Was watching the One Show and have just see Alistair McGowan at mine and many other people's plot of land near Heathrow.
It was an intersting little peace about protesters, of all types, backgournds etc. It's not as Alistairs points out all the lefty, liberal, whacky, tree hugging, hippy types much as Jeremy Clarkson would want to have us all believe.
But as Alistair also pointed out we do have a history of protest and sees that like throwing a shoe we could be heading to more inventive ways of protest. As the Gaza March in Edinburgh showed with the right sort of mix of events in the protest you can gather a diverse mix. But will we ever see a protest to compete with sheer numbers of the Make Poverty History march.
Showing posts with label Aviation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aviation. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Friday, 16 January 2009
I Have a Plot
Yesterday I joined thousands of others in becoming one of the "beneficial owners" of a plot of land acquired by Greenpeace right where Heathrow's runway 3 wants to be.
You may have seen it discussed on Question Time last night where they had British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh on the panel. Last night as I was watching the show somebody brought up the fact that runway three would add to Heathrow's carbon footprint more than the carbon footprint of the entire carbon footprint of Kenya. Mr Walsh retorted that many people has said that to him but nobody had ever been able to tell him what the CO2 emissions of Kenya were.
Surprise, surprise within a minute of him saying it I had googled the answer combining two sources to give him an approximate answer. First I found out that Kenya's carbon footprint in 2003 was 0.25 metric tonnes per head, then Wikipedia gave me the results of Kenya's 2007 census which gave them a population of 31m there (even a 2008 estimate of 38m).
Therefore Mr Walsh the answer to the question that you apparently get asked so often is so easily found that one would have expected a little bit of research on your part before going on Question Time where just such a statistic would more than likely be thrown up on a week like this. Somewhere between 7.75 and 9.5 metric tonnes.
You may have seen it discussed on Question Time last night where they had British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh on the panel. Last night as I was watching the show somebody brought up the fact that runway three would add to Heathrow's carbon footprint more than the carbon footprint of the entire carbon footprint of Kenya. Mr Walsh retorted that many people has said that to him but nobody had ever been able to tell him what the CO2 emissions of Kenya were.
Surprise, surprise within a minute of him saying it I had googled the answer combining two sources to give him an approximate answer. First I found out that Kenya's carbon footprint in 2003 was 0.25 metric tonnes per head, then Wikipedia gave me the results of Kenya's 2007 census which gave them a population of 31m there (even a 2008 estimate of 38m).
Therefore Mr Walsh the answer to the question that you apparently get asked so often is so easily found that one would have expected a little bit of research on your part before going on Question Time where just such a statistic would more than likely be thrown up on a week like this. Somewhere between 7.75 and 9.5 metric tonnes.
Saturday, 20 May 2006
BAA Objects to Edinburgh Airport Rail Link
The British Airports Authority has objected to proposals to link Edinburgh Airport to the Scottish Rail network.
Trains already run past the end of the runway on their way north to the Forth Bridge and Glasgow/Edinburgh trains run to the south of the Airport across the A8. But the proposals are the build links from these routes to connect up to a hub near the terminal building. At the present with the exception of the dedicated Airport buses it is impossible to get to Edinburgh Airport by public transport. Buses do go past the exit but it does mean over half a mile of a walk to the terminal.
Strangely BAA are claiming that making their airport more accessible to people by transport other than car users could 'adversely affect' the airport's future operation and growth. Maybe however they are claiming this because it would affect the revenue flow that their new multi-million pound multi-storey car park would return, even if this is now being run by NCP.
Also bizarrely BAA are objecting on the grounds that building the tunnels required to create the links might cause subsidance and affect future expansion of the airport. I'm sorry but that is so lame. On a project of this type any civil engineer worth their salt would ensure that the tunnels would be strong enough to withstand simultaneous multiple landings on top of the tunnel to ensure that the ground would not give way. A argument that doesn't hold a great deal of weight when you consider other airports, Heathrow fow example, where all many of tunnels riddle the site.
However, the main thrust of BAA's objection appears to be the knock-on effect this rail project would have on their own plans for expansion with an eventual second runway. There seems as always with airports and airlines appears to be little consideration to the environmental impact anod seeking how it can me minimalised for the residents and costomers locally that they also serve.
The sooner that airlines contribute fairly for the pollution that they cause and airport operaters also seek to make their sevices easily available to non-car users the better. Once everybody takes responsibilty the more enhanced the chances we can have positive effects on dealing with pollution and fget on with the serious task of combatting climate change.
Trains already run past the end of the runway on their way north to the Forth Bridge and Glasgow/Edinburgh trains run to the south of the Airport across the A8. But the proposals are the build links from these routes to connect up to a hub near the terminal building. At the present with the exception of the dedicated Airport buses it is impossible to get to Edinburgh Airport by public transport. Buses do go past the exit but it does mean over half a mile of a walk to the terminal.
Strangely BAA are claiming that making their airport more accessible to people by transport other than car users could 'adversely affect' the airport's future operation and growth. Maybe however they are claiming this because it would affect the revenue flow that their new multi-million pound multi-storey car park would return, even if this is now being run by NCP.
Also bizarrely BAA are objecting on the grounds that building the tunnels required to create the links might cause subsidance and affect future expansion of the airport. I'm sorry but that is so lame. On a project of this type any civil engineer worth their salt would ensure that the tunnels would be strong enough to withstand simultaneous multiple landings on top of the tunnel to ensure that the ground would not give way. A argument that doesn't hold a great deal of weight when you consider other airports, Heathrow fow example, where all many of tunnels riddle the site.
However, the main thrust of BAA's objection appears to be the knock-on effect this rail project would have on their own plans for expansion with an eventual second runway. There seems as always with airports and airlines appears to be little consideration to the environmental impact anod seeking how it can me minimalised for the residents and costomers locally that they also serve.
The sooner that airlines contribute fairly for the pollution that they cause and airport operaters also seek to make their sevices easily available to non-car users the better. Once everybody takes responsibilty the more enhanced the chances we can have positive effects on dealing with pollution and fget on with the serious task of combatting climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)