Greenpeace trying hard to block London Heathrow expansion
London's Heathrow airport is already one of the largest and busiest airports in the world, but authorities are looking to expand. Of course, there is ample opposition to the airport's plan to add a third major runway, some of it coming from celebrities like Emma Thompson, who says, "I don't understand how any government remotely serious about committing to reversing climate change can even consider these ridiculous plans." Add Greenpeace to the list of expansion detractors. The eco-organization has purchased a plot of land that's directly in the way of the planned runway, and the environmentally-concerned entity has big plans for its latest purchase: to make it as difficult as possible for the government to take the land back, Greenpeace is dividing it into tiny chunks that will be sold off to anyone who feels like expansion is bad news.
With so much opposition, many are beginning to wonder if Parliament would even approve the airport expansion at all. Opponents suggest that the increase in carbon emissions would make it impossible for the UK to reduce its carbon footprint as planned.
[Source: Wired]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jharlan 5:53PM (1/15/2009)
No one talks much about how much greenhouse gas is generated by airliners. It has to be lots!
Reply
noz 5:57PM (1/15/2009)
It is HUGE. And going to biofuels is nonsense...the carbon neutral argument is balloni. Not to mention all the other noxous gases during combustion.
harlanx6 6:05PM (1/15/2009)
You notice the Ivy League educated, rich by inheiritance, know everything elitest do gooders never mention that! Maybe it's because they can afford to fly all over all the time and it makes more sense for them to raise taxes on the guy that has to burn gasoline in his car to get to work and back.
Stan Wellaway 6:06PM (1/15/2009)
It is a heck of a lot. Richard Branson of Virgin Airways made some sort of pledge a year or so ago to stop VA aircraft taxiing under their own power - and to be towed to the runway and back by electric towtrucks (those are already used of course, but nowhere near as extensively as they could be). Not only does this reduce (tokenly at least) the burning of aircraft fuel - but by omitting that taxiing fuel requirement, the aircraft's flying range can be extended. And on routes where greater distance is no use, the plane can instead consume less fuel in flight by not carrying the burden of the fuel usually need for taxiing at the destination.
At Heathrow, some of the freight is now shuttled back and forth in Smith Newton electric 9ton boxtrucks. And also using the smaller Smith Edison electric vehicles. See the Case Studies page at the Smith website http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com
I imagine that politicians favouring the Heathrow runway expansion will be making whatever green token gestures they can -- by at least promoting electric vehicles on the ground to help distract attention from the tons of pollutants spewing from planes in the air.
Reply
Mike Z 6:22PM (1/15/2009)
The rail system and air system in the UK are both deregulated private enterprises. Basically, long story short people fly because they find it better than taking the train.
More to the point:
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness."
--Mark Twain
Air travel is one of the best creations of man by enabling more people to travel, and any impact it may have is far out shadowed by it's benefits.
Reply
Ian 6:25PM (1/15/2009)
"it has to be lots!"
And here you have the extent of rational thought most green folks exhibit.
I suppose we could all travel by steamer. Or sail. But hey, stoke the fires of class-warfare. We all know only Ivy League trust fund losers fly, that's why most seats are coach, for all those rich people.
Heathrow is at capacity. The traffic will just move elsewhere and Greenpeace, being ineffective media-whores that they are will be stuck with some useless land. Way to go.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 7:07PM (1/15/2009)
Any subdivision of plots would have to be approved by the local authorities. Good luck getting that approved right now.
Reply
Matt 7:20PM (1/15/2009)
What a bunch of dicks! If they really wanted to save the planet they'd start in industrial China.
Reply
noz 2:38AM (1/16/2009)
Actually they could also start with you not buying so much crap from industrialized China.
Epyx 1:28PM (1/16/2009)
How could (they) Greenpeace start with with (you) Matt not buying so much stuff from China?
That makes absolutely no sense.
Matt 3:26PM (1/16/2009)
I'm a little confused about where this thread is going. The point I was trying to make (poorly, obviously) was that green peace could have a much larger impact on the environment if they put their efforts toward real polluters such as those in the newly industrialized areas of China where they have little or no regulation on emissions of factories. Instead, they chose to impede progress with a publicity stunt.
RPM 7:27PM (1/15/2009)
I think most are missing the point...If Heathrow is at capacity then how will the great Al Gore be able to land his private jet so he can allow the masses the honor of hearing his propaganda on how the earth has a fever...before flying off in a billowing cloud of toxic green house gasses?
Green Peace needs to look at the big picture...
Reply
Anton Wahlman 9:36PM (1/15/2009)
When I fly from London to NYC, I want the price of my ticket to be lower, and I want to be able to take off and land on time. Sitting on the runway waiting for a long time, with the engines on, is no way to save the environment. Also, the lost productivity and money wasted because of delays, could be used to help those people afford buying things such as new and more efficient cars instead. A 3rd runway at Heathrow is much overdue, and would greatly help the environment too. Greenpeace is foolish and anti-environmental to opposed this very rational move. Every time I see Greenpeace opposed these things, and nuclear power, I remind myself why I never give them a penny.
Reply
ambush 11:57PM (1/15/2009)
I agree, they could at least start with promoting APU's on all new aircraft or something.
why not the LS2LS7? 12:12AM (1/16/2009)
Every aircraft already has an APU. I don't think you understand what an APU is.
noz 2:40AM (1/16/2009)
He probably meant battery or fuel cell powered APUs.
Mark 4:56AM (1/16/2009)
The future of air travel is electric. There currently are small electric planes, but to have battery powered 737s is not an option at the moment. However I think we could resolve a lot of the problems by choosing bio-fuel if it is produced in a sustainable way. I see it as a step until electric is possible.
RPM, do you have anything to say or are you just here to attack Al Gore? Funny how people will attack the man but not supply their own idea on how to solve the problems of the world, there is a phrase for it; ad hominem, but I prefer coward.
Reply
Scatter 5:07AM (1/16/2009)
Ah what enlghtened comments!
Reply
Avinash machado 9:32AM (1/16/2009)
Maybe we should go back to gas filled Airships such as the Zeppelin dirigibles.
Reply
nick 6:17PM (1/17/2009)
Here in the Uk those of us against the runway believe that a new electric high speed railway would replace the need for short haul flights the way it has done in Europe. Indeed a massive station at Heathrow on a high speed line to Birmingham is included in the plans. All forms of transport pollute but electric railways pollute less than air or car travel. Oh and air and particularly rail transport is certainly not deregulated here nor is the railway network itself remotely private in any sense whatsoever.
The slots released could then be used by long haul flights which cause less pollution per passenger. And remember that the European high speed rail network stretches from london to cologne from east to west and from amsterdam - completed but not yet in service to Marseille. Many lines are or have been built in Spain and there are TGV lines to other areas of France as well as within Germany and Italy. Californians recently voted for a high speed line
Reply