-
How come?
It's something I don't know much about (other than a committee got appointed to make the decision and that decision got kicked down the road because Cameron was worried about his popularity).
From a totally uninformed opinion I always liked the idea of a totally new Thames estuary airport.
Air travel is unbelievably damaging and unsustainable. This column by Greenpeace gives you a good summary:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/25/heathrow-third-runway-davies-commission
There are millions of articles on the topic, of course.
For me, it's not just about emissions, but about what I call 'geographical dissociation'. Obviously, we all like to travel, but I see any form of travel that persistently transports people to other places while destroying their sense of getting there as deeply problematic. Economically, all the easy availability of travel options like that does is to concentrate power and wealth in very few places, e.g. places like London that can afford to build gigantic airports. This is a Very Bad Thing. More locally-based economies are better.
The world needs to reduce capacity for air travel, not increase it. Keep it for the ways in which it is really needed.
And yes, that estuary airport plan is simply bonkers.
Oliver Schick-
From what I know, air travel is not the biggest emission load. Heating your house/food production are.
But concentration of wealth/jobs is already becoming an issue. That money could be invested into better local transport...which would create jobs everywhere not just around London.
Oh yes a flying pig is over there :)
JWestland
How come?
It's something I don't know much about (other than a committee got appointed to make the decision and that decision got kicked down the road because Cameron was worried about his popularity).
From a totally uninformed opinion I always liked the idea of a totally new Thames estuary airport.