Everyone seems to agree that emissions trading is part of the solution, but the bone of contention here is capacity - BAA wants to expand our airports, whilst claiming that somehow this won't increase emissions. I know this sounds confusing - at one point the chair of the meeting asked whether BAA wanted more runways but less planes using them - but then it's a difficult position to defend. It reminded me of a child asking for his water pistol back and swearing passionately that he wouldn't squirt anyone with it. Ever. Promise.

Both Gummer and Peter Ainsworth, the Tory environment spokesman, have indicated that capacity can't be determined by demand, as in the government's plans, as demand will be highter than is sustainable. Gummer stated quite clearly that he didn't expect any future government to stick to Labour's airport plans, as they had been created without any thought for the climate. He also said he didn't expect a second runway at Stanstead or Gatwick - airport campaigners take note and heart. I really can't understand why people can be so horrid about the Tories.

My fellow blogger Ben asked Stephen Nelson (BAA) what the safe limit for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere might be (the government's chief scientist says 550ppm, Friends of the Earth say 450 and the Tyndale Centre says less) but Nelson collapsed into scepticism, claiming we need more studies to determine when CO2 concentrations become unacceptable. As you may already know, there is no shortage of studies showing conclusively that we should have started taking radical action to curtail emissions decades ago. Anyone who comes to the table claiming scientific ignorance should be packed off to the Tyndale Centre and barred from public discourse until they have read every one of the 696 papers in the Oreskes study that supported anthropogenic (man-made) climate change and written a detailed comparison of these and the 0 (zero) peer-reviewed papers which disputed it. Twice.

I caught up with a group of BAA PR types in a pizza restaurant later in the day, and tried again. Ignorance was again employed to devastating effect - without any acknowlegement that people who don't understand climate change should perhaps have a little less influence on climate policy.

Gummer responded just as badly to heartfelt praise and adulation as Nelson did to questions. The poor man went quite pale when he learnt that Greenpeace activists were amongst his biggest fans. It just occurred to me that all the positive things I've said about him probably constitute a serious threat to his credibility within the party, so here's a self-defence kit:

'John Selwyn-Gummer is a frightful reactionary, obsessed with pleasing business, cutting taxes and growing the economy at the expense of the environment, and Greenpeace think he's simply awful.'

No, John, don't thank me, just remember to put the boot in if my name ever comes up in Tory circles.

I went over to have a chat to a Tory councillor who was concerned about his party dictating to people how they could travel. Gummer dealt with it quite well, pointing out that the poor chap already had to put up with having the side of the road he drove on dictated to him, and with good reason, but I was curious to find out how people who, like Nelson, consider free market principles to be sacrosanct, deal with this issue. We know demand for flights isn't likely to be swatted away by Adam Smith's invisible hand, so which is the more fearful fate - that industry be regulated or that we destroy all life on Earth?

Answers on a postcard please.