I can’t believe that I am writing this but there’s a case for limiting democracy or interpreting it differently.

It’s not about giving power to unelected groups, but the environment, that is the world we live in, needs immediate attention and a change in our behaviour.

However we’re a greedy, self centered and self important species that finds it almost impossible to make decisions for the future that aren’t in our own immediate self interest. We’re rarely satisfied with what we have, and we want more, particularly nowadays with modern technology showing us how others live, what they have and value and what they do with excessive amounts of money.

Theoretically democracy is the fairest way of electing those to lead communities and nations, with one person one vote, but generally it’s only those with an interest or way of life that they want protecting who vote. Almost a third of the adult population knows little about the issues, is not committed, reckons that ‘they’re all the same’ and just doesn’t bother.

So immediate self interest rules, with a prime example being the recent decision to construct a third Heathrow runway to give more trade, more opportunities for travel and more work building and running it. There was no concern about the marked increase in CO2 production and the impact on the future climate.

It’s an extra 700 flights a day, 260,000 annually, making Heathrow the largest CO2 producer in the UK. There’s talk of balancing it by improving the state of peat bogs and developing bio fuels but they are completely inadequate future dreams.

All political parties should agree that the cost of flying should be doubled, and that’s a real challenge in our current five year cycle democracy.

Such a step calls for the powers of a war time approach, as the unchecked enemy, the CO2 impact, will kill millions.