Third runway for toffs: that idea won’t fly

Monbiot confuses class with money. In my experience, Aga-owners tend to be environmentally conscious toffs. They are often penny-pinchers (accidental greens) who use their beloved cooker to heat one room in a freezing house: it is for everything from defrosting the dog to making toast. The Aga set, like the Queen, turn off lights and wear ancient clothes; they don't support the polluters behind the third runway.

Which brings us to the only class who might conceivably support the third runway: the business class. Baroness Valentine, chief executive of London First, would have us believe that London's business leaders are keen on a third runway. Interestingly, she neither names any nor does she acknowledge that two of London First's key sponsors are BAA and British Airways. Her argument - that we need a third runway in case other people think we are uncompetitive - is as vague as it is irritating. London First claims to be "London's champion"; how this will be achieved by making our city a noisy, polluted transport hub (a threat so great its Mayor is considering legal action) is hard to fathom.

It seems the only people who actually want this runway are Gordon Brown, because he's decided that it represents "progress" to have half the world changing planes in London; Spanish-owned BAA, who cannot even run their existing airports; and British Airways, whose interest is so vested as to be irrelevant. Valentine says our "rivals" will be "gloving up" early for the upturn; she cites Dubai and Shanghai, two cities which illustrate how sincere her environmental concerns are.

Valentine claims that a raging argument is "democracy in action": not if the majority view is ignored. If our unelected PM starts his election campaign approving something this unpopular and environmentally unfriendly while making hypocritical noises about light bulbs, he's toast.

* Catherine Ostler is editor of ES Magazine.