#getoutdoors, take a deep breathe and let yourself unwind, then explore what's around you.Today, the RSPB revealed a system for measuring how well connected you are with the natural world.

It's all about quality of life and the state of our environment. In simple terms, it means how we feel about, and interact with, nature and wildlife.

There are International and UK Government agreements stating how important the natural world is for our health and well being. These commitments stress the importance of everyone not only having access to green spaces, but also understanding how nature works... like the water cycle; the food chain. That sort of stuff.

Some people dismiss all this as 'nice to have' but they're happy to push it aside if it gets in the way of other perceived priorities. We do need to get the UK economy growing again and we do need to improve our housing, transport, food and energy infrastuctures. But we should not sacrifice human and natural health in striving to meet those ambitions.

It seems this is not the norm for society. Please do prove me wrong by commenting on this blog, but I appear to be alone in being outraged to read in several newspapers and blogs that building a new airport in the Thames Estuary will reduce the current number of deaths from air pollution by a third. Well, whippee-do.

That suggests we're not too bothered by the fact that currently some 50 people a year die around Heathrow as a result of air pollution. The reporting of this research didn't explore the morality of commentators promoting proposals for an airport in the estuary as a means of reducing deaths in London.

How big is our separation from the real things that matter in life, such as health, well-being, nature and happiness, if we are content to accept the death of some fifteen or sixteen people living in the estuary area as the price for flying? Take this to an extreme and you could ask estuary airport promoter Boris Johnson if he sees residents living along the banks of the estuary as more dispensable than Londoners?

The fact is, no one should be dying as a result of the apparently well-researched and documented effects of air pollution. There are known techniques and technologies around to reduce this pollution. Where's the legislation demanding these life-saving measures aren't obligatory? 

Calls to build bigger airports or expand old ones is the equivalent of the trumpet call signalling the charge of the light brigade. Rein in your horse, consider the options and join us in urging the Transport Secretary to invest in the green economy delivering a future where no one dies as part of the cost of others jetting-off on holiday or business.