Forum Topic

All over for 3rd runway?

Here’s an interesting story on the Brentford site: http://www.brentfordtw8.com/default.asp?section=info&link=http://neighbournet.com/server/common/conhrwsw322.htmI wonder what cock and bull the Heathrow lobbyists and I’ll come up with about this.

Simon Hayes ● 2385d8 Comments

VERY interesting & enlightening reading Mr Hayes, thanks for that.So, lots of snouts in a trough of money? Bit like London Borough of Ealing really?!    😉

Rosco White ● 2384d

Just in case anyone questions the ‘wonderful economic benefits’: http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Truth-about-economic-benefits-FoE-W-London.pdf

Simon Hayes ● 2384d

Of course not Rosco, but the Heathrow lobbyists are. We give you decision makers lots of money to make the right decision. Simple.There are parts of the UK that voted for Brexit because they felt marginalised. Concentrating all this aviation into the south east won’t help them will it?

Simon Hayes ● 2384d

To any sane, thinking person, Heathrow is Maxed Out. Other Home Counties Airports need to be expanded and/or New Airports built.In my mind it really is that simple.Maybe I'm a simpleton?!  🤣

Rosco White ● 2384d

Interesting that reducing aviation would be sen as deliberate impoverishment of our country when by every published indicator to date leaving the EU will do just that, and far more quickly.By making it more difficult to trade with our nearest neighbours we look to compensate by flying more goods in and out. What a strange idea. The carbon footprint of foodstuffs imported by air is far far higher than those that one by sea or rail.Even the figures published by Heathrow show expansion won’t actually deliver anything like the financial benefits to the country it claims. A lot of conjecture and not much substance behind their claims.And if you look at the Committee’s advice it says that aviation will become the main source of emissions by 2050. Unless something is done. There’s a very powerful lobby for air travel and at the moment they are winning the day. We’re told to look elsewhere to cut emissions. Cracking down on road vehicle use will have a far bigger negative impact on economic growth than limiting the numbers of flights.The claims of off-setting don’t convince. Planes are very energy intensive to build. There’s a lot of harmful synthetic material used in that production.

Simon Hayes ● 2384d

Air transport accounts for 6.3% of carbon emissions in the UK and this actually doubled in the first decade.It is however falling as the number of internal flights has plummeted by 20% in the last ten years.Paying 'lip-service' to carbon reduction by 'emissions trading' however will not actually reduce carbon by a single gramme, it merely shifts the problem from one producer sector to another.Playing a numbers game will not solve the issue.

N V Brooks ● 2384d

The comment that 'demand for aviation needs to be reduced' needs a bit more scrutiny. Overall aviation emissions constitute a tiny part of greenhouse gases so even if we were to stop flying altogether then impact would not be decisive. Limiting aviation growth would also mean limiting economic growth and significant reducing investment in this country. If we leave the EU we necessarily will become more dependent on trade with countries for which flying in goods is necessary so limiting aviation growth would be totally impractical. What will ultimately save us from the impact of climate change is not quixotic gestures of economic self-denial but innovation which is stimulated by a vibrant and successful economy. The massive strides forward that have been made in renewable energy in this country has had a transformative effect on our use of fossil fuels and we are foothills of what can be achieved. This progress would be thwarted by deliberate impoverishment of the nation.

Gordon Southwell ● 2384d

The usual lying, cheating and distortion of facts I imagine.

Rosco White ● 2385d