This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Heathrow Protest
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Willo  South coast - west of Brighton. 27 Nov 15 9.22am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.13am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 26 Nov 2015 10.55pm
I would be mightily pissed off if I'd missed a flight but it's hard not to sympathise with the protesters at least a little bit. Whole villages destroyed, people losing homes they've lived in for decades. It is not particularly pleasant. That said we need to expand our capacity so someone somewhere is going to get the s*** end of the stick. They're environmental protestors, and air travel is a massive contributor to pollution / climate change and environmental damage, so arguably they may have a very reasonable cause (given the consequences and necessity to the future of the species' environment). I have read somewhere that the Global aviation industry is responsible for 2% of all human -induced CO2 emissions.Furthermore aviation is responsible for 12% of all CO2 emissions from all transport sources compared to 74% for road transport.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 27 Nov 15 9.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.13am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 26 Nov 2015 10.55pm
I would be mightily pissed off if I'd missed a flight but it's hard not to sympathise with the protesters at least a little bit. Whole villages destroyed, people losing homes they've lived in for decades. It is not particularly pleasant. That said we need to expand our capacity so someone somewhere is going to get the s*** end of the stick. They're environmental protestors, and air travel is a massive contributor to pollution / climate change and environmental damage, so arguably they may have a very reasonable cause (given the consequences and necessity to the future of the species' environment). Ah I see, couldn't open the link last night. In that case f***e'em soap dodging swampies
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 15 9.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.22am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.13am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 26 Nov 2015 10.55pm
I would be mightily pissed off if I'd missed a flight but it's hard not to sympathise with the protesters at least a little bit. Whole villages destroyed, people losing homes they've lived in for decades. It is not particularly pleasant. That said we need to expand our capacity so someone somewhere is going to get the s*** end of the stick. They're environmental protestors, and air travel is a massive contributor to pollution / climate change and environmental damage, so arguably they may have a very reasonable cause (given the consequences and necessity to the future of the species' environment). I have read somewhere that the Global aviation industry is responsible for 2% of all human -induced CO2 emissions.Furthermore aviation is responsible for 12% of all CO2 emissions from all transport sources compared to 74% for road transport. Given the number of flights to road transport, that's actually quite a high figure. But that probably doesn't include the environmental cost of materials either (such as extracting and manufacturing the fuel, maintaining the planes, airports and so on. In truth, we need to temper our 'profit drive' towards a reasonable compromise. I'm no eco-warrior or even in environmentalist, but whilst studying I came across an absurd fact. In 2007 the UK exported 35,000 tonnes of bottled water to Australia, an imported 30,000 tonnes of bottled water. I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 27 Nov 15 9.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am
I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities. I might wrong but I think that 80% of aviation CO2 emissions occur above a height of 1500 KM for which there is no practical alternative forms of transport.And modern aircraft are far more fuel efficient than those of yesteryear.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 27 Nov 15 10.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.15am
Quote matt_himself at 27 Nov 2015 7.43am
The fact is hat we need more runways for business. If we do not build them, hubs such as Barajas will become increasingly used by the likes of IAG instead of London. We do not have enough flights to China departing from London and this will slow developing business links between the UK and China. Of course those affected by the runway building need to be consulted and compensated fairly. There is a short term gain, for a long term impact - Environmentally increasing the span and number of flights represents an acceleration of environmental consequences. This aspect has never been addressed, the actual cost of environmental impact isn't factored in to the cost of air travel
I don't want us to miss out.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Percy of Peckham  Eton Mess 27 Nov 15 10.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Trouble with Heathrow and Gatwick expansions is that they will inevitably eat up populated land to meet demand. Surely, looking to the future it would have made perfect sense to build from scratch in an estuary where there's more scope to expand? They'll have to eventually in any case.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 27 Nov 15 10.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Percy of Peckham at 27 Nov 2015 10.33am
Trouble with Heathrow and Gatwick expansions is that they will inevitably eat up populated land to meet demand. Surely, looking to the future it would have made perfect sense to build from scratch in an estuary where there's more scope to expand? They'll have to eventually in any case. Clearly NOT according to the "Airport Commission" who spent 2 years on detailed analysis and technical information before producing the report containing the recommendation. I think the total cost for this project was £20 Mill.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 15 12.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 27 Nov 2015 10.02am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.15am
Quote matt_himself at 27 Nov 2015 7.43am
The fact is hat we need more runways for business. If we do not build them, hubs such as Barajas will become increasingly used by the likes of IAG instead of London. We do not have enough flights to China departing from London and this will slow developing business links between the UK and China. Of course those affected by the runway building need to be consulted and compensated fairly. There is a short term gain, for a long term impact - Environmentally increasing the span and number of flights represents an acceleration of environmental consequences. This aspect has never been addressed, the actual cost of environmental impact isn't factored in to the cost of air travel
I don't want us to miss out. I don't have kids, and probably only have a good 30 years in me, so I'm inclined on many levels to think why not, but overall, I'm kind of concerned for future generations, that they'll be f**ked.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 15 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.48am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am
I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities. I might wrong but I think that 80% of aviation CO2 emissions occur above a height of 1500 KM for which there is no practical alternative forms of transport.And modern aircraft are far more fuel efficient than those of yesteryear. They're still emissions though. What I'm saying is we need to factor in the necessity of air travel and usage over the convenience (and other forms of transport), not cut it out all together. Nor that air travel alone will be sufficient to resolve the problems. If its more emission effective to ship by plane, then we should prioritise towards airshiping over conventional transportation.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr Palaceman 27 Nov 15 12.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 27 Nov 2015 7.43am
The fact is hat we need more runways for business. If we do not build them, hubs such as Barajas will become increasingly used by the likes of IAG instead of London. We do not have enough flights to China departing from London and this will slow developing business links between the UK and China. Of course those affected by the runway building need to be consulted and compensated fairly. Business will always need more runways. Heathrow was for a long time the busiest airport in the world but still we need to expand for business. There's a limit. Gatwick could expand but there comes a point when enough is enough.
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 27 Nov 15 12.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 12.12pm
Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.48am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am
I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities. I might wrong but I think that 80% of aviation CO2 emissions occur above a height of 1500 KM for which there is no practical alternative forms of transport.And modern aircraft are far more fuel efficient than those of yesteryear. They're still emissions though. What I'm saying is we need to factor in the necessity of air travel and usage over the convenience (and other forms of transport), not cut it out all together. Nor that air travel alone will be sufficient to resolve the problems. If its more emission effective to ship by plane, then we should prioritise towards airshiping over conventional transportation. Some have said (and I paraphrase) sod the environment because of India and China using fossil fuels so what we do makes no difference.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 27 Nov 15 12.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.15am
Quote matt_himself at 27 Nov 2015 7.43am
The fact is hat we need more runways for business. If we do not build them, hubs such as Barajas will become increasingly used by the likes of IAG instead of London. We do not have enough flights to China departing from London and this will slow developing business links between the UK and China. Of course those affected by the runway building need to be consulted and compensated fairly. There is a short term gain, for a long term impact - Environmentally increasing the span and number of flights represents an acceleration of environmental consequences. This aspect has never been addressed, the actual cost of environmental impact isn't factored in to the cost of air travel How is a runway short term gain? Air travel is only going to increase as the global population does. Do it now or do it later when it'll be more expensive. 90% of international freight is done by shipping, airlines are used when speed is of the essence.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.