Air pollution is not a popular subject which is why little notice has been taken of an EU judgment against the UK on the subject, but it deserves full attention: it shows how much we care about the environment, and our health.
London has the worst air quality of any capital city in Europe and there are 12 other areas of Britain with serious air pollution problems largely caused by vehicles.
After smoking it is the biggest threat to health, costing billions.
Despite this, the government plans to delay introducing mandatory cuts to pollutant levels as required by the European Commission, and faces large fines as a result.
I am fortunate to live in one of the few places in Britain where the air quality is so good rare lichens survive still and the light is crystal clear; whenever I visit London, within minutes my eyes become irritated and my throat sore, and I feel poisoned, which of course I am, and it is extraordinary that millions of people in Britain and most world cities are being damaged to such an extent that their life expectancy is being reduced daily.
The official concern is of the impact of these pollutants on public health, but my concern extends to include the effect on the birds, insects and mammals which share our cities too.
They are so small, and so suffer so much more.
It seems that, in order to comply with the law, the government is considering introducing a national zone system from which the worst polluting vehicles will be banned.
It will help, but could lead to the traffic being diverted to pollute the countryside instead.
Why do they not consider banning polluting vehicles altogether? It would be so much easier as well as cleaner - but then corporates would be upset, and that would never do.
Would it? It is refreshing to hear of a quiet but very significant report by experts which will confirm the importance of trees and forests for the maintenance of essential eco-systems, for flood management, limiting carbon emissions, wildlife benefits and public enjoyment.
The findings, to be published today, will assert, I believe, that this free but intensely valuable resource has been ignored and under-estimated for too long, and that the number of forested areas in England should be increased by 50 per cent over the next few decades, as well as being held in trust for the people of Britain rather than being sold off for profit as once intended by government.
It is good news.
However, the money issue once again will determine the outcome of the report.
It is ironic that just as there is a furore of criticism led by politicians and the media about bankers trying to make profit out of market manipulation, those same politicians are driven by an intent to use British resources to maximum financial benefit, whatever they may be, however treasured and iconic.
They may pay lip service to respecting our heritage and environment, but given the choice between making money for the exchequer by felling timber in great quantities and investing in caring for and developing our woodlands, profit usually will be the preferred choice of action.
It may not be illegal as it is in the case of the bankers' activities, but for me it is just as unethical as well as being very short sighted.
The report on England's forests deserves full attention but it will be overshadowed by Bob Diamond's public appearance on the same day.
What a contrast of values we have.