Whilst the mayor of London is busy pushing through his increased congestion charge for the highest polluting vehicles and we are continually urged to do our bit, airport expansion plans continue to gather pace. We have terminal 5 at Heathrow (which reports already say will not be big enough to handle the expected passenger traffic) and plans to build a 3rd runway. There are plans for a 2nd runway at Stanstead and there are now initial talks of a 2nd runway at Gatwick. There are proposals for a new 3 km runway at Luton to cater for a 3x increase in passengers over the next 10 years and also plans to develop Birmingham International.
Can someone please explain to me what this government's environment policy is, as I'm at a total loss to understand it
.
I am not sure, but I think that all these new runways are just canceling out the lessened pollution from the Congestion charges.
Wow that's one big can o' worms.
I like expressions like "not big enough to handle the expected passenger traffic". What they actually mean is "if it was even bigger they could still fill the flights". What would happen if no terminal was built - hmmm we'd just have to make the most of what we have - there would be the same number of flights and we'd all still be able to fly but not so often. This increase demand would push the prices up.
I am last to rush to support of the Government but ultimately it is us, the public who are demanding to fly more and more and it is our resource hungry and unsustainable lifestyles that is the real cause. Governments tend to pay lip service to environmental policy, even at a time when it is most in the public eye. I don't have a particular problem with congestion charging (I don't live in London anymore either!)but this is a typical smokescreen (excuse the pun).
The terminal will be built, the increased flights will happen and money will pour into government and business coffers.
It reminds me of a famous Cree Indian saying:
"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize we cannot eat money"
I had great hope for the plane that ran on bio-fuel (at least partly) the other week, but apparently that was more a gimmick than anything else.
There doesn't seem to be any sort of consistent message. It seems to be all about making money, and if global warming can be used as an excuse for charging people, then all the better.
The queen opened the new terminal today I believe, it is terrible shame and I dread to think of the pollution from it, including noise pollution. I know I wouldn't be happy to have a whole new terminal near my house even if I did know there was a chance of it happening when I bought it.
terminal is an appropriate word
It's the usual political rethoric. The government wants to be seen to do something but all it's interested in is to fill the coffers. If the government is really commited to cut CO2 emissions, it will have to enforce some unfavourable decisions and ofcourse that mean they might loose votes at the next election hence the reason they will not commit to anything.
As some of you said before it's up to us the individual to make the decision not to use air travel and cut the demand for airports. It's very frustrating!!!
As some of you said before it's up to us the individual to make the decision not to use air travel and cut the demand for airports. It's very frustrating!!!
I suppose that therin lies the problem. It seems that this government will only act when they believe that they are in danger of losing out on their 'gravy train' existance. You just have to see how our MPs are fleecing the tax payer to line their own pockets to realise where their interests lie.
I wish that it were possible that people would take the lead on this but, unfortunately, I don't believe that will happen. The one thing that successive governments has instilled is an 'I'm alright, Jack' mentality. So long as people can get their cheap flights and cheap food from the other side of the world they are happy to leave it to someone else to worry about the impact upon the environment. Just look at the appallingly low recycling rates in this country (even when it is collected from the doorstep!).
Tough times require tough decisions to be taken by strong leaders. Unfortunately, I don't see too many of those stepping forward.
There is no consistent message. People want to fly, government wants people to fly if they want to, industry puts pressure on for more airport capacity so shareholders benefit and the planet (all of us) loses out.
I think the real problem is that commercial interests are always going to win out whichever government we have unless and until we find someway of putting some sort of economic value on countryside and wildlife. Not just in terms of tourism but in terms of measuring their value against all the other cost benefit analyses out there. And I have no clue how to do that. Any ideas anyone?
And now BMI are claimed to have said that they will use "ghost flights" to keep their slots at Heathrow open...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7509732.stm
Although in the article the PM is quoted as saying that is unacceptable and he will look into it...
If they do do this they should be fined massively....