IT'S not that I don't take the threat of climate change seriously. I do, I really do.

I don't eat red meat and I only eat seafood when I can afford to buy sustainably sourced fish. I drive about 2000 to 3000 miles a year in my car, opting to cycle or use public transport as much as possible. My aim is to cut car use even further.

I recycle, for what that's worth, and carry a reusable coffee cup and metal picnic cutlery with me. I don't have children or any plans to have children.

I try. I try and yet I also fly, each air mile a prickle of guilt. The Swedes call it flygskam - flight guilt. We don't have a portmanteau for it in English. Perhaps we suffer it less: nearly a third of UK travellers would not fly less often to protect the planet, a YouGov survey found.

Any concern for the planet turned into concern for myself when I read about the plans by environmental group Heathrow Pause to try to ground planes at the London airport from Friday this week.

Concern because I'm due to fly from Heathrow shortly, I'm excited about my trip and I don't want to miss it, or lose the money I've spent.

Where are your green credentials now, Stewart?

Heathrow Pause campaigners, who were part of Extinction Rebellion but are now a splinter group, plan to fly what are described as "toy drones" in a public park that sits within the 5km exclusion zone established by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Extinction Rebellion, which has caused buses to grind to a halt in Edinburgh and at London's Waterloo Bridge, Parliament Square and Oxford Circus, had floated the plans itself but subsequently had second thoughts.

They say they plan to do this safely, keeping the drones at around head height so as to ensure they come nowhere near any planes but any drone activity means the airport must halt flights. "We are committed to taking every possible step to ensure nobody is hurt or endangered," Heathrow Pause said, "And have put stringent safety measures and protocols in place regarding the use of drones, to guarantee the action complies with our objectives and concerns."

There are concerns that this might act as a cover for terrorists. Members have said they are willing to go to jail over the drone action.

I just want to get to Philadelphia on the day I'm supposed to.

There's the rub, really. While I can support die-ins disrupting shops and art galleries, while I can see merit in causing traffic delays, I'm too morally hypocritical to take a hit to my holiday.

This year is forecast to be a record-breaking year for air travel. Another record-breaking year. Passengers are expected to fly 8.1 trillion kilometres, despite the fact the aviation sector accounts for around two per cent of global carbon emissions.

One long-haul flight creates more carbon emissions than the average person annually in dozens of countries, making flight the environment-bashing preserve of those who can afford it. I paused to count up how many flights I will take this year. I'm ashamed so here, I offer myself willingly to the stocks: 27.

Twenty-seven flights in one year. It's absolutely unacceptable but would I have sacrificed any of them? Honestly, no.

Travel is the great joy of my life. I have a huge list of places I want to visit and a sense of panic when I divide my life expectancy by annual leave by disposable income.

But it cannot continue. Those of us fortunate enough to fly - most of you reading this - have to cut down. Ironically, part of my care for the planet has come from seeing so much of it first hand, yet so much carbon harm has come from the seeing.

We live in a world that air travel has shrunk, and on which it has created new, complex connections. Those who might be effected by any drone strikes are not all travelling for the sake of it, as I am this year. Many will be heading to weddings or funerals or to see loved ones to mark milestones, trips that cannot be salvaged by rebooking for a different date.

What do we do about family overseas? Do we come to an acceptance that we have to make do with video calls, saving in-person meetings for once-in-a-lifetime? How do we convince people to give up their second homes abroad? To urge companies that business trips be replaced by conference calls.

Increasing the cost of flying would be unfair, only affecting those who are less well-off.

Heathrow Pause might be making a valid point but, if it succeeds in grounding flights, will it succeed in changing behaviour? I can't see it. We are so attached now to travel that one major disruption is not enough to alter attitudes.

A sure fix is to limit the capacity of airports but tourism accounts for around 10 per cent of global GDP - there is a fiscal case for travel that makes governments reluctant to act. People have such limited free time from work that they need to do their travelling as quickly as possible, making flying the only reasonable option.

What would make me fly less often? I would happily travel by train or go by boat. That, though, would involve a career with months-long annual leave as an option. More generally, it would involve a complete overhaul of how we live, work and travel.

It won't be drones, but something has to ground us. There's no point having a travel wish list if getting there harms the countries on it.