I AM puzzled by the claims of the local Extinction Rebellion (XR) participants in the recent London protests (Gazette, October 31, 'South Lakes activists in court for protests').

They claimed they were protecting the future of our planet with this demonstration.

Using a popular carbon emission calculator, Kate Harnott’s trip to London, assuming she didn’t walk, would have cost 3.1t. She was one of 1,130 people who were arrested which would have used a total of around 3503t carbon footprint.

My problem is, I do not see how such a large footprint can help “save the planet", especially as my calculations do not take into account the hundreds of thousands of the protestors who weren’t arrested and all the transport vehicles (taxis, buses, private cars, delivery lorries, etc) which were held up in the streets of London pumping out CO2 every second of the fortnight’s protest into the air because they were prevented from moving.

Given the fact the protest will probably be forgotten in a few months, was the reduction in Ms Harnott's bank balance by the fine and the increase of pollution in the city’s/planet’s atmosphere justified or worth it?

Peter Holme