Skip to content or view screen version

Seven key reasons against a third runway at Heathrow

jimroland | 04.01.2008 12:49 | Climate Camp 2007 | Climate Chaos | London

A summary form of arguments that might just sway prominent people

Here is a summary form of arguments against a third runway at Heathrow that might just sway prominent people, in particular London MPs. If you have one, find out his or her views and if he or she is not yet against, ask his or her answers to the following.

SEVEN KEY REASONS AGAINST A THIRD RUNWAY AT HEATHROW

- A third runway would obliterate Sipson and most of Harmondsworth, both of which appear in Doomsday Book and lie on a Roman Road. 3,300-4,000 homes would need to be demolished, contrary to Consultation document's claims.  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387930.html

- 2.5 million likely to be adversely affected by noise - Govt. report. Heathrow's alignment with the prevailing wind to London means a disproportionate amount of noise will fall over the densely populated west half of London.  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382788.html?c=on#c182120

- 78% of London businesses OPPOSE it - LCC report 2006. Over 60% Heathrow traffic is leisure, NOT business. Most Britons don't support airport expansion, and want less short-haul flying from Heathrow.  http://www.hacan.org.uk/news/press_releases.php?id=209

- London's position as world financial capital does NOT depend on the number of runways at Heathrow - London is world financial capital because of its centrality in the time zone spread of developed nations, and the universality of English. Most financial business is done via electronic communications, not aircraft.

- UK's per capita CO2 emissions are well above the world average, UNLIKE China's. Now is no longer the time to be increasing them. 13% of UK climate-changing emissions are from aviation (Govt. answer, Hansard 2/5/2007) yet developed country emissions need to be cut by over 90%, as the Live Earth pledge noted.

- Emissions trading would not render unsustainable growth like from a third runway sustainable, since 1:1 emissions trading does not cut emissions, it merely moves them around. When the cheap opportunities to trade emissions are exhausted, the growth in emissions habits is harder to escape from.

- Air pollution in vicinity already often exceeds EU statutory limits which are progressively reducing. Incremental improvements in aircraft fleet and cars on the M4 will struggle to fulfil those, let alone with a third runway and the additional flights.

THE TIME TO CHANGE COURSE IS NOW

 http://www.notrag.org/
 http://www.hacan.org.uk/
 http://www.2mgroup.org.uk/
 http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/

jimroland
- Homepage: http://www.portal.campaigncc.org/node/1116

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

8th reason to oppose it.

04.01.2008 14:12

Opposing the Third Runway is an excuse to have fun. And don't us hippie new age protester types really enjoy nothing more than having fun. We will all have an awsome time down at the protest camp again. We will party like there is no tommorrow, laugh, joke, get drunk, get laid, meet up with old mates, reminise about old times like Newbury and Twford Down and basically have whale of a time and all for a good cause.

party going happy clappy protesting hippie


90% emissions cut: not enough

04.01.2008 16:36

If James Hansen is right we need over a 100% cut and need to start extracting it from the air -- he thinks 350ppm is the safe limit:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701942.html

Yet we are already at 385ppm:

 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Revenge of Gaia


Contrails and Aviationsmog

04.01.2008 16:40

Don't forget the effect of contrails on climate change, for example:

Aircraft contrails - the streams of water droplets and ice that form when hot exhaust meets cold, moist air - can persist for many hours, spreading to an average width of 2 kilometres before dispersing. They are known to contribute to global warming by trapping the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface (New Scientist, 19 October 2002, p 6).

 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025564.900.html

SkyWatcher
- Homepage: http://www.contrails.nl/


Contrails incorporated (partially)

05.01.2008 01:12

The 13% assumes the net warming effect of the flights is 2x that of the mere CO2 output, owing to contrails. This is based on the IPCC TAR model which estimates a multiplier of 2x-4x. The Aviation Environment Federation is happy to quote the 13%.

As an IMC-UK post earlier this year noted, the real figure is considerably higher since also the 13% allocates the UK 50% of international air traffic to/from UK whereas UK citizens are over 50% of passengers. However, then you get into the issue of are you allocating emissions to end user rather than territorial sphere as most of the non-aviation emissions are defined.

Me


Kiwis say jets are 10 percent of NZ's climate impact, not 2-3 percent

08.01.2008 19:44

This story is critical -- another datum showing that the global jet travel binge is both global suicide and homicide all at once, complete with pre-flight thuggery from the TSA* and a side dish of helping-promote-coal-to-liquids on the side (there was another story today about the U.S. (Ch)Air Force's new plan for dealing with peak oil: burn liquified coal / natural gas mixtures).

 http://www.windaction.org/news/13402

repost
- Homepage: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/3/205119/1611


Suggested alteration to point #5

21.01.2008 17:14

A suggested alteration to point #5 is to delete "well above", replace with "double", since there are reasons to suspect China's per capita emissions are clearly past world per capita average already.

jimroland
- Homepage: http://www.portal.campaigncc.org/node/1116