A great aviation debate

We've just had a great aviation debate. Michelle di Leo, from Flying Matters (the big pro-flying lobby group) was up against Simon Montague from Eurostar, Doug Parr from Greenpeace, and Lib Dem transport spokesman, Susan Kramer MP.

Talking before the event, Susan gave me her view of the Tory's Quality of Life report - which John wrote about on his blog. She thinks they haven't gone far enough on aviation, wind power or nuclear. To misquote Mandy Rice-Davies, she would say that wouldn't she. The Quality of Life report was co-authored by Zac Goldsmith - who is running as the Tory candidate in Richmond (Susan Kramer's constituency). If she welcomes it, it would be as good as endorsing her opponent. It is the one side of politics which really annoys me: the need to take opposite views on vital issues because of short-term tactical advantage.

For the record, Greenpeace's view is that while we do welcome elements of the ambition of the Quality of Life Report, we also admit that there are elements of the detail that don't go far enough. We have also welcomed what the Lib Dems are doing with their Zero Carbon Britain report. Let's see if Labour can meet these two documents next week in Bournemouth (as we are told Brown is planning).

But back to the aviation fringe! The debate was really vibrant. The chairman - Christian Wolmar - was very effective. Greenpeace must not be afraid of debating our opponents. Our arguments are sound and we are sure of our ground. We must challenge those who pollute and harm our planet at every opportunity. Personally, I don't think the arguments from Flying Matters stood up very well in the debate. But then - I would say that wouldn't I?