Jump to content

Turn coats and planet destroyers


Recommended Posts

Hi Folks,

Tomorrow the Supreme court will be giving its judgement on the appeal process for the Heathrow third runway.

One of the Heathrow Protesters has sent this out   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HxxC4TQgHh_haFkikww74CBhwgYaKfu1Nooi9NwKJns/preview?pru=AAABdoq0zc4*x_pS5xIEqbN1M-86ODm53w

I hope we are allowed to show it. It has gone pretty viral.

In 2018 The gov't minister Grayling  allowed the Heathrow plan against the Paris accord on climate change.

An appeal by the protesters was successful and the Gov't (Boris et al) accepted that appeal.

HAL ( the money grabbers) went to the supreme court. The Judges appear to have sided with Grayling even though he was working in opposition to the climate change accord that the British Gov't accpt and actually pay for.

 

Madness

 

Roger 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, having or not having a 3rd runway at Heathrow will do nothing to change the underlying global demand for air travel, COVID-19 aside. Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt and Schiphol and the airlines that serve them can handle the increase in long haul connecting traffic much easier than Heathrow. For originating UK traffic, if there is no 3rd runway, then there will be a growth in flights from provincial UK airports to the larger European airports, unless HS2 works directly to connect large UK cities to those airports. CO2 is a well mixed gas with a residence time of 10+ years so it does not matter where it is emitted. It is the total global volume that counts for climate change. Aviation is less than 2% of global CO2, there are far easier and more economically viable methods to reduce global CO2 that have zero emissions technologies available today, aviation does not. Aviation connects business, people and industry around the globe more effectively over long distances than any other form of transport. 

The real issue is local not global. Airport noise and emissions should be the focus of the debate for local people if they want to persuade the government to forgo the economic benefits of the 3rd runway at Heathrow or the expansion of any local airport. NOx and particulate emissions are dominated by the output from diesels engines within and around the airport, EVs can eliminate this source. Noise is dominated by aircraft movements so governments need to accelerate the adoption of newer, much quieter aircraft and more efficient air traffic control techniques like continuous descent approach.

However, a much better long term option for a major airport for London is a new airport in the middle of nowhere with fast, efficient rail transport to all major UK cities. Unfortunately it is the most expensive and disruptive. Look around the world at the cities that have done this Hong Kong, Osaka, Amsterdam etc. Airports and residential areas should be kept far apart. Just my humble opinion having been in the aviation industry for 35 years and living 0.6 miles perpendicular to the runway at East Midlands Airport, the only major airport in the UK without a night time noise curfew, lucky I like watching aircraft.

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point has slipped you by.

Our Gov't signed up to the Paris climate accord and we agreed to reduce our CO2.  We are now reneging on the pact.

Boris, as a local MP said that he would not allow the 3rd runway - another of Boris's misunderstandings.

HAL said it would be for small feeder aircraft.

Over the last few years HAL have been stating how many 747Freight type aircraft they would allow to use it - quite a lot actually - and they are not SMALL.

The whole thing is driven by greed. Even the courts have jumped on the bandwagon.  Money money money.

Poor little Greta Thunderthighs will go apeshit

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with you Roger. We have got to meet or exceed the CO2 reduction targets in the Paris accord. Why choose the most one of the most expensive ways of doing it? The impact on the economy of not developing aviation in the UK is huge. There are benefits to the economy of going down other routes. The UK and Ireland had a significant geographical advantage in the development of trans-Atlantic aviation when aircraft had limited range. Those days are over, Shannon Airport is like a ghost town, Heathrow could go the same way unless it continues to develop its facilities and stay competitive or be replaced. Great for the local residents but not for the UK economy.

Noise is the Achilles heel of the governments proposal for a 3rd runway. Everything else can be mitigated elsewhere. If I was trying to stop the 3rd runway I would focus on noise not global warming, it is so much harder to defend or deflect. Global aviation will continue to grow at about 4 to 4.5 % per year, once the pandemic is over. Does the UK want to let the rest of Europe to benefit from our indecision or lack of investment?

If you could wave a magic want and the industry produces enough Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) to satisfy total demand at Heathrow, would you be happy for a 3rd runway to be built? If the answer is NO, then global warming is not the real issue, is it? If the answer is YES, then lets get on with it asap and invest heavily in SAF. It would be race to see which is achieved first. Heathrow expansion does not have a great track record, the renewable energy industry has done better at meeting or exceeding targets.

Mick

Edited by Mick Forey
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mick Forey said:

I am with you Roger. We have got to meet or exceed the CO2 reduction targets in the Paris accord.

Why?  The man-made fraction of C02 is about 3% of the total from all sources and the UK share of that is next to nothing - 0.03%. Reducing that will make no difference whatever except to our standard of living, which will nosedive.

 

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having worked on the T5 planning inquiry and the third runway issue i have probably a greater insight into all the backroom goings on that have dogged UK aviation since the ill fated Maplin project back in the late 1960's. 

Over 20 years ago I put forward to the govt of the day a report  that said UK airspace and runway capacity in particular would be in a bad way if we didn't start doing something about it.  New technology enabled the ATC problem to be met but nothing, absolutely nothing was done about  runway capacity.  I proposed plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary long before Boris  or Sir Norman Foster started to jump on that particular band wagon at Cliffe on the Isle of Grain in Kent.  Its location offered some significant advantages as the land was poor quality grade 3 / grade 4 agricultural land and only about 45 families would need to be relocated.  It also allowed take off and landing from over the sea and so its noise footprint would have been minimal.  With  its own already existing dedicated rail link plus the cross channel high speed rail link, 2 motorways, an A road  and probably a couple of cul de sacs thrown in for good measure its transport links were potentially the best in the country.  So why did this plan not 'take off'? 

There was massive resistance from the airlines and in particular BA who had invested heavily in Heathrow.  - although it should be noted that  several  other airlines like Virgin were happy to move there if it was subsidised by the Govt.  

There was resistance from the  big wigs and corporations of the City of London  whose CEO's tend to live on the north west side of London and therefore saw a move from Heathrow to the east of London as 'inconvenient' for them.  ( they already had London City airport to cater for their needs anyway) 

There was resistance from NATS air traffic who said it would affect the 'race track holding circuit' they use over the North sea approaches. 

And finally, there was resistance from a different govt dept who was going to earmark the land for a massive housing development under the Thames Gateway project. 

The project was eventually picked up by Boris during his stint as Mayor of London  but by then the head of steam for the 3rd runway was already unstoppable.  I well remember sitting at the T5 Inquiry in 1998/9 hearing that the new Terminal wouldn't require a new runway only to be told in a private meeting later that day by one of the chief LHR planning officers " Of course when we get T5 we will go for a third runway."    and of course so it has come to pass. 

However, the biggest flaw to the plan  for a new airport anywhere lies in the fact that any such airport  would require all of the infrastructure costs up front whereas Heathrow could continue to operate with the bulldozers working away happily next door. 

There are some interesting points that objectors to the 3rd runway should note.  The land it is to sit on was ALWAYS intended to be used as an integral part of Heathrow.  ( I will try and attach the original Heathrow plan for its NINE runway layout)  The Ministry of Supply sold it off years ago for a song when they thought it was no longer needed and the successors to the BAA have since spent millions on buying it all back again! 

The new runways present position will require Willie Walsh to demolish part if not all of BA's Waterside complex.  ( and they say there is no justice?  I wonder who was responsible for that planning error? )

Millions of pounds have been spent by both sides on legal fees, appeals and consultants to no avail because to quote another BAA insider, " You don't spend upwards of £80 million pounds  on legal advice to not know what the answer will be."   ( David Cameron please take note)   The appeal to the Supreme Court was therefore a forgone conclusion and all that has actually happened is that the UK has delayed getting its principle airport  improved by some 30 years whereas our competitors in Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam  and the rest of the world have just got on with the job and built what they needed. 

Finally, HS2 will have little or no impact on Heathrow because it doesn't actually go there.  So much for an integrated transport policy! 

Hoges. 

 

lhr 9 runways.jpg

cliffe airport.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RobH said:

Why?  The man-made fraction of C02 is about 3% of the total from all sources and the UK share of that is next to nothing - 0.03%. Reducing that will make no difference whatever except to our standard of living, which will nosedive.

But that is only half the story: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watersidewas built where it was needed - to reserve the land for later use - guess what that could be

The idea of the 3rd runway went back into the 70's Had the blind understood what they wanted they could have put it through the middle of LHR parallel and between the two main runways. Put the buildings around the outside - like many airfields.

 

Too easy.

Roger

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LHR: excellent site for wind turbines and Miscanthus when flying becomes rationed, like beef, lamb, cement, transport... and everything else on Mick's pie diagram. I wont see mid-century but its not far off, and UK is aiming for net zero CO2. That cant be done with a lifestyle tweak here and there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mick Forey said:

But that is only half the story:

Lots of pretty but rather contentious diagrams in that rather old link Mick. That's one reason I stopped taking the NS ten years ago as its uncritical climate evangelism just became too much to stomach.  Surprisingly there are still no hard facts to prop up the CO2 theory even after all this time. Computer models are not facts but that is all that climate alarmism seems based on, and those are wildly divergent from real world measurements even after the readings have been 'adjusted'.

Our whole civilisation and standard of living is due to the availability and use of fossil fuel. It just will not be possible to sustain that with zero CO2 emissions.  Even net-zero will be incredibly difficult.  (I really hate the use of 'carbon' as a shorthand -  as carbon-based lifeforms we and all other forms of life would all need to die to achieve 'zero carbon'. 

I am too old for all this to affect me much (except my blood pressure perhaps) but I really feel sad for the hardships of energy privation the coming generations will, have to face because of this political fantasy.  

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653928

https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/06/scientists-the-co2-greenhouse-warming-effect-rides-on-mere-assumption-and-lacks-empirical-verification/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two facts about CC/GW are all we need:

The Keeling curve:

image.png.b1694f4665fd9e7d0b32fec944d5952d.png

and Tyndall's measurements of infra-red absorbtion by CO2 , almost 150 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Molecular_physics_of_radiant_heat

The forcing effect of CO2 in GW is irrefutably solid science, modelling not needed

The experiment we are all part of has been running since Watt watched his kettle steaming. It is wise to predict the outcome of any experiment before starting it. But we did not, and present day modeling of climate is playing  catch-up, trying to predict and so forestall the worst effects of GW.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily Paul, CO2 makes plants grow and the slight increase we have seen from 0.003% to 0.004% of the atmosphere means the planet is greening and harvest yields increasing, so there will be more food available. This is also helped by the continued slow warming since the 'little ice age' of the 18th century from which the world is still recovering.  With any luck, one day we will get back to the balmy conditions of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period for a while, before the inevitable decline into the next glaciation. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting read. The Supreme court simply ruled that the Idiot Grayling acted correctly when he allowed LHR to expand against the Climate change

Paris accord.  The Supreme court did not say that the expansion can continue as such

 

During his tenure as transport minster the idiot made so many cock-ups it makes you wonder how his allowing of the expansion could ever be the right decision.

A long way to go.

Roger

Edited by RogerH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add another dimension to the debate,  I invited Chris Grayling and another MP on the transport ctte to view the work we were doing at the university and gave them both a session on our King Air flight simulator.  ( a real sim and not a play station version)   To be fair to the man he was able to handle it in straight and level 'flight'  but made a complete horlicks of the landing.  The other MP who's name I should remember was much better and even took evasion action when I inserted a runway incursion into his 'approach'    It later turned out he had some flight training whereas the hapless Mr Grayling had  no idea  of what was going on around him.    The moral of this story is that we elect politicians who have no idea how stuff works but then give them responsibility to run things.   That's why we gave a car salesman the top job in the NHS instead of to a Dr  and a former economics journalist the responsibility for planning Heathrow Airport!

Hoges 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mick,

I am always unhappy when I see those charts which purport to show the sector usage of any commodity. The chart indicates that aviation uses 1.9% of energy usage which it probably does - directly. But Heathrow alone is calculated to employ about 76,000 directly and in the 250,000 indirectly. Once you start to add into the energy usage figures the energy construction costs, the housing for 250,000 workers and their cars and heating then the numbers really escalate well beyond 1.9%.

Ok you could argue that the 250,000 Heathrow workers exist so they would have those energy needs wherever they worked but it is demonstrably possible to argue that the number of workers expands to meet the needs of the employer even bringing in overseas  workers to meet the demand. 

Not to mention all the additional ex-aviation workers now retired to a life of unashamed luxury and their extravagant lifestyles and classic cars!B)

Nowt is ever so simple and statistics prove very little but it is hard to see how "leisure" aviation for the masses can remain affordable if climate change is taken seriously, yes alternative fuels are available, but nothing that packs  the "bang for your buck" of oil.

Alan

Edited by barkerwilliams
Link to post
Share on other sites

So who do we cull first to halt GW/CC ? On a per capita basis Oz, USA and Canada are highest CO2 emitters. India amongst lowest. So its no good pointing the finger at population growth to cure GW. Impoverished naitons with huge populations eg India are likely to suffer population crashes from food shortages, but around 10 have to starve to death to allow one american to continue their lifestyle. Western democracies have to curtail their consumption of just about  everything non-essential including pleasure flights ( and classic cars) to halt GW. I dont see that happening....until its too late.

Peter

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.