Climate change and anti-airport expansion protest at Heathrow - are you with the protesters or BAA?

[Callisto]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6943549.stm

Oh star, I'm iimpressed. But does this parent really think their will ne oil in 20 years?

But, I do agree that long term supply is an issue.

I do support some initiatives, just not tax for sake of tax when you aren't going to spend the revenue on a green cause.

I support nuclear power.
I am happy to stick my recyclables into a recyle bin.
I support public transport and am quite happy to ride it myself -- if only it wasn't so expensive and unreliable.

I don't really fly alot. I can't afford swish holidays in the sun. But, I do think it is small effort so that government can go round tooting their green horn and an excuse to take more money from the taxpayer.

Where did CD go? I thought we were going to have a punch up, just like the good old days.

it's not just flightpaths - it's also just general congestion.

I really do not see why London should make one of its key industries a very noisy, unenvironmentally friendly and ugly airport hub for people from Illinois who need to travel to Dusseldorf...

If we're going to subsidise industries (which we seem to be doing here:

a)by not taxing airline fuel and
b)by not pricing in the cost to individuals of flight path noise, traffic congestion etc when doing a cost benefit analysis on the airport)

then there are better industries to subsidise than this one. It's not even British owned so you can't even argue the profits accrue to UK PLC.

I wonder how many of the protestors have flown in the past? I wonder what energy source they will be using to cook their food? How many of them of them wear clothing manufactured from man-made fibres that originate from by-products of oil production? In fact, how did many of the protestors travel to the camp-site with all their camping gear? Walk? Cycle? Mmmm, thought not.

As you can see, I do not support this protest because I think it is just an opportunity for a bunch of skivers along with the requisite NIMBYS and BANANAs to make a lot of noise without offering economical solutions.

IMO, the solutions to pollution caused by air travel, car travel etc will actually come scientists working in conjunction with those industries, not from a bunch of rabble rousers who offer no workable alternatives themselves.

speedymama you can't expect people who oppose the expansion of Heathrow to have never used fossil fuels. The point is we are now at a tipping point in terms of global warming, most scientists now agree we are now in a naturally warm phase but we are about to tip over the top into catastrophic change because of additional man made global warming. So now we have to start drastically reducing our consumption, not expanding for short term profit. Our children and grandchildren will look back and look at our decisions as incredibly selfish and short sighted.

Slightly off-topic here but I'm looking at getting to Scotland in Nov and the train prices are £83 return (must have missed the early cheap prices ). I can fly (and cause more damage to the environment) for just under half that amount.

Something is wrong somewhere when that's the case. I'm quite happy to sit on a train for 4.5 hours - good chance to catch up on my reading - but why should I pay more than the person 15,000ft above me for a similar journey? .

Spedymama - "IMO, the solutions to pollution caused by air travel, car travel etc will actually come scientists working in conjunction with those industries" is an excuse to do nothing and a very poor one at that.

Eleusis - "Well, I personally can't afford to pay for everyone else's behaviour" Nor can I but it doesn't stop me changing my own behaviour and trying to make my own impact on the earth as small as possible. This includes not buying shite just because it is there and cheap, buying second-hand, thinking about my energy usage and nagging my DP about not leaving the TV on standby (I am starting to see results here finally ).

bookwormtailmum, couldn't agree more. It makes me spit with fury that trains are so much more expensive/always delayed/generally crap ... It turns being environmentally friendly into a wealth issue - I can "afford" the "luxury" of taking the train, while many others cannot. We could substantially reduce the amount of domestic air traffic (and the UK is teeny - there's really no need for anyone to fly at all, except in emergencies) by improving trains and subsidising prices.

I did not say that we should sit back and do nothing. DH and I recycle everything we can, we have only one car, use energy saving bulbs, never leave electrical goods on standby etc. My point is that many of these people protesting actually offer no real solutions that will make the likes of the aerospace and oil industry sit up and take note. If they are protesting to raise awareness, they are preaching to the converted and this has been done so many times before anyway. I just think sitting in a field is not a productive way of achieving change.

My personal view is that we should be reducing our consumption of natural resources to ensure that the world's progeny have a sustainable future. Also, I don't subscribe to the hysterical view that mankind is doomed because of climate change because since ancient times, animal and plant life have adapted to the changing climate on earth.

I can fly (and cause more damage to the environment) for just under half that amount.

I think the fact that aviation fuel is tax free is a large factor. There really is not a level playing field here - so market forces can't work properly.

I did not say that we should sit back and do nothing. DH and I recycle everything we can, we have only one car, use energy saving bulbs, never leave electrical goods on standby

All these virtuous actions are pretty irrelevant if you also fly around the world on holidays.

because since ancient times, animal and plant life have adapted to the changing climate on earth

true - although the problem is the potential rate of change from current global warming is very much faster than most previous change (apart from those times when you had catastrophic climate change resulting in mass extinction).

I don't want to fly to Scotland - I'm planning on going by train if I can - but it seems inequitable that one method of transport pays more, much more than another when one is virtually unnecessary when you think about it. Unless you book trains the second they release tickets, it's an expensive way to travel. Sadly.

FWIW, when I do go abroad which isn't very often, we use public transport to get around - buses, trains, coaches and so ona and mostly it knocks spots off public transport in the UK. On time, clean and with helpful staff. More than you can say for this country....

Throckenholt, we have holidayed in the UK for the last 4 years (one week in holiday parks). Last time I caught a plane was in 2003.

I'm not against air travel but I do feel uneasy about it being used like a bus service because of the consumption of resources that entails.

great idea that we may be able to adapt, but also a bit head in the sand about thinking we can just go on and will be able to adapt to anything climate change throws at us. It is not like we are going to suddenly sprout wings or twenty feet wading legs is it. there is nothing manic or hysterical about insisting we tackle our causes of climate change now, we have been dithering and making excuses for so long time is really running out. It is about not putting one's head in the sand i think, not about hysterical scaremongering, though of course the real blame lies with governments.

Ruty, in the 1980s as part of my chemistry degree, I worked with an oil company who were investing a lot of money into making their fuel cleaner in terms of emissions. That was in the 1980s, long before the global warming debate became more mainstream. BP have recently announce that it plans to invest $500m into bioscience research centre at UC Berkeley. I do not have my head in the sand. I'm a realist and pragmatic, something which many of those protestors at Heathrow are not.

My limited experience tells me that there is a lot of work going on to address the concerns that we have regarding sustainability and climate change but moving forward in terms of technology development, which is the rate determining step in all of this, takes time.

In the meantime, the little steps we all take like recycling etc make a difference.

but i think speedymama it is taking much more time than it should and could, because of the short term profits to be made from the way things are now. Expansion at Heathrow, in our current situation, is a decision made for short term profit, in spite of all we know about our environment and what we are doing to it. I can't tell you if we'll find solutions in time. I am very worried about how our children and grandchildren will look back and perceive us, and the legacy we are handing on to them because of our [IMO] short sightedness. Not a criticism of you, just the general lethargy of people and govts.

i'm with BAA. i'm not saying that expanding the airport is a good thing or that there aren't environmental issues, BUT....i think the protesters are going the wrong way about it. with the current terrorism threat, disrupting the airport and diverting police and security from terroism prevention is irresponsible.

I think the protestors are entitled to make their point in any [reasonable] ways they see fit. As long as they don't invade the runways or put people's lives at risk in other ways, then I'm all for them. It really is time for a dialogue on climate change and people's expectations on managing it. Mind the petrol protestors seem to have changed nowt seven years down the line..... .

Admittedly discussing fuel price protesters and BAA anti-expansionists in the same are two different things.... but they are both cvil protests so to speak. Where's Swampy when you need him?

eulesis ffs CERA work for oil and gas companies!!! pmsl that we need to educate ourselves re peak oil production on their website.

am with the protesters. it is already working isn't it: we're debating it on here.

try this for a little education on what a pile of old gubbins CERA talk.

eulesis, yes, my parent does think peak oil is around the corner. For some reason the gene that finds the energy industry fascinating has bypassed me and when we see my parents (which isn't that often) they spend their time playing with their gdcs - we don't talk about it much. However, I know they went to a meeting where the producers spoke of having supply for 15 yrs after which 'science will have come up with a replacement'. I know that they are esp. concerned atm by the proposal that deforestation followed by the growing of biofuels is the answer - obv. b/c this will accelerate global warming.

It's worth remembering that not engaging with oil companies (for example) is pointless. What is important is that as many people with an ethical approach work in these industries to act as a check to those who are only there for corporate greed.

I don't support blanket tax rises on fuel, but I do think aviation should be taxed at a rate that brings it into line with car use. We can take two flights to Europe for the cost of a tank of petrol for our car. We do have a gas-guzzling 4x4 but we would get stuck in our village sometimes if we didn't, and a tough car here is essential - we get one bus three times a week, which goes after rush hour and comes back at lunch time. So I do agree there is no point taxing cars off the road when there is no viable alternative.

We also need to forget about saving the planet. The planet will be just fine. It's humanity we are trying to save.

I ROFL earlier today when I heard BAA's spokesman telling the Beeb he was concerned about disruption to passengers. Anyone who has used Heathrow in the past year will know exactly how little BAA cares for passengers - if they gave a toss about us mere little people, Heathrow wouldn't be so hellish.

Before trying to blame the protesters for potential disruption, they should try putting their own house in order. Perhaps employing more staff to reduce queues, or making more space by concentrating on actually running an airport rather than turning it into a shopping mall?

None of the rights we take forgranted today would have been gained without ordinary people protesting.

Yes, I think the threat to the right to protest is the scariest thing about this whole episode.