this was not a good action. members of the public were pissed off, news media was poorly handled and the message did not get out

big big error all round

sorry to be so neg but timme for realism here

Just a quick message to say thanks for posting a news item on the Manchester page.
The last one was dated 27-06-2007!

Has anyone noticed that "climate change" has become the new "global warming"? And that aviation is singlehandedly going to be responsible for raining doom upon us, instead of, for example, the Chernobyl-type incidents or chlorofluorocarbons of years gone by? Aviation is merely an easy target, and campaigns such as Plane Stupid are really ignoring more important issues, and more relevant causes of potential climate change.

So, aircraft emissions account for 13% of the UK's carbon footprint. Looking at the bigger picture, which is what these campaigns fail to grasp, worldwide aviation contributes a whole 1% of the total carbon output. Shipping contributes double. Why don't you go and blockade Dover and Rotterdam? A fully loaded modern aircraft is not the fuel-guzzling beast it is portrayed, and per person-kilometre, is comparable with driving the same distance. Sure, a bus or train may be more efficient, but unless fully loaded, this would certainly not be the case.

Good point about shipping being a bigger issue world wide. That said in the UK Aviation is the biggest problem and Manchester Airport was chosen for a reason. Manchester is supposed to be a 'Green City' the council pride themselves on it. The activists are all Manchester folk, part of a grass roots movement called Manchester Climate action, hence the Manc remitt.
Manchester peoples taxes pay for the airport(MAG Plc.) which is heavily subsidised by us as well due to the fact that aviation fuel is not taxed. Thats a double hit.
Thanks for bringing up the shipping issue Im going to look into it. It was good to hear something constructive about this action.
'We must become the change we wish to see in society' Gandhi

your figures for aviation's contribution to global and UK emissions are grossly underestimated, based on out-of-date industry info. Old tactics.

But with this new line of sowing doubt through saying shipping is worse (that I have noticed here and on other internet forums), you sound just like an industry troll.

Really? Where do you get your figures, or do you just believe what you are told?

No chance of me spending my time doing research about where the true figures come from till at least you've done the same - you can't shit stir/throw your scepticism in without justifying yourself first - as I'll not be getting paid to do spend the time checking it out. I've got better things to do than come to this thread (ah the power of distraction, as I'm sure you know).

This won't raise awarness about aviation causing climate change. Causing disruption to ordinary people going about their buisness just will make people see these activists as trouble makers trying to tell people how to live their lives.

Anyway the climate camp protestors said they wern't about causing trouble for ordinary airport passengers and just about protesting against the airports themselves. Seems this goes against that as this protest is all about causing trouble for passengers.

Shipping is far more efficient in terms of CO2 output, and more importantly fulfills much more important human needs than aviation. That is indisputable. The growth of aviation, especially short haul aviation, is a provocative symbol and symptom of our society's decadent disregard for the planet.

The only criticism I have of this action, was that it couldn't be targeted more specifically at say, businessmen and other overly frequent/unnecessary flyers, instead of holiday-making working class people - who I think deserve gentle persuasion not to fly rather than direct action. But generally I think this sort of action is valid.

Maybe it wasn't meant to win friends - that's one part of what we need to do, and actions that unfortunately will likely piss some off are another.

They weren't ordinary people - they were people who were flying specifically to London or Glasgow from Manchester (check out the train times and prices if you need, to figure how daft and offensive this is). No "working class holiday-makers", if these people even exist as they do in many of your heads (see someone's comments here or another thread about working with such communities and aviation not being relevant).

Going about their business? Their business trashing the planet for future generations - I think it's my business too.

The climate camp this last year near Heathrow had specific conditions and parameters set - if you check out the aims of the camp, on the website, you'll find this doesn't go against it, but if people wanted to they could - it's not a party line and it's not the climate camp.

"Shipping is far more efficient in terms of CO2 output, and more importantly fulfills much more important human needs than aviation. That is indisputable"

more important needs such as?

- getting all the playstations to the west in time for christmas?

- millions of SUV's shipped

-tropical hardwoods shipped

-oil shipped

-sweatshop made clothes shipped

In fact, in a capitalist world we don't "need" 90% of the rubbish produced and consumed and a lot of it is shipped, add on the carbon footprint of all of those goods, on top of the shipping itself. and there is your problem.

Which is why many of us are saying aviation is the wrong target for climate activists.

The message is simple: if we want to stop climate change, we need to just STOP!

Here’s my five-point plan to save the planet from climate change:

A ban on all motorised transport

We must only travel using human-powered vehicles. It’s a small world - and it will feel like it when travelling more than 20 miles becomes impractical.


A ban on all petro-chemical, poison-spraying agriculture

All food should be locally grown and organic. Given that moving food any great distance without lorries will be extremely difficult, this will be a necessity anyway. Spreading insecticides and fertilisers to try to grow more stuff and to stop other creatures from eating it is simply unnatural. Let Gaia decide if we eat or not.


A ban on all space heating

In a properly insulated house, you should be able to keep warm just be eating, exercising and wrapping-up warm. So why do we need all those stupid, planet-scorching heaters? You will, of course, need heat for cooking. Lentils would be inedible otherwise, and that simply wouldn’t be practical.


Restrictions on health care

Hospitals, medicines, vaccinations all put a dreadful strain on the planet because they only encourage people to live longer than they would otherwise do if nature took its course. As a result, a number of important organisms have been all but wiped out; smallpox is a good example. The longer people hang around on this mortal coil, the more of them there are to feed, clothe, educate, transport. If we must have medical care, I would introduce a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ system.

The best way to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint is to have fewer footprints. Point 3 should really help with the old people, but we may need to consider enforced euthanasia at some point.


Reducing the number of children born

As I’ve noted before, having children is one of my biggest regrets, a selfish decision with negative consequences for the fragile web of life. I constantly remind my children that they are a terrible drain on the planet. Sometimes they cry. I think it’s good that they share Gaia’s pain.

Following on from point 4, I would only allow one child per couple - good idea, China! But I’d go further than the Chinese have. I would only permit some, carefully selected couples to have a child - which would be taken at an early age to be raised in special eco-villages where they would learn to be the protectors of the planet - the Green Guards (another idea I’ve borrowed, sort of, from China). Current efforts to indoctrinate our children at school by force-feeding them green propaganda are very worthy but they really don’t go far enough.
Ultimately, the world’s population must be reduced - by 5.9 billion. But the 100million left, devoid of cars, planes, heaters and fertilisers will be a much smaller burden on the planet. What a happy place it will be!