Reply to: Have we dont these idiots yet?

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[CloudWalker]

[EternalOptimist]

Obviously if you know for sure that the eco-zealots are destroying our future then you have a right to resist that


think it through, pea brain

[pjclarke]

When it comes to environmental issues I think less so. Obviously if you know for sure that the runway is destroying our future then you have a right to resist that. But in reality they are generally either morons who don't know what they're talking about, or the kind of people that value trees & mice more than they do the wellbeing of human beings.

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.

[MicrosoftBob]

I merely offer and reiterate my opinion, expanding capacity Heathrow airport is a dumb idea for short term financial gain by a Spanish company

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

[SpontaneousOrder]

Fewer guns does make us safer.

Teenagers only kill each other when they use knives/broken glass bottles/ sharp weapon to hand there as with guns they shot innocent bystanders like 5 year girls playing in their dad's shop.

I think that same kind of 'incidental' impact is offset by the instants where the presence of a gun has prevented a killing/rape/robbery. Hard to be empirical about though.

A different analogy might have been better as it's the deliberate part I was referring to.

In regards to air travel - the IRA showed more recent terrorists the way to make the most impact e.g target the tube, buses, airports....

Right. The clue is in the name 'terrorism'. There's nothing intrinsic in airplanes themselves that attracts terrorists. I suppose that being able to martyr one's self is one constraint.

[AtW]

Teenagers only kill each other when they use knives/broken glass bottles/ sharp weapon to hand there as with guns they shot innocent bystanders like 5 year girls playing in their dad's shop.

Or driving their cars recklessly with teenage friends...

[SueEllen]

That's all a red-herring. Air travel is just a great target because of the fear it evokes. If you lowered the air travel they'll just start attacking beaches & museums more. Tunnels? Bridges? Schools?

It's the same argument that supposes that fewer guns make us safer, whereas history has shown that if people with bad intentions don't have guns they'll use dynamite, knives, gas, etc, etc, instead.

Fewer guns does make us safer.

Teenagers only kill each other when they use knives/broken glass bottles/ sharp weapon to hand there as with guns they shot innocent bystanders like 5 year girls playing in their dad's shop.

In regards to air travel - the IRA showed more recent terrorists the way to make the most impact e.g target the tube, buses, airports....

[SpontaneousOrder]

Is selfish making hundreds of people & families that have their eagerly awaited holiday flights / business flights cancelled and heavily disrupted - so 12 people can get their point across ? Plus the financial cost to the industry - which ultimately costs travellers.

If you were one of the people getting a peek behind the illusory curtain of property rights, by facing the imminent forcible destruction of your home (and entire village) - then yes, they certainly have a mountain of moral high-ground to stand on.

When it comes to environmental issues I think less so. Obviously if you know for sure that the runway is destroying our future then you have a right to resist that. But in reality they are generally either morons who don't know what they're talking about, or the kind of people that value trees & mice more than they do the wellbeing of human beings.

[SpontaneousOrder]

(c:

OK, I'll bite now.

"On September 11th, hijackers took over 4 packed airliners and slammed two of them into densely populated tower blocks situated in one of the most populated cities in the world" - This highlights the fact that this can happen. The fact that many more people could have died is totally irrelevant, three thousand families were torn apart, and many millions were affected. Personally I was one of a few hundred people who were locked in the vaults of the Bank of England with no idea of what was going on as part of a planned emergency procedure. The images of those towers going down and burning people jumping with no hope of survival will stay with me until I die, but hey ho, only three thousand right?

The debris from pan am 103 was spread over 845 square miles, over fifty percent of the area of greater London. One eyewitness said "It is just impossible to approach the town but at the time it went up there was a terrible explosion and the whole sky lit up. It was virtually raining fire - it was just liquid fire."

The fact that "only" (and I am stunned that anyone can say that, although to be fair you did put it in quotes) 3000 people died in New York in 2001 doesn't in any way impose a limit on what could happen.

I object to the existing levels of flying over London, and I think to increase it by an order of magnitude is sheer madness.

I agree that as transport medium is statistically safe, but planes do suffer mechanical failure (one of the links I posted originally was a crash caused by frozen fuel lines), they do run out of fuel (which could save lives I guess, but the people it belly flopped on might not be counting their blessings), they are targeted by terrorists, and then of course there is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malays...nes_Flight_370

and

Germanwings crash: Lufthansa knew of co-pilot depression - BBC News

The chances are slim, yes, but there is clearly a risk, and increasing traffic by an order of magnitude will increase the risk by an order of magnitude, this surely is inarguable?

Coupled with the fact that the expansion is estimated to cost the UK tax payers £5.7 Billion, and there is no consensus of economic benefit ( Airport expansion: What happens next? - BBC News ), but one thing you can be sure of is that the primary beneficiaries will be Ferrovial.

That's all a red-herring. Air travel is just a great target because of the fear it evokes. If you lowered the air travel they'll just start attacking beaches & museums more. Tunnels? Bridges? Schools?

It's the same argument that supposes that fewer guns make us safer, whereas history has shown that if people with bad intentions don't have guns they'll use dynamite, knives, gas, etc, etc, instead.