Richard's blog

Sometimes things happen for a reason; other times, it's just coincidence. The day after Leo's post about the methods the aviation industry use to fudge their emissions, BAA puts out a press release claiming that cars arriving at Edinburgh airport pollute more than the planes. It's a classic example of greenwash.

In a slight of hand so unsubtle that even the Edinburgh Evening News mentioned it, BAA set up NOx readers at 20 locations around the airport to measure pollution levels. They showed that NOx levels were higher in the car park and on the approach roads than on the airfield - although, crucially, the readers do not measure gases emitted at altitude. BAA is comparing thousands of cars driving in and parking with the NOx emissions of aircraft taking off or landing while discarding those in flight.

Yesterday's papers carried the unsurprising news that living under a flight path can lead to increased stress and noise-related illness. But can supporting the third runway make you ill? We sent our roving reporter Dee Locke undercover at two governmental departments, to find out.

"I checked out the Department for Transport", says Dee, "and found that their staff were un-naturally ill. Staff at the DfT took an average of 12.4 sick days last year, compared to 9.1 for the Civil Service average. That's pretty high, leading us to suspect that the extra days could come from the stress of dealing with constant phone calls from angry residents and super-glue blockades of their offices."

Heathrow expansion must go ahead, say Ministers, or London will be transformed overnight into a third-world city, whose population huddle under the yellow glare of street lamps and burn copies of thelondonpaper to keep warm. Not so, claim consultancy firm CE Delft, who have released a HACAN-funded report which debunks the economic arguments in favour of expansion.

The report explodes the myth that expansion and the economy are intrinsically linked. The DfT claim that each extra passenger brings £120 into the economy, putting the net benefit of expansion at £4.4 billion over 70 years. But CD Delft point out that this ignores the huge tax subsidy to the industry (currently around £10 billion per year). The overall benefit is closer to £30 per passenger. Additionally, £3 billion of the projected economic benefit will be money raised by the Government through aviation duty - leaving a direct boost to the private economy of about £1.4 billion a year.

If it's Wednesday, it must be time for a story about Ryanair. Today's thrilling tale involves Ryanair and the Office of Fair Trading, who have demanded they take their website down and remove misleading prices from it.

Of course, Ryanair don't see it that way. A spokesman told the Times: "Our software was designed to cope with 50 million passengers a year and we have reached that, so we are introducing a new site capable of handling more." Not so, says the OFT. "They were given until the end of February to make the changes and they are now shutting down to make sure they comply."

I suppose it must be fun to work in Ryanair's PR department. It's got to be one of the last jobs where you get to tell blatant fibs for a living. Oh well, perhaps the £20 million in lost sales will make up for it.

Over the past few months, John Stewart has been touring London and the South-East, building opposition to the third runway. Not that it took much building. From Richmond to Higbury, Ealing to Putney, London's residents are united. We may not all want the same person to be Mayor, but we want one thing: no expansion at Heathrow.

The 'No Third Runway 2008' tour culminates in a night that's not to be missed: a rally at Central Hall, Westminster. Speakers include John McDonnell MP and many others (including someone from Plane Stupid) - but who speaks is not as important as you attending. It's the last chance to stick two fingers up to Brown and BAA and to tell them to stuff their runway.

Monday the 25th of February, 7pm. Attend or be warned: if I hear that you chose to stay in and watch Eastenders, look out!

As the battle for the London Mayor warms up, so the press releases by the candidates get wilder and wilder. If King Newt announces free bus travel for under-18s, Boris proposes banning non-adults from buses altogether. Meanwhile Paddick throws his lot in with the cabbies, and everyone steals Sian's opposition to the third runway.

But the latest idea doing the rounds is the Thames Estuary airport. Long known primarily for being the sort of place your parents complained that you sounded like you came from, the Thames Estuary is now being promoted by Boris Johnson as the solution to the whole 'economy v Londoners' battle which rages nightly in the Evening Standard.

Footballers. Erudite gentlemen, known for their charm, wit and prudence. What the hell am I talking about - they're known primarily for being overpaid primadonnas with irritating perma-tanned partners and whopping carbon footprints.

Not content with creating an entire generation with nothing better to do than pay grannies to sleep with them, the Premier League has decided to out-source some of its games to far-off lands. Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore told BBC Sport: "I think it's an idea whose time has come. It's an exciting prospect."

Is it? Forgive my cynicism, but what's exciting about half of the UK's male population aspiring to travel thousands of miles by plane to watch Man U play Liverpool in Dubai or Singapore? It's bad enough that every World Cup sees mass hysteria and big profits for the airlines; now we have the prospect of even more emissions. Forgive me for not squealing with anticipation just yet...

Remember the one about the CO2 emissions and the potential catastrophe? Airbus clearly haven't. They're cock-a-hoop over some projections they scribbled on the back of a fag packet, which predicts massive sales for their big fat planes.

Airbus reckon there'll be 28,534 passenger and freight aircraft in the air in less than two decades' time - more than double the current total of 13,284. Of course, these planes need places to land, so - guess what! - they're predicting loads and loads of new runways.

Plane Stupid grabbed a smoker a few minutes ago, and scrawled all over their ciggies. We've worked out that if we don't build these runways, there won't be anywhere to put all these new planes, effectively scuppering Airbus's plans. Another reason to oppose the third runway (as if one were needed)?