No. And anyone who says it can is lying to you. Climate Emergency. There's a clue in the last word. www.bbc.com/news/article... - ThreadSky

zackpolanski.bsky.social • 102 days ago

No.

And anyone who says it can is lying to you.

Climate Emergency. There's a clue in the last word.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjdz92v84do

Comments

greyarea22.bsky.social•102 days ago

100%

rebeccasjc.bsky.social•102 days ago

I really wish government and the media would drop their obsession with constant growth, mind you I think many just use growth as a guise when pleasing wealthy donors is what they really care about.

cheryldb.bsky.social•102 days ago

No it can't. Rather than allowing schemes that worsen the UKs "green" reputation. I would rather the govt tackled Drax power station and repurposed the £2 million of subsidises a day into projects that would make UK self sufficient.

leftygreenbrit.bsky.social•102 days ago

We don’t need a third runway. Investing in green infrastructure and sustainable policies can grow the economy without harming our planet. 🌱

lucidr.bsky.social•102 days ago

A planet wide population of 8 billion people can not survive net zero.

catherinerowett.bsky.social•102 days ago

You what?

chaybristol.bsky.social•102 days ago

The aviation industry has studied the lies and misinformation tactics of the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel lobby and more.

They are expert in bullshit, lies, misdirection and greenwash.

But the bare naked truth is plain to see.

Shame on Starmer's Labour for complicity in their crimes.

repoblek-kernow.bsky.social•102 days ago

Keir Starmer’s Labour government are liars and they know it: total #greenwash !

colbobs.bsky.social•102 days ago

Local flights in small aircraft maybe, but not a 737, unless maybe hydrogen and that is definitely damaging and even more so if extracted from fossil fuels (which the fossil industry favours).

two-cats.com•102 days ago

Yep “Blue” hydrogen is a joke. Pure greenwashing.

faultfinderuk.bsky.social•102 days ago

I agree, but what it’s a step to green hydrogen eventually?
Would it be worth it ultimately?

bobathon.bsky.social•102 days ago

Even if green hydrogen planes could somehow become a thing in a few decades, it's still essential to curb the rise in air travel. In a climate emergency, programmes of airport expansion are insane.

Planetary physics isn't going to give us any breaks while we look for new excuses, unfortunately

faultfinderuk.bsky.social•102 days ago

How about for other vehicles? Or heating/powerplants?

colbobs.bsky.social•102 days ago

H2 is much more valuable as a feedstock for fertilizers and industry. It's better to produce it near where it's used because of all the energy and other issues associated with storage and transport of hydrogen including embrittlement. This might be about heating but it covers other uses too.

bobathon.bsky.social•102 days ago

It's definitely worth exploring and developing.

But what people want is an excuse to keep doing more and more of what we're doing, and it just isn't that

hypx.bsky.social•102 days ago

We are not going to ban air travel. If you are serious about it and not just complaining about the lack of action, you'd support aggressive adoption of hydrogen in aviation (or SAF).

colbobs.bsky.social•101 days ago

well curb doesn't have to mean ban but frequent fliers who tend to be, but not exclusively the very wealthy contribute significant proportions of pollution and carbon emissions (1% generate 50% emissions).

baumpfleger.bsky.social•100 days ago

We sure are going to ban air travel. Maybe not 100% but more than 90%.

two-cats.com•101 days ago

Agreed, but we’re not doing enough with current aviation. Short-haul flights should default to trains where possible. If we accept flying, it should be only where necessary—at its true cost.

bobathon.bsky.social•101 days ago

Of course we're not going to ban air travel. And (again) of course we should develop hydrogen fuel.

We still need to reduce air travel. Everyone who understands the climate knows this.

What's with the compulsion to interpret this as a ban? That's just daft.

andystoin.bsky.social•102 days ago

What about SAF? In theory this can be carbon neutral if synthesised with renewable energy. Industrialisation efforts are already underway

snugbucket.bsky.social•102 days ago

The only person replying sensibly in this thread. Government mandates and policies for SAF are already starting to work and a SAF industry is starting to grow. It just needs time to make a difference.

saltednuts.bsky.social•102 days ago

We will get a lot of this bollocks.
However good news is that Boris Johnson is on record to say he will sit in front of bulldozers.
Always a bright side

campaignstrat.bsky.social•102 days ago

yes that’s basically what the BBC says

catiomiles.bsky.social•102 days ago

Fun fact: the M4 motorway sector next to the runways has the speed limit permanently reduced from 70 to 60mph in order to “protect air quality”.… and we want to build another runway??!!

paulfg42.bsky.social•102 days ago

Can we expect Reeves to lie to us about it today?

btsupe.bsky.social•102 days ago

Why don't we use air ships with solar? Surely thats zero emissions and it might get us there slower but you can treat it like a cruise and remote work on it if you have to.

davehaterofracism.bsky.social•102 days ago

When we rejoin the EU the ELECTRIC train to Europe can go back to working at full capacity - brexit means that trains now run 25% empty because it takes too long to process passengers.

babshbruce.bsky.social•102 days ago

Makes you want to scream!

johnsteel.bsky.social•102 days ago

BBC playing the 'custodians of the truth' card again.

hughpumphrey.bsky.social•102 days ago

The BBC headline is a prime example of Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

nicbenbow.bsky.social•102 days ago

Aviation is moving toward E-VTOL and drones. So the question is irrelevant, we won't need a third runway at Heathrow, because we won't need runways at all.

richardmoody.bsky.social•102 days ago

Classic!

drama-queen.bsky.social•102 days ago

No!

paxification.bsky.social•102 days ago

if they think electrifying planes is a good idea, wait till they hear what we have been able to do with trains for the past 100 years

notfreshprince.bsky.social•102 days ago

Greens would still block them unfortunately 🤷

lindav138.bsky.social•102 days ago

Shhh brainless one

notfreshprince.bsky.social•102 days ago

Shouldn’t you be off protesting some green infrastructure in a disused field?

lindav138.bsky.social•102 days ago

Shouldn't you be cultivating a working brain cell

paxification.bsky.social•102 days ago

i am pleased to inform you that the members reversed the old policy on hs2 in their party democratic process and the greens now officially supports HS2's completion and northern powerhouse rail.
https://hs2.green/

sharedground.bsky.social•102 days ago

No one mentions the mental hell and health hazard of living in #London under concentrated flight paths already.

ianwalker.bsky.social•102 days ago

Feels like we could offer to build the runway as soon as all flights are zero emissions?

havantenviro.bsky.social•102 days ago

If it were done that would be the logical order to do it in.

kittycritter.bsky.social•102 days ago

Ludicrous

martinjhodson.bsky.social•102 days ago

Totally agree. There is no green option for expanding Heathrow or any other airport!

flightfreeuk.bsky.social•102 days ago

Thanks Zack. Scary how the aviation industry is hoodwinking everyone into believing that green aviation can actually be a thing.

sbarlster.bsky.social•102 days ago

And the BBC being disingenuous by having that article.

#fairandbalanced

mickeymarxclub.bsky.social•102 days ago

Amazing BBC Verify needed three people to answer this

sarahhopewell.bsky.social•102 days ago

BBC language: "advocates of expansion", vs "environmentalists".

Why not "advocates of runaway climate change", vs "advocates of a habitable planet"? Since that's really what we're talking about here.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply