Swampy Characters at Heathrow

[HURLOCK]

So what you're saying being a socialist is to have a moral consicence! I'm not messing with you. I do think it's important that people are looking after and have a roof over there head.

But I also think you have to draw the line

[jh1980]

hurlock said:

So what you're saying being a socialist is to have a moral consicence! I'm not messing with you. I do think it's important that people are looking after and have a roof over there head.

But I also think you have to draw the line

someone once said that the British Labour Party had as much to do with Methodism as it did Marxism!

But yeah, I think having a social and moral conscience is the most important feature of any political programme.

I understand that Hurls. When I say I want fairness, I'm not talking about complete and absolute equality, in the Communist *theory* sense... so I also draw a line.

Actually that's another thing, sometimes I feel you have to push beyond that line to get to the line, well I suppose that's a business thing as well, you go for the perfect deal, and settle on the perfect compromise!

[HURLOCK]

Compromise is how the world evolves mate, under offer and over deliver!

[jh1980]

hurlock said:

Compromise is how the world evolves mate, under offer and over deliver!

Yes.

I don't love compromise, but it's expedient.

"Expediency is how the world evolves...!"

[mortontheblade]

darwinist!!!!

[HURLOCK]

jh1980 said:

hurlock said:

Compromise is how the world evolves mate, under offer and over deliver!

Yes.

I don't love compromise, but it's expedient.

"Expediency is how the world evolves...!"

expedient is another word for marriage ;D

[jh1980]

hurlock said:

expedient is another word for marriage ;D

LOL, ouch! ;D

So err, when is your weddin' then?!

[HURLOCK]

jh1980 said:

hurlock said:

expedient is another word for marriage ;D

LOL, ouch! ;D

So err, when is your weddin' then?!

I would say it's at least two years off, I have empire building to do first. ie finish the flat and buy a house!

[jh1980]

hurlock said:

I would say it's at least two years off, I have empire building to do first. ie finish the flat and buy a house!

Ah, as they say in the ghetto - "Safe!" ;D

Ah yes, need to finish the improvements to Hurlsco Plc, Casa Hurls, and Hurls Towers?!

[PASTIE]

All made for interesting reading. Well done folks - a rare treat when these discussions take off on here.

I would like to redirect it back to the original point - what do these people hope to achieve?

Hopefully, they will have learned from the public relations disasters of the past and not fall foul of the natural inclination of our popular media to paint them as filthy hypocritical drop outs. Instead, I hope that they successfully manage to raise the profile of the debate about the unsustainability of the continued increase in air travel and the impacts that it inevitably has. It is a debate worth having, as was the debate that was forgotten among the fuss about swampy (the A30 from Exeter to Honiton was a shocking piece of planning and design and is reputedly the noisiest road in the country). If that debate is had on here, with a little aside to the relative merits of socialism and capitalism, then all the better! Just to fuel that:

Four other notes about how air travels disrupts the climate:

1. Air travel destroys good ozone, creates bad ozone. In the stratosphere-at altitudes where many military and supersonic jets fly-aircraft pollution destroys ozone. That's a problem because ozone in the stratosphere is a good thing. It shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. In the upper troposphere, at altitudes where most commercial jets fly-aircraft pollution creates ozone. That's a problem because ozone in the upper troposphere is a bad thing. It's a potent, though short-lived, climate-changing greenhouse gas.

2. Military aircraft use more fuel apiece than civilian aircraft. A decade ago, military aircraft were one fourth as numerous as civilian aircraft worldwide, yet they consumed roughly one third as much fuel. Furthermore, military jets, with their high performance requirements, produce more climate-changing pollutants, especially nitrogen oxides.

3. Airplanes' contrails may also play a role in climate change. Contrails are high-altitude vapor trails. They form when water vapor in the atmosphere condenses and freezes around tiny, cooled particles of engine exhaust.

The three-day grounding of all American air traffic after September 11, 2001 created a natural experiment for studying contrails' effects. Researchers discovered that the absence of contrails expanded the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures by a full degree Celsius, compared with the average of the last three decades. The difference was even greater in Cascadia and other heavy-air-traffic, mid-latitude regions (see endnote 5). Apparently, contrails dampen natural temperature variations.

4. Airports are also big polluters of local air. Jets release huge plumes of exhaust during taxiing, idling, takeoffs, and landings. For instance, one airplane taking off and landing from JFK airport in the mid-1990s would produce as much nitrogen oxides as a car driven 26,500 miles. Newer planes have improved since then, but fleets are still heavily populated by older vehicles. Many airports nationwide are among the top ten point-source polluters in their city (see endnote 6).

In addition, most people travel to and from the airport in personal vehicles, rather than more energy-efficient public transportation. In 1995, 60 percent of traffic to Seattle-Tacoma airport was by private car; another 25 percent was by commercial car.

Such emissions remain little regulated, because the US Clean Air Act gives states little authority to regulate emissions from aircraft while they're on the ground.

From:

www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/rel_air_travel_aug04

I'm pretty confident that Heathrow would compare with the trends shown there. Worth a punt at trying to minimise the harm, I'd say.

[HURLOCK]

Pastie,

This thread did go a bit off track, as I do enjoy teasing Jules. However I do think the protesters aim to highlight what we're doing to the ozone is one of merit. However they are not going about it in the right way, they are going to cause disruption. Which I think will delay peoples holidays. People that have probably saved all year for this two week treat with the kids.

These are the people that they want to gauge awareness etc., but unfortunately they'll just piss them off.

That all said with the latest TV programmes about carbon foot prints and the likes they have somewhat missed the boat in terms of impact, so really what do they hope to achieve!

[Neko Bazu]

I think, with the amount of publicity that's been given to global warming etc in the news so far, anyone it was gonna reach has already been reached. Further to that, I think anyone that's gonna care already cares. Yeah, the aim is good, but the truth is I can't see it making the slightest difference - and as Hurls said, it's just gonna disrupt stuff for others.

I can see this having a negative impact on the cause, if it has any at all.

[PASTIE]

All interesting points, well put.

The interesting element is that nobody seems to be disputing the message that these people are putting out?

So, I agree that (as I put it last time) a public relations disaster would clearly be counterproductive. Equally, it is pointless to come across as Luddite. People will fly, they will want to fly, they will aspire to fly and like you say they will work hard, save and share great times with their children. I'm no different to anybody else in that.

Therein lies the challenge, of course. I don't share your feeling that the entire audience that is going to be reached by issues regarding climate change has been reached. It may be that most people have been made aware of an issue, but few understand it, recognise its significance and, above all, very few are aware of proposed solutions. Most will have read or seen predictions of doom, disaster and extinctions but few every actually get the opportunity to consider solutions.

I'm part of this as I do it for a living. Whereas ten years ago, as a Geography teacher, I may have been leading classes through the arguments surrounding the warnings, I am now leading them through the arguments surrounding the events. Now, I am increasingly conscious of the need to be something other than a doom merchant otherwise the end result is a (currently very visible) generation of nihilists who do not expect their actions to lead to any meaningful consequences.

The interviews with one woman I heard on the news last night focused precisely on that. Her target was to raise awareness of the issues attached to the polluting actions of the corporations. Minimising prices without covering costs (as corrective costs are not factored), flying half full to empty aircraft, increasing aircraft in the effort to drive out competition, increased freight shifting merchandise and produce around the planet where locally sourced alternatives are readily available, etc etc etc.

The second interview was with a young man discussing the virtues of direct action and causing disruption. I understand his frustrations, but like you hope that he is aware that the greater impacts will be projected further and wider if he is aware of the great publicity machine that will be scrutinising their every move.

I, personally, wish them well - and hope that they get it right.

[PASTIE]

Apparently the infiltration of moron started. I suppose it was inevitable...

[mortontheblade]