Fantastic news - climate-wrecking plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport have been axed!
The new Cameron/Clegg government has confirmed that it will not only scrap the third runway at Heathrow, but also refuse additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted. So all our campaigning has finally won out - and a huge thank you is due to everyone who's written to their MP or taken part in one of the many protests demanding that the plan be shelved.
@GreenpeaceUK I'm not sure it's wise for Greenpeace to have 'winning' as its aim. Important issues such as these are not about one group or another winning, it is about society gaining.
charlieiscool1000 Please feel free to make your point as passionately as you like, but without resorting to offensive langueage or abuse, other wise your post will be deleted
Thanks, but this is not a qiz. I don't want just a one word answer - I want an explanation as well. In the year since I posed this question I haven't received and explanation from anyone on the Greenpeace channel. I look forward to yours however.
@Insanindemembrane Sorry no one answered your "suppose you could drive to Japan etc" question. It didn't really make any sense, seeing that it's an impossible supposition, but in any case as Tashdragon pointed out, the plane is still more polluting. But to get from here to Japan the obvious option is to fly.
75% of the traffic the 3rd runway will handle will be short-haul flights - Newcastle, Edinburgh, Paris, Manchester - places easily accessible via rail at a fraction of the carbon cost.
R3 would just be the first in a series of airport expansions intended to drastically incease UK air traffic (and, per head, we British already fly more than any other nation), which would make it impossible to meet our national target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050.
Plus it won't solve current airport congestion problems. Remember that the road-building programmes of the last 40 years have massively increased traffic on the roads, and the end result has been even worse congestion.
@GreenpeaceUK Basically its like this. I book about two return flights a year. I don't who you are at the other end of cyberspace or how often you fly, but I'm willing to bet its more than me. And you have the cheek to lecture me. Get a real job.
@GreenpeaceUK In some cases, per person, cars are more polluting over long distances. For example, The Boeing 767 flying to New York would (per 4 people) use half the amount of fuel as a 4 seat car.
Nothing personal against Zac Goldsmith but does he pay tax yet ? Apparently 60,000 jobs may ride on the 3rd runway, I live in Hounslow and am all for building it, I haven't a family trust fund or the option of working or not. As I said, nothing personal
I would not like to live near a noisy airport, and might feel grateful for the help of environmentalists.
However, Anthropogenic global warming is clearly an invention of some political genuis' along the lines of 9-11. It's not real but can be used to threaten people.
Climate Change is not a crisis. It just changes all the time.
Plus, HAARP technology is probably responsible for many freaky weather events.
A question for Greenpeace. Supposing one could drive from the 6000 miles from Europe to Japan. What would be more detrimental to the environment - one Boeing 747 plane carrying 500 people, or say 250 cars each carrying 2 people? Bear in mind also that this 6000 mile journey would take one 10 hours and the other 12 days.
Not a very scientific response I'm afraid Walesisfat. You haven't convinced me. I was hoping the person replying might at least give me an honest evaluation of the CO2 emissions caused by a car after travelling say, ten miles, and compare them to a plane travelling the same distance. Then I can go and do my own maths.
Thanks, but this isn't a quiz. I don't want a one word answer. I want an explanation too. And in over a year since I posted this question on the Greenpeace website I haven't got one. However I look forward to yours.
Thanks texaspete, I'm delighted you think so. In short, I resent ego-driven hypocrites who look down on every else for something that they are equally responsible for. They can dress it up all they want but this is how their campaign appears to the larger public - one consisting of those who like to belong to a cause rather than genuinely believe in it!
Among the star-studded coalition who purchased land in order to thwart the expansion of Heathrow are Emma Thompson, Alistair McGowan and some influential politicians. All are high profile people whom I can only assume rely on aviation as a mode of transport very regularly on an island nation like Britain; much more regularly than the ordinary Joe like many of us. This begs the question, why is it ok for the rich but idealistic to fly when they please but not the rest of us?
Please remember this is not about stopping flying, it's about cutting down the speed at which aviation is expanding (which is largely to do with the enormous subsidies and tax-breaks given to the airline industry).We have to start paying the true cost of air travel. If we have limitless air expansion we have no chance of cutting our national CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 as we are pledged to do. This is not a class issue - it's an issue of "can we adapt in time to survive what's coming."
So how do you intend cutting down the speed at which aviation is expanding regarding the demand for aviation by the high-profile figures you have on board?Are you going to ask Emma Thompson to get the ferry next time she's filming in the USA? You stated that the expansion is LARGELY to do with subsidies and tax-breaks given to the airline industry.This is typically disinforming.The expansion is LARGELY to do with an increasing demand and one which, unless you refuse to fly, you are part of.
"The expansion is LARGELY to do with an increasing demand" ??? Do you think demand is unrelated to cost? Obviously not - if something's cheap why not buy 10 of it? And why is it so cheap - because it's heavily subsidised to the point of unfair competition.
Once more for the hard of hearing - it's not about stopping flying, just limiting expansion by making flyers pay the true cost.
& I intend to cut down the speed at which aviation is expanding by opposing the 3rd runway, for starters.
To revert to your famous "it's not about stopping flying argument", where did I say in any of my texts that G.peace wanted to stop flying? I was talking about their impeding the expansion of Heathrow. And the bottom line is that you/your organisation can parrot as much disinformation as you want but as long as ye continue to fly yourselves you will NEVER have any credibility in the eyes of the larger public. Just be seen as those who like to belong to a cause rather than genuinely believe in it!
"why is it ok for the rich but idealistic to fly when they please but not the rest of us? " - your words, not mine.
"bottom line is that you/your organisation can parrot as much disinformation as you want but as long as ye continue to fly yourselves you will NEVER have any credibility in the eyes of the larger public."
Sorry but(no pun intended) that's just Plane Stupid. This is not about stopping flying altogether, it's about only doing it when necessary - and I'd be interested to know...
...what part of what I've been saying you characterise as disinformation (the government's own figures?). Most of GP's figures are taken from Freedom of Information requests to BA, BAA and government from what I can make out...
Thanks for taking the burden off the general public of having to decide for themselves about this, by the way - nice of you to tell them how they they feel. The truth is that those who oppose Heathrow expansion have shed loads of support - much of it from...
unexpected quarters like Daily Mail and Telegraph readers - pretty much everyone who truly understands the argument and the difficult position we all find ourselves in. Not you, obviously, but we live in hope...
Fantastic news - climate-wrecking plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport have been axed!
The new Cameron/Clegg government has confirmed that it will not only scrap the third runway at Heathrow, but also refuse additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted. So all our campaigning has finally won out - and a huge thank you is due to everyone who's written to their MP or taken part in one of the many protests demanding that the plan be shelved.
We won!
GreenpeaceUK 1 year ago
@GreenpeaceUK I'm not sure it's wise for Greenpeace to have 'winning' as its aim. Important issues such as these are not about one group or another winning, it is about society gaining.
kitt998 9 months ago
charlieiscool1000 Please feel free to make your point as passionately as you like, but without resorting to offensive langueage or abuse, other wise your post will be deleted
GreenpeaceUK 1 year ago
To Tashadragon
Thanks, but this is not a qiz. I don't want just a one word answer - I want an explanation as well. In the year since I posed this question I haven't received and explanation from anyone on the Greenpeace channel. I look forward to yours however.
Insanindemembrane 1 year ago
@Insanindemembrane Sorry no one answered your "suppose you could drive to Japan etc" question. It didn't really make any sense, seeing that it's an impossible supposition, but in any case as Tashdragon pointed out, the plane is still more polluting. But to get from here to Japan the obvious option is to fly.
75% of the traffic the 3rd runway will handle will be short-haul flights - Newcastle, Edinburgh, Paris, Manchester - places easily accessible via rail at a fraction of the carbon cost.
GreenpeaceUK 1 year ago
R3 would just be the first in a series of airport expansions intended to drastically incease UK air traffic (and, per head, we British already fly more than any other nation), which would make it impossible to meet our national target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050.
Plus it won't solve current airport congestion problems. Remember that the road-building programmes of the last 40 years have massively increased traffic on the roads, and the end result has been even worse congestion.
GreenpeaceUK 1 year ago
@GreenpeaceUK Basically its like this. I book about two return flights a year. I don't who you are at the other end of cyberspace or how often you fly, but I'm willing to bet its more than me. And you have the cheek to lecture me. Get a real job.
Insanindemembrane 1 year ago
@GreenpeaceUK In some cases, per person, cars are more polluting over long distances. For example, The Boeing 767 flying to New York would (per 4 people) use half the amount of fuel as a 4 seat car.
Airbus294 1 year ago
Nothing personal against Zac Goldsmith but does he pay tax yet ? Apparently 60,000 jobs may ride on the 3rd runway, I live in Hounslow and am all for building it, I haven't a family trust fund or the option of working or not. As I said, nothing personal
dragonattack01 2 years ago
tricky call -
I would not like to live near a noisy airport, and might feel grateful for the help of environmentalists.
However, Anthropogenic global warming is clearly an invention of some political genuis' along the lines of 9-11. It's not real but can be used to threaten people.
Climate Change is not a crisis. It just changes all the time.
Plus, HAARP technology is probably responsible for many freaky weather events.
ttimothymurphy 2 years ago
There has already been a substantial drop in the numbers of flights booked in the UK. The argument for a third runway is ridiculous.
mixmatosis 3 years ago 2
Yes indeedy. 4.2 Million fewer passengers flew from UK airports in 2008 (3.4 million fewer from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted alone)...
GreenpeaceUK 3 years ago
A question for Greenpeace. Supposing one could drive from the 6000 miles from Europe to Japan. What would be more detrimental to the environment - one Boeing 747 plane carrying 500 people, or say 250 cars each carrying 2 people? Bear in mind also that this 6000 mile journey would take one 10 hours and the other 12 days.
Insanindemembrane 3 years ago
Comment removed
WalesIsFat 3 years ago
to Insanindemembrane...
Mate, that would actually be better CO2 wise than flying, unless they were all in landy discos.
WalesIsFat 3 years ago
Not a very scientific response I'm afraid Walesisfat. You haven't convinced me. I was hoping the person replying might at least give me an honest evaluation of the CO2 emissions caused by a car after travelling say, ten miles, and compare them to a plane travelling the same distance. Then I can go and do my own maths.
Insanindemembrane 3 years ago
I'm not from GreenPeace, but funnily enough I was shocked a while back when looking up a similar question. The answer? The plane.
Tashadragon 1 year ago
Thanks, but this isn't a quiz. I don't want a one word answer. I want an explanation too. And in over a year since I posted this question on the Greenpeace website I haven't got one. However I look forward to yours.
Insanindemembrane 1 year ago
@Tashadragon
Insanindemembrane 1 year ago
Insanindemembrane - good call pal ,at last someone with something valid and constructive to say on this.
texaspete66 3 years ago
Thanks texaspete, I'm delighted you think so. In short, I resent ego-driven hypocrites who look down on every else for something that they are equally responsible for. They can dress it up all they want but this is how their campaign appears to the larger public - one consisting of those who like to belong to a cause rather than genuinely believe in it!
Insanindemembrane 3 years ago
Among the star-studded coalition who purchased land in order to thwart the expansion of Heathrow are Emma Thompson, Alistair McGowan and some influential politicians. All are high profile people whom I can only assume rely on aviation as a mode of transport very regularly on an island nation like Britain; much more regularly than the ordinary Joe like many of us. This begs the question, why is it ok for the rich but idealistic to fly when they please but not the rest of us?
Insanindemembrane 3 years ago
Please remember this is not about stopping flying, it's about cutting down the speed at which aviation is expanding (which is largely to do with the enormous subsidies and tax-breaks given to the airline industry).We have to start paying the true cost of air travel. If we have limitless air expansion we have no chance of cutting our national CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 as we are pledged to do. This is not a class issue - it's an issue of "can we adapt in time to survive what's coming."
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
So how do you intend cutting down the speed at which aviation is expanding regarding the demand for aviation by the high-profile figures you have on board?Are you going to ask Emma Thompson to get the ferry next time she's filming in the USA? You stated that the expansion is LARGELY to do with subsidies and tax-breaks given to the airline industry.This is typically disinforming.The expansion is LARGELY to do with an increasing demand and one which, unless you refuse to fly, you are part of.
Insanindemembrane 3 years ago
"The expansion is LARGELY to do with an increasing demand" ??? Do you think demand is unrelated to cost? Obviously not - if something's cheap why not buy 10 of it? And why is it so cheap - because it's heavily subsidised to the point of unfair competition.
Once more for the hard of hearing - it's not about stopping flying, just limiting expansion by making flyers pay the true cost.
& I intend to cut down the speed at which aviation is expanding by opposing the 3rd runway, for starters.
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
To revert to your famous "it's not about stopping flying argument", where did I say in any of my texts that G.peace wanted to stop flying? I was talking about their impeding the expansion of Heathrow. And the bottom line is that you/your organisation can parrot as much disinformation as you want but as long as ye continue to fly yourselves you will NEVER have any credibility in the eyes of the larger public. Just be seen as those who like to belong to a cause rather than genuinely believe in it!
Insanindemembrane 3 years ago
"why is it ok for the rich but idealistic to fly when they please but not the rest of us? " - your words, not mine.
"bottom line is that you/your organisation can parrot as much disinformation as you want but as long as ye continue to fly yourselves you will NEVER have any credibility in the eyes of the larger public."
Sorry but(no pun intended) that's just Plane Stupid. This is not about stopping flying altogether, it's about only doing it when necessary - and I'd be interested to know...
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
...what part of what I've been saying you characterise as disinformation (the government's own figures?). Most of GP's figures are taken from Freedom of Information requests to BA, BAA and government from what I can make out...
Thanks for taking the burden off the general public of having to decide for themselves about this, by the way - nice of you to tell them how they they feel. The truth is that those who oppose Heathrow expansion have shed loads of support - much of it from...
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
unexpected quarters like Daily Mail and Telegraph readers - pretty much everyone who truly understands the argument and the difficult position we all find ourselves in. Not you, obviously, but we live in hope...
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
This muppet is entitled to his hypocritical opinions but he has no right at all to say what anyone else should or should not be feeling.
texaspete66 3 years ago
Go On Zac!
I hope this guy gets in at the next election and quickly rises.
TJis16 3 years ago
Keep up the good work!
zk0 3 years ago 2