Many in the aviation industry agree that climate change is the most serious threat facing the world today. But perhaps because the industry is driven by science and technology, it recognises that the last thing we need is a panic reaction. We could close down the aviation industry or seriously restrict it and yet have relatively little effect on the overall problem.

Air transport, although growing rapidly, represents just three per cent of global greenhouse emissions.

Similarly, we could close down or severely restrict the motor industry or any other rapidly developing service or manufacturing sector of the economy in the vain hope that we would overcome the challenge in that way. We could return to a pre-industrial society. That would be a blind and foolish mistake, particularly for the country that gave the world many of its major scientific and industrial revolutions.

In recent years, the media has been doing a particularly good job in alerting the public to the problem of climate change. Now we need to build on this and report on what is actually being done to address the problem, to establish ‘best practice’.

Aviation has a better track record than generally perceived. Aircraft- and engine-manufacturers have been working on more fuel-efficient and quieter aircraft for many years and have made real progress. Fuel efficiency has improved by 70 per cent during the last 40 years.

And noise disturbance has reduced too. The population exposed to significant noise disturbance around Heathrow has decreased by 85 per cent over the last 30 years. Having lived under the flight paths for 30 years I can confirm that. And so will others who remember the noise generated by older aircraft such as the Trident or BAC-111, not to mention Concorde.

As a local resident, I could easily have called for the closure of the airport. But will someone tell me what happens to the 70,000 employees at the airport and the 100,000 other local people who depend on it remaining a hub airport?

Aviation must do more, and I hope its inclusion in the EU emissions-trading scheme will encourage it to do so. Additionally, ground operations offer the possibility for more action. Airport operators who are serious about meeting the challenge should be looking for major improvements, and sharing them with fellow operators when achieved. For example, bio-diesel and electric vehicles should be the norm at airports; all new and modernised buildings should be carbon-neutral; and electricity for airports should come from renewable sources suppliers – something many householders and some companies do already.

These are some of the things the industry must do to convince the public they can fly without destroying the planet. Don’t underestimate their fear in this respect. It is often the same people who want to fly who worry about global warming, but that concern should be channelled into constructive action in all areas of our lives.

In other countries, airports are expanding in a more sustainable way. The UK can do the same. Does anyone really believe that Heathrow is currently designed to maximise environmental advantages? It could be modernised and expanded to make it substantially environmentally better than it is now.

The lack of a short third runway for regional connecting flights means Heathrow is rapidly sliding down the international league table. It has just been overtaken by Munich and now finds itself in fourth place in the European airport rankings. The lack of runway capacity means more delays, aircraft stacking and yet more emissions.

In Britain, we have a long and proud history of demonstrating how scientific and technological progress can overcome problems. Remember the people who opposed the railways in the 19th century, arguing they were noisy and dirty? Well, we didn’t give in to them and curtail railways’ growth. Instead, we looked at the problem, worked on it and developed trains so that they became better and cleaner – just as we are doing with aircraft. That is the real way forward.