A third runway at #Heathrow in the midst of a climate emergency is a vile act of vandalism. Rachel Reeves is happy to burn the planet for a tiny (probably elusive) increment of GDP. How does this benefit us?
Article coming later today.
Article coming later today.
Comments
Not the worst that was the last lot
But so disappointing
I've suggested people re-read and file, I'm glad you cover the GDP issue.
Also people, re-tweet or whatever it is people do here
BTW this is good on GDP https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/29/labour-rachel-reeves-growth-trickle-down-economics and also there was a SPLENDID recent Guardian piece by Marina Hyde (who doesn't appear to be on here yet), even by her normal high standards, on Heathrow.
#Heathrow #RevolvingDoor #Runway
Their justifications are just stupid.
Is there scepticism to Change in your statement?
Is our government not allowed to move with the times?
or is you simply resistant to any/all Change and wanting...demanding Britain Stands Still !
respectfully
25 years ...
Can I please ask for every northener, every scot, even midlanders, why?
Why do 100,000s of northerners travel longer to get to a london airport, than it takes to get to their destination?
We need an Hub airport in the North, not a third Heathrow runway
Its inefficient, environmentally destructive, expensive, adds to overcrowding on trains, tubes etc.
Its a nonsense!
Then reality hits and I just know they are crap at running a country
but you might think the environmental gains of snatching a few supposed benefit 'cheats' driving licences
barring them from automobile travel might not mitigate against the harm of a third Heathrow runway.
Or do you have a "miracle" solution?
And have you never heard of induced demand? If there are more landing slots available, Heathrow will expand the traffic to fill them... MORE aircraft will be stacking at peak times to use them.
[Helium too precious!]
Primarily bulk cargo. Although an overnight sleeper to Edinburgh or Paris might be a goer.
It can be done, if it HAS to be done.
Ahead of the curve.
do you want to deprive them of the Human Right to Travel?
it's not a joke.
it's why Greenpeace is a hoax.
XR.
it ain't ever been [only] 2 percent. the politics. duh.
and it sure isn't [only] about Private Jets.
In the current climate, I simply don't know what the answer is.
I am saying that we can and should do the first one. Not the second.
I too want to live in that world but that may not be achievable.
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/net-zero-aviation/net-zero-aviation-fuels-policy-briefing.pdf
Physics dictates that no other option exists for commercial aviation
Ditto for space travel
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is a very dangerous strategy when you’re supposed to be driving a car.
All unscientific fig leaves for rapacious industrialists
He said it was a ridiculous idea. Maybe he was wrong.
And the slowness hurts you twice over, because cabin space => weight.
This same effect makes transatlantic ocean liners almost as bad as airliners per passenger, CO2 wise, because they have to haul so much extra weight per person.
If Reeves wants actual, sustainable growth, there it is.
1. Proclaim the target of modal shift from planes to trains
2. Build more trains using frequent flyer levy income.
3. Start dropping routes now best served by rail.
We can’t do joined up thinking here or this would have been laid out clearly all along.
Though I admit, looking at public debate about politics, let alone policy from the major parties, you could be forgiven for thinking that the North of England, and Scotland, are about as real as Brigadoon.
It’s more like a bypass for the ECML and WCML, which are huge bottlenecks for everything across the entire U.K including Wales and Scotland.
We can run more trains everywhere with those pinch points resolved.
As for passengers I actually think it's an efficiency thing. Tax airlines for each empty seat they fly. Per head a full plane is far less pollutive than flying a half empty one...
Currently you can't even call it a system, just an assemblage of rail companies, stations and lines, almost none of which work well even within one country.
Have an open market and say 500 miles worth of points free a year.
Still amazes me that it was cheaper to fly from Southampton to Newcastle than take a train..
trans-Europe rail travel would require something at least approaching a system, rather than the current hodge-podge of unreliable train companies, stations not fit for purpose, and wholly inadequate line networks.
Trillions to fix.
The general public will see no real benefit except a few jobs created locally after completion, but the impact on the surroundings and resident will be horrendous.
In fact the runway means planes stop circling, waiting for a landing slot. So fewer emissions.
To cut emissions govt must require renewable aviation fuels & shorter trips must be via rail.
We need to stop flying so much.
(I know we don't see real govt requirements anymore, though, because the money buys the policies.)
By adding another vector for tourists, this means the UK economy would have even less money.
A third runway is anti-growth while destroying the climate further. It is madness.