• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Heathrow expansion

Lilbaz said:
The only way you get rid of fossil fuels is to find a cheaper alternative. Most people are struggling as is. You make things harder for them they will rebel and vote in a trump or worse.

People are people. They've backed hitlers, stalins, pol pots in the past. They will in the future if desperate.
Click to expand...

You are right, but we also don’t have a choice, the only way we don’t make the planet uninhabitable is to stop burning.

We don’t know what we can do yet, but we absolutely know what we can’t do.
 
Baleforce said:
You are right, but we also don’t have a choice, the only way we don’t make the planet uninhabitable is to stop burning.

We don’t know what we can do yet, but we absolutely know what we can’t do.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse we have a choice. We can burn the planet. We're doing it.

A crack head has a choice not to do crack. They most often don't choose that path.
 
Baleforce said:
I’m against it. Sends the wrong message on climate change.

And with the US being pig ignorant to it, the rest of the world needs to make up for the damage they are about to do.
Click to expand...
The biggest problem for climate change is China and India building coal power stations.

What we do is 1% of worldwide emissions.

I believe climate change is real and I don't believe in self sabotage like some of the extreme lefties on here.

Funny enough I'm flying from Heathrow in April to China. That must wind you climate change zealots right up. It's not a holiday it's medical.

But we got a weekend break in July in Naples. Then a week in Rhodes in September. Lots of flights hahaha
 
Baleforce said:
You are right, but we also don’t have a choice, the only way we don’t make the planet uninhabitable is to stop burning.

We don’t know what we can do yet, but we absolutely know what we can’t do.
Click to expand...
It is a tough sell but something like the reverse of frequent flyer miles might work. Penalise the 2nd, 3rd, etc flights maybe exponentially. The more you fly the more you get stung.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
The biggest problem for climate change is China and India building coal power stations.

What we do is 1% of worldwide emissions.

I believe climate change is real and I don't believe in self sabotage like some of the extreme lefties on here.

Funny enough I'm flying from Heathrow in April to China. That must wind you climate change zealots right up. It's not a holiday it's medical.

But we got a weekend break in July in Naples. Then a week in Rhodes in September. Lots of flights hahaha
Click to expand...

China are driving the solutions as well though. If we specially dropped tariffs on their EVs on environmental grounds (stopped being bent over by Ford and VW), it would cut a massive wedge off UK emissions.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
The biggest problem for climate change is China and India building coal power stations.

What we do is 1% of worldwide emissions.

I believe climate change is real and I don't believe in self sabotage like some of the extreme lefties on here.

Funny enough I'm flying from Heathrow in April to China. That must wind you climate change zealots right up. It's not a holiday it's medical.

But we got a weekend break in July in Naples. Then a week in Rhodes in September. Lots of flights hahaha
Click to expand...


even those 3 return flights don't put you in the top 75% of air milers so your impact is negligible. No one ("extreme lefties"? wow, such bitterness) is trying to stop individuals flying a few times each year.

UK has massive historic carbon deficits so yes even if we are now only 1% of current emissions we should be working to pay off our significant carbon debts.

Also, all serious economic studies suggest that airport expansion won't drive growth significantly whilst investing in green solutions will. But guess green money doesn't flood political coffers and shareholdings in the same way currently.

And I guess no point re-opening the debate on the futility of chasing economic 'growth' anyway.
 
Rorschach said:
It is a tough sell but something like the reverse of frequent flyer miles might work. Penalise the 2nd, 3rd, etc flights maybe exponentially. The more you fly the more you get stung.
Click to expand...

3, 4 5 flights is peanuts and not the target.

This is part of the problem and (I hate to say I agree with Skiprat) the win for the denialists and delayers. Punishing the small time individuals isn't the win. It is the ridiculous short-haul flights, the people who commute daily or weekly flyers (50 to 400 flights a year) and it is a perverse aviation industry that still flies numerous ghost flights (empty planes) to protect landing slots at airports that need hitting and even then that is only a significant but small part of the emissions issue.
 
Lost Mango said:
3, 4 5 flights is peanuts and not the target.

This is part of the problem and (I hate to say I agree with Skiprat) the win for the denialists and delayers. Punishing the small time individuals isn't the win. It is the ridiculous short-haul flights, the people who commute daily or weekly flyers (50 to 400 flights a year) and it is a perverse aviation industry that still flies numerous ghost flights (empty planes) to protect landing slots at airports that need hitting and even then that is only a significant but small part of the emissions issue.
Click to expand...
I wouldn;t agree. Anyone taking 3-4 flights a year is among the biggest polluters on the planet and should be discouraged from flying. They may not in the very top category, like those you describe, but they are still up there. There are plenty of other actions that could be applied too - bans on internal flights, private jets, empty planes, whatever. All are fair game IMO.
 
Lost Mango said:
even those 3 return flights don't put you in the top 75% of air milers so your impact is negligible. No one ("extreme lefties"? wow, such bitterness) is trying to stop individuals flying a few times each year.

UK has massive historic carbon deficits so yes even if we are now only 1% of current emissions we should be working to pay off our significant carbon debts.

Also, all serious economic studies suggest that airport expansion won't drive growth significantly whilst investing in green solutions will. But guess green money doesn't flood political coffers and shareholdings in the same way currently.

And I guess no point re-opening the debate on the futility of chasing economic 'growth' anyway.
Click to expand...

Not true. There are plenty of reports from all over the world showing they do. The transport committee and chambers of commerce bot did reports for heathrows expansion.
This didn't go ahead without legal challenges. They had to show the benefits.
 
Lost Mango said:
Also, all serious economic studies suggest that airport expansion won't drive growth significantly whilst investing in green solutions will. But guess green money doesn't flood political coffers and shareholdings in the same way currently.
Click to expand...

I think there are two factors at play, travel and services around travel is one of the UKs largest industries, its one of the key imports/exports we have, its also one of the few industries we have established that has growth potential, the point there would be ok yes, there is a massive environmental impact but on the other side there is a key link to the fact that poorer nations have poorer records overall on this subject.

On the other point I was at a conference this week where it was claimed by a speaker, the reason we are also pursuing the green route that the Milibands long term plan is for us to become leaders in development of this stuff so we can flog it to the EU and abroad, not just to use it ourselves, how true that is I don't know but there will be big money in it down the road it seems.
 
Only in the UK are we "hopeful of" laying 3000m of concrete "within a decade".

It will make lots of outsourcing companies' shareholders very rich though, which I guess is the point.
 
Rorschach said:
I wouldn;t agree. Anyone taking 3-4 flights a year is among the biggest polluters on the planet and should be discouraged from flying. They may not in the very top category, like those you describe, but they are still up there. There are plenty of other actions that could be applied too - bans on internal flights, private jets, empty planes, whatever. All are fair game IMO.
Click to expand...
3-4 flights a year is nothing. That's not even a quarter's worth of business trips - let alone needing holidays and to visit family, etc.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Only in the UK are we "hopeful of" laying 3000m of concrete "within a decade".

It will make lots of outsourcing companies' shareholders very rich though, which I guess is the point.
Click to expand...
We all know that politically motivated (and possibly supranational) judges will just block it.
 
scaramanga said:
3-4 flights a year is nothing. That's not even a quarter's worth of business trips - let alone needing holidays and to visit family, etc.
Click to expand...


partridge-i-dont-know.gif
 
Rorschach said:
partridge-i-dont-know.gif
Click to expand...
If you're going to pick a limit, it needs to be realistic.

2-3 business trips in a year is reasonably light. Last year I had to go to Milan twice and Edinburgh once. Then a summer holiday, somewhere long haul. A short haul holiday like skiing or a bit of winter sun. Then maybe a weekend away to somewhere like Paris.

So 12 flights a year is still pretty restrictive and would certainly make people think twice about what flights they really need. But it's also a sensible and (just about) workable number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back