We know so much more now about the devastating consequences of air travel on the environment than we did when the Air Transport White Paper was produced in 2003.
Any responsible, forward looking Government would surely put a stop to airport expansion immediately.
Airport expansion is the main problem here and it is simply not needed - there is an endemic oversupply of flights in the UK - why do we need 15-20 flights per day from London to most major European destinations??? Reducing number of flights would have minimal impact on business but have major positive impact on global warming. The only beneficiaries to airport expansion are airport owners and their counterparts in goverment.
As a pilot I could easily tell you those flight would not be leaving unless, 1.) they were 90% full, and 2.) they were needed. If each person were to drive a car to the same destination they flew to, they would put nearly 3 times the carbon in the atmosphere than if they just stayed on the airplane.
I have been on flights that were half full we were even asked not to use certain seats to ensure even weight distribution!! This oversupply of flights is not needed. Flight numbers could be halved without affecting global economies. Your comment about driving is only true if you assume very high emmision cars. If everyone used medium-low emmision cars or trains the net effect would be a reduction in carbon. I guess as a pilot you have a vested interest in saving your job and not the planet!
Well, not everybody drives a Trabant, as would have to be the case in your scenario. And, I fail to believe your story of a half full flight. If it happened, it only happened on one or two ocassions. The flight would be cut or cumed with another as this would be a money losing flight and with the global economy the way it is, NO airline is in a position to be doing this.
Within the next 10 years most people will be driving new technology vehicles with emmisions lower than a Trabant! I'm glad you agree that the oversupply of flights in the EU means that flights could be cut without detriment. Instead of 500+ low capacity flights that currently fly PER DAY from London to EU - why not replace these with 50 high capacity flights and if they're full take the Euro star! Apply that strategy and we'd need LESS not MORE runways and save the planet while we're at it!
50 years lol not really. Most of the world cannot afford these new technology vehicles as they are leaps and bounds expensive. A major concern right now is having the average person useless or make certain changes to emit less carbon. Like changing the light bulbs to energy efficient ones, or having production of foods that prove to be in excess cut. And engine improvements to commercial vehicles like airlines, trucks and ships. Simple changes are easier to do than major ones. It will take time.
It really is time we stopped putting money and convenience above the planet and our children's future. We do not need more aeroplanes in the sky, we need affordable train travel.
Why are we expanding Stansted airport? Are these images not proof enough that we are destroying our planet? Do we really need another runway and more planes? Can someone please wake up the Governments of the world and remind them what is happening?
We are expanding Stansted airport because, as individuals, we were too lazy to tell our representatives in Westminster the importance to us - their political masters - of preventing it. Meanwhile, corrupt quangos such as BAA have been very diligent at lobbying to convince parliament that, as a nation, we WANT cheap, subsidised flights - and the cheap, subsidised jobs that go with them. If you want that to change, you HAVE to lobby your MP with determination. Otherwise, they will only hear BAA.
Why are we expanding Stansted airport? Are these images not proof enough that we are destroying our planet? Do we really need another runway and more planes? Can someone please wake up the Governments of the world and remind them what is happening?
This video clip is an excellent commentary on how actions in the developed world can destroy habitats and the environment worldwide. Mr Ling is a super ambassador. Stansted Airport should NOT be expanded
Remember the song "We are the world, we are the people"? Well, we ARE the world, so let's get doing or there will be no world left, and then there will really be a financial crisis... money won't even buy us food!
It's so important that we realise that action we take or don't take in our countries has a major effect on others. The Inuit plight can be related directly back to expansion of airports in the UK and we need to make sure we don't continue down this crazy path.
We know so much more now about the devastating consequences of air travel on the environment than we did when the Air Transport White Paper was produced in 2003.
Any responsible, forward looking Government would surely put a stop to airport expansion immediately.
lucytoper 3 years ago
Airport expansion is the main problem here and it is simply not needed - there is an endemic oversupply of flights in the UK - why do we need 15-20 flights per day from London to most major European destinations??? Reducing number of flights would have minimal impact on business but have major positive impact on global warming. The only beneficiaries to airport expansion are airport owners and their counterparts in goverment.
pgmclean1 3 years ago
As a pilot I could easily tell you those flight would not be leaving unless, 1.) they were 90% full, and 2.) they were needed. If each person were to drive a car to the same destination they flew to, they would put nearly 3 times the carbon in the atmosphere than if they just stayed on the airplane.
XB70Playboy 2 years ago
I have been on flights that were half full we were even asked not to use certain seats to ensure even weight distribution!! This oversupply of flights is not needed. Flight numbers could be halved without affecting global economies. Your comment about driving is only true if you assume very high emmision cars. If everyone used medium-low emmision cars or trains the net effect would be a reduction in carbon. I guess as a pilot you have a vested interest in saving your job and not the planet!
pgmclean1 2 years ago
Well, not everybody drives a Trabant, as would have to be the case in your scenario. And, I fail to believe your story of a half full flight. If it happened, it only happened on one or two ocassions. The flight would be cut or cumed with another as this would be a money losing flight and with the global economy the way it is, NO airline is in a position to be doing this.
XB70Playboy 2 years ago
Within the next 10 years most people will be driving new technology vehicles with emmisions lower than a Trabant! I'm glad you agree that the oversupply of flights in the EU means that flights could be cut without detriment. Instead of 500+ low capacity flights that currently fly PER DAY from London to EU - why not replace these with 50 high capacity flights and if they're full take the Euro star! Apply that strategy and we'd need LESS not MORE runways and save the planet while we're at it!
pgmclean1 2 years ago
50 years lol not really. Most of the world cannot afford these new technology vehicles as they are leaps and bounds expensive. A major concern right now is having the average person useless or make certain changes to emit less carbon. Like changing the light bulbs to energy efficient ones, or having production of foods that prove to be in excess cut. And engine improvements to commercial vehicles like airlines, trucks and ships. Simple changes are easier to do than major ones. It will take time.
NameTaken1000 2 years ago
something that people fail to realize is that in the long term many of the things we can do to reduce our emission will also save us money
BigArdvarksLight 3 years ago
It really is time we stopped putting money and convenience above the planet and our children's future. We do not need more aeroplanes in the sky, we need affordable train travel.
verdi867 3 years ago
Why are we expanding Stansted airport? Are these images not proof enough that we are destroying our planet? Do we really need another runway and more planes? Can someone please wake up the Governments of the world and remind them what is happening?
msramacdonald 3 years ago
We are expanding Stansted airport because, as individuals, we were too lazy to tell our representatives in Westminster the importance to us - their political masters - of preventing it. Meanwhile, corrupt quangos such as BAA have been very diligent at lobbying to convince parliament that, as a nation, we WANT cheap, subsidised flights - and the cheap, subsidised jobs that go with them. If you want that to change, you HAVE to lobby your MP with determination. Otherwise, they will only hear BAA.
EricColvin 3 years ago
Why are we expanding Stansted airport? Are these images not proof enough that we are destroying our planet? Do we really need another runway and more planes? Can someone please wake up the Governments of the world and remind them what is happening?
msramacdonald 3 years ago
This video clip is an excellent commentary on how actions in the developed world can destroy habitats and the environment worldwide. Mr Ling is a super ambassador. Stansted Airport should NOT be expanded
DickShervington 3 years ago
I have a solar heater, its easy and saves me money! (and saves the planet)
ooogdigadig 3 years ago
Makes you think! Take action now: reduce your carbon footprint: at most one holiday a year that involves flying?
Trees4UK 3 years ago
AN excellent example of how little time we have.
62rosalind 3 years ago
Keep our earth blue!!!!
josefien195 3 years ago
act now.
Kikopuz 3 years ago
is geld dan echt de essentie van het leven?
floepertsje 3 years ago
Remember the song "We are the world, we are the people"? Well, we ARE the world, so let's get doing or there will be no world left, and then there will really be a financial crisis... money won't even buy us food!
ziripot2000 3 years ago
Well put
xanabennetts 3 years ago
Powerful message. The people impacted by global warming aren't heard enough.
juliettelucie 3 years ago
switch to renewable energy for your home. It is easy. Do it now.
worldforests 3 years ago
Saubere Energie fuer Alle !
anuraktaji 3 years ago
het is tijd dat mensen gaan inzien dat hun superioriteitsgevoel volkomen misplaatst is.
Slarfje 3 years ago
Build the train stations then close the airports.
inbuilt 3 years ago
Act now!
karinfluckiger 3 years ago
Meest besproken pagina vandaag; here we come.
Steven0voyager 3 years ago
Time to really do what has to be done. Time for Transition, look at Transition Towns!
Groet uit Netherlands,
RiekG 3 years ago
... and please don't all start flying out to greenland to watch the ice melt...
frankvanschaik 3 years ago
no time to waste, stop climate change
WitteKraai 3 years ago
be responsible!
metalheks 3 years ago
Wow...
LonglegSweetheart 3 years ago
we can do it with all of us!!!
It is 5 minutes past 12: ACT NOW!!!
ronaldpleij 3 years ago
Act now!
KaitoDo 3 years ago
And what to think of all the reef islands in the pacific, which are deemed to drown. Or my own country, Holland, or Bangladesh - ...?
klaploperfy 3 years ago
It's so important that we realise that action we take or don't take in our countries has a major effect on others. The Inuit plight can be related directly back to expansion of airports in the UK and we need to make sure we don't continue down this crazy path.
EdWoodland 3 years ago