So are the runway invaders at Stansted eco nazis or are they just trying to save the world?

[jujumaman]

I think we all fly way too much and am growing increasingly cross about stag weekends/shopping weekends abroad being taken as a norm.

But I'm not sure this kind of direct action is going to do anything to endear the green movement to the public.

What do you think?

Excellent, so because they are slightly hypocritical, and a bit annoying, and may even have gone to public school, let's keep sticking our fingers in our ears and saying lalalalala shall we?

Yes, they are difficult issues. Fair trade produce from Kenya v local produce in the UK. etc.

But as Ormirian says, that's a bit different from feeling that it's a basic human right to have regular foreign holidays or a second home in Bulgaria or a hen party in Barcelona. Or, for some of us, a Terribly Useful Project Meeting on Something Socially Responsible in Lisbon.

'just wonder if once they're adults with their own children, they'll be jumping on planes like everyone else.'

Why would they? I am an adult with children and I don't fly and haven't done for years. It was an environmental choice for me.

Crikey.

...I hope that Ryanair's Michael O'Leary gets to read this thread.

It would seem that if this is a representative sample of UK opinion then hardly anyone flies anywhere ever.

(and if they do they beat themselves raw with a teatray, then plant a large sustainable orchard in penance)

The poor man will starve.

I am sure it would spark one of his incandescent (and barely coherent) rants on the Today programme about how unfair and nasty everyone is to poor old Ryanair. I like him. He is barmy, and makes no attempt to conceal the fact that he would willingly sell any number of Grandparents to make an extra Euro...

Unfortunately this is not a representative sample of the UK. Most people seem to think that flying as and when they please is fine and dandy, especially if they plant a couple of trees to say sorry (yes slebs, I'm talking about you, and you, and you ).

We have already seen that building new roads does not work to reduce traffic chaos and pollution (in fact it has the opposite effect) - so why the hell are we trying to expand airports at a time when we are supposed to be reducing carbon emissions drastically? Its madness.

least I get to avoid 'airport hell'
I take ds2 camping a few times a year. We don't go on holidays as a family and if we did we'd never fly.

'Holidays' are a bit of a concept to me too - whats wrong with camping part from the weather?

Do you really need to fly halfway round the world in order to relax for a week? Really?

ahhhhh retiredgoth, I normally love your posts, but in this case we part company. Michael O'Leary is, IMO, one of the most selfish, misguided, rotten people on the planet.

And as for Ed Miliband's speeches, have you ever heard him speak? He's damn good. Very inspiring. You might be mixing him up with David Miliband, who is dull as ditchwater, I'll give you that.

....I concur with your opinion of Michael O'Leary, Fresh hell.

It's the naked, boorish selfishness that amuses me. There is a degree of honesty in it at least...

Mind you, I wouldn't lend him a tenner...

(goes into reverie, trying to think of a collective noun for Millibands that does not include a 'Millibandwagon' reference...)

Yes, he is honest in his opinions, even if not in his business dealings! Far better than people who pay lip service to being right on and PC, and are actually selfserving grubby capitalists underneath....

Milibandwagon, Milibandstand, Milibandits?

Sillibillimillipedes.

Ed Milliband and inspiring do not belong in the same sentence.

Grrr-why does it matter that they were privately educated? What is the difference? Does it mean they are thick/heartless/not in touch with reality or something?
I must admit, after not having the £ for a holiday for 5 years, I flew twice from Stansted in the space of 3 weeks for work, and was excessively excited. However, I do also believe that expanding airports isn't going to help curb climate change, but demo's won't stop airport-based climate change. The only thing that would do that would be making flights extortionate, which won't happen. So we are going to have to put up with it-demo or no demo.

maybe daddy and mummy didn't give them the attention they needed at home.

...I think that is unfair, SE Astra.

this wholesome chap for example, is a beacon of happiness.

I am given to understand he hasn't been this happy since Nanny cut the crusts off of his fish paste sarnies.....

I find "eco nazi" a really odious and offensive term.

i like the comment at the bottom from john rg2:

On the whole I think it economically inactive groups who can do this.

I feel strongly about some issues, but I can't just miss work to go commit crimes and I can't afford to lose my job if I get a criminal record.

quite

What about the idea that these people, whilst 'economically inactive' are actually engaging in this protest (and others) for the greater good. Getting their hands dirty, as it were, in order to make this world a better, cleaner, safer, and ultimately more sane and stable place for our children, and their children's children, etc...

And I agree with Greensleeves that its an offensive and ridiculous term.

"And I agree with Greensleeves that its an offensive and ridiculous term. "

So do I.

Protests like that aren't going to get much sympathy from people. They are more likely to just annoy them.

Also I don't think illegal protests are the way to drum up support or interest, whether it's breaking onto a runway or trashing a 4x4.

Also if you choose to move near an airport or under a flightpath you choose to risk expansion.

But blondilocks UQD I lived near Stansted many years before there was a plan to make it Londons third airport (as an aside it should have been Luton) so why should I put up with airport expansion by your line of argument since a number of us were here first and we don't want it it shouldn't happen.

I would disagree with the assertion that those flying anywhere on Monday 9th December were taking their only flight of the year
I would also disagree with the fact that they were 'entitled' to it,

Good for the protestors I'm with Fennel,Quattro and Greeny (and the others) IMHO global warming is a real problem and we are long past peak oil

Blondilocks - this issue affects everyone though, not just those who live near airports! Global warming, increasing emissions, the profligate squandering of the earth's natural resources just so people can fly to a sunny beach for a week three times a year - its unsustainable.

We may not live near Stansted, but it still affects me, and you, and every other person on the planet now and in generations to come. We all have a responsibility here.

Planes are only a small part of global warming. Far better to have 200 people on one plane than 200 cars driving across Europe for example. Look at cars - I can count on one hand how many people I know (including myself) have cars with small engines. Also how many people leave electronics on standby? All of this counts towards global warming & are a LOT EASIER to counteract quickly so why not the big push on this as well? Plus what about all the scientific debate a while ago that said that plane's vapours were actually creating a layer which helped to block harmful rays from hitting the earth?

There are also many other harmful ways humans are impacting upon the planet - excess packaging? landfill? even farming - why not just protest against everything.

& the alternatives - boats aren't exactly environmentally friendly either.

Also I bet the "protesters" will be the first to complain if their online shopping / fruit/ veg / clothes /imported games consoles etc etc are unavailable due to fewer flights.

Anyway I still stand by the fact that NO illegal /dangerous protests are ever going to get my support.

& I'm still going on my annual (at minimum) holiday abroad.

Not sure that bickering about which forms of emissions are worse than others is going to get us very far.....we need an 80% reduction by 2050 AT LEAST, with at least a 20% reduction by 2020, and even that may not be enough, according to Dr James Hansen (leading NASA scientist and climatologist). So yammering on about packaging and landfills doesn't change the fact that ALL emissions need to be cut.

It's a huge challenge.

Or, of course, we could all just say that we're happy to combat global warming as long as we personally don't have to give up anything we enjoy, and merrily go to hell in a handbasket. Screw our children's future, eh.

Far better for people to come to terms with the fact they will have to make some personal sacrifices actually.

Far better for governments to pay more than lip service to reducing emissions, and to start making serious changes.

Far better for us to look at ways of making our nation less dependent on imported food.

Far better for us to do without everything new and shiny and to try and leave something for our children and their children.