being stabbed, and the whole thing is being warmly reported by the BBC.
Plus ça change?
John Tomlinson, Brentwood, UK
While I may agree with Mr. Hames in part on Global warming, it is impossible to say anything good about Heathrow, other than on a very rare occasions I encounter a worse Airport (though the US TSA does try to reach Heathow levels of officious incompetence and time wasting.)
Those airports remind me of a comment I made twice, one when asked seriously by United Airlines and another recent occasion to BA -- that 20 years earlier I had flown Aeroflot, and I had always consoled myself with the thought "it could be worse," but they had robbed me of even that tiny consolation, ditto Heathrow.
Heathrow is a filthy chaotic dump -- other companies faced with the regulatory problems BAA have try to avoid making people mad -- BAA acts like it wants to be broken up. And the best is people saying the security lines are due to unexpectedly high traffic volumes -- flights are scheduled, where is the surprise?
Colm MacKernan, London/Washington,
I suggest Tim Hanes goes to see Singapore Airport then come back to and write about the Heathrow Zoo.
Andrew Evans, Raymond, USA
"Airline emissions now account for 5.5 per cent of the 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide output for which the United Kingdom is responsible (which is to say, a rather small amount). To ratchet up the 5.5 to a prediction of 25 per cent in 2025 (by which time the UK’s percentage of the entire carbon stock is forecast to fall) demands extrapolation that Malthus at his most apocalyptic could not have managed."
Not true - all that is needed is for flights to remain at the same level, but for all other carbon emissions to be reduced to 25% of their current amount. If this were the case, aircrafts' emissions would form 25% of the new total UK output.
If flight-related emissions were to double, and all other emissions were to halve, we'd have the same scenario.
Alex McGregor, Plymouth, UK
I can't understand why you conflate the environmental issue about flying with the fact that Heathrow is a despicable, disgraceful and abysmal dump of an airport. "It'll get better after T5 opens" is no way to run an airport and this "jam tomorrow" illogic is the mark of bad operators. It's under-manned, under-cleaned, untidy, hot, stuffy and makes an appalling impression on visitors to the UK.
Flying is great. Travel is great. Flying is the way forward. Let's do it in well run, pleasant airplanes flying from well run, pleasant airports.
Mark Foscoe, Bedford,
An airport has one function in life: to efficiently process the movement of aircraft and their contents. Heathrow Airport does not perform this function and in fact provides an increasingly worse service.
Passengers and airlines are right to complain. if the management at Heathrow cannot do their job they should be removed.
Hugh Davies, Leeds, UK
True, Terminal 5 will enhance the airport aesthetically and practically, relieving terminals 123 and providing easier road and rail connections. The central terminals will also be modernised. There will be 35M passengers (all BA) using the new terminal making it singly the biggest UK airport, an exciting and uplifting spectacle for all users.
But I don't see how "the third runway" will make Heathrow "less Hellish" (or more heavenly). It will clog up the newly freed-up approach roads, add awkward tunnels, and expand right up to the M4 destroying villages like Harmondsworth. It will greatly increase (legally or not) overall pollution in the area.
Let's agree that all UK airports should be limited to two runways (it's unrealistic to prevent all expansion). I'm astonished that proposals to build a new runway at Luton (where expansion will cause far less environmental damage than at Heathrow or Stansted) have been binned. "Cross-subsidize" and build at London Luton.--Unbiased Traveler.
Paul, Taichung,
The ability of the biosphere to absorb our CO2 emissions is reducing (Met Office). By 2050 with 8.2 billion people on the planet we can only emit 1.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivilent per capita to prevent the climate tipping into an even more dangerous state. A return flight to the states emits 1.2 tonnes. This doesn't take into account the high altitude effects which means it is effectively 2.7 times this (Tyndall Centre). So by 2050 we can only fly to the states once every 3 years and we mustn't emit any more CO2 at all during those three years.
Doesn't really seem practical to me and those figures are amoungst the more optimistic ones that I have seen.
Keith Garrett, Cambridge, UK
Greenpeace Activists spend a lot of time putting offensive stickers on 4X4 vehicles in Leeds. The Greenpeace Activists are almost invariably University Lecturer's wives who drive into Leeds from their centrally heated, five-bedroomed converted barns with adjoining paddock in the country to do a bit of environmental missionary work, whilst leaving little Anatole and Imogen for the Polish nanny to take to nursery in the people carrier.
eric campbell, harrogate, uk
missing the point my man...
heathrow just offers intolerable and shoddy service.
it's operating, greedily, way beyond its capacity. wherever possible why shouldn't people avoid it.
if, particularly, you have to use a regional airport then why not fly instead with say, schiphol as your hub.
terminal 5 may end up a white elephant if people start staying away because of current poor service. perhaps BAAs monopoly should be broken.
and leave the protestors out of it. they have a right to their view. they arent culpable for this operating mess.
st, shanghai, prc
At last! Someone presenting some balance in the environmental debate!
Matt, Southampton, UK
what an incredibly arrogant article, I can only assume Tim lives nowhere near Heathrow...
tony, london, uk
"There can be fewer hypocrisies greater than the rising percentage of people who claim to agree with the statement that there should be “less flying†and the surging proportion of the public who turn to the websites of easyJet and Ryanair in the hope of finding a seat to Venice for less than the price of a tank of petrol." Hang on. This doesn't make sense unless the 'percentage' and the 'proportion' add up to more than 100%. These are not necessarily the same people! For example, I agree with the statement that there should be less flying, so I have stopped flying. If other people have increased their flying at the same time, that does not imply hypocrisy on my part.
Pav, London,
Interestingly, in an article exhorting us not to be mean about Heathrow, I found absolutely nothing, not a single line, written by Hames in the airport's defense. That's not surprising, of course, because it is utterly indefensible.
D Bennett, Hong Kong,
One of the consequences of a third runway will be reduced congestion of the airways. On average flights currently spend 10 minutes extra flying even without air traffic delays due to the strange routes used approaching Heathrow. Likewise one wonders how much carbon is emitted due Mr Livinstone's quixotic one way roads, traffic calming and cul de sacs - not to mention the increased mileage incurred avoiding the congestion charge. The whole debate around climate change would benefit from increased rigour, less mention of taxation and concentration on practical methods of reducing energy consumption in a manner consistent with peoples' aspirations as opposed to being in direct conflict with those same aspirations.
Authoritative regimes curb travel and the press. Recent history demonstartes that attempts to do either are doomed to failure.
Gwyn Hughes, London, UK
Congratulations Tim, some common sense at last!
Peter Anderson, Winchester, UK
If you're serious, ground all private jets. Now.
Oh wait global warming isn't <i>that</i> serious.
<gack> hypocrisy.
yellerKat, Brighton, UK