Have we dont these idiots yet?

[DimPrawn]

In 2006. the Tyndall Centre estimated that at then current rates of growth, which are what drives the need for a new runway, aviation emissions on their own will consume 134% of target emissions for the UK in 2050. If we assume for a moment that the climate science is correct (very little in science is known 'for sure', unless you're doing the Objectivist thing of redefining words to mean what you want them to, cf above) then the new runway takes us nearer a much warmer future.

http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/f...l_research.pdf (table 8)

The authors all hold PhDs. Probably not morons, IOW.

See also http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws2/Av...%20AW%20v2.pdf which shows that targets can only be met with limits on capacity, a carbon tax of £200/tonne CO2, an unrealistic shift to rail and a switch to 10% (sustainable) biofuels.

Biofuels create their own environmental issues. I would rather we avoid a future with monoculture crops being used for fuel across immense areas of fertile land, instead of sustainable and diverse food production thanks.

Perhaps in 20 years, this might help with the emissions aspect:

"Impossible" Electric Airplane Takes Flight - Scientific American

[DimPrawn]

Fully electric plane crosses Channel. Makes yer proud!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=111&v=vN-xWsmUAZ4

It's like something out of Top Gear.

[pjclarke]

Biofuels create their own environmental issues. I would rather we avoid a future with monoculture crops being used for fuel across immense areas of fertile land, instead of sustainable and diverse food production thanks.

Perhaps in 20 years, this might help with the emissions aspect:

"Impossible" Electric Airplane Takes Flight - Scientific American

Maybe. Agreed, although 3rd gen biofuels, from crop waste and plants that will grow where crops will not, do show promise. But these can provide 10% of fuel, at best, and a commercial all-electric airliner is decades off, too late to avoid dangerous GW.

[Bacchus]

What relevance is it that it's a Spanish company ????

One of the arguments for the third runway is that it will benefit the UK economy (in fact Ferrovial are VERY keen to make you believe that, have a look at their nauseating web site, straight from chapter one of "how to win wars" by Joseph Goebbels), opinion is divided on this, I tend to side with the belief that there will be very little benefit to the UK economy but a huge benefit to Ferrovial and its shareholders (which does, of course, include UK institutional investors).

the actual economic benefit to the UK would be increased beyond recognition if it were simply concreted over and turned into council houses. I am not suggesting that is the best way forward BTW, just chucking it out there.

[BrilloPad]

the actual economic benefit to the UK would be increased beyond recognition if it were simply concreted over and turned into council houses. I am not suggesting that is the best way forward BTW, just chucking it out there.

Could we not turn it into housing for bankers and politicians? Then let the RAF use it for target practice....

[SpontaneousOrder]

In 2006. the Tyndall Centre estimated that at then current rates of growth, which are what drives the need for a new runway, aviation emissions on their own will consume 134% of target emissions for the UK in 2050. If we assume for a moment that the climate science is correct (very little in science is known 'for sure', unless you're doing the Objectivist thing of redefining words to mean what you want them to, cf above) then the new runway takes us nearer a much warmer future.

http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/f...l_research.pdf (table 8)

The authors all hold PhDs. Probably not morons, IOW.

See also http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws2/Av...%20AW%20v2.pdf which shows that targets can only be met with limits on capacity, a carbon tax of £200/tonne CO2, an unrealistic shift to rail and a switch to 10% (sustainable) biofuels.

I know several PhDs who are morons.