Here is a summary form of arguments against a third runway at Heathrow that might just sway prominent people, in particular London MPs. If you have one, find out his or her views and if he or she is not yet against, ask his or her answers to the following.
SEVEN KEY REASONS AGAINST A THIRD RUNWAY AT HEATHROW
- A third runway would obliterate Sipson and most of Harmondsworth, both of which appear in Doomsday Book and lie on a Roman Road. 3,300-4,000 homes would need to be demolished, contrary to Consultation document's claims.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387930.html
- 2.5 million likely to be adversely affected by noise - Govt. report. Heathrow's alignment with the prevailing wind to London means a disproportionate amount of noise will fall over the densely populated west half of London. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382788.html?c=on#c182120
- 78% of London businesses OPPOSE it - LCC report 2006. Over 60% Heathrow traffic is leisure, NOT business. Most Britons don't support airport expansion, and want less short-haul flying from Heathrow. http://www.hacan.org.uk/news/press_releases.php?id=209
- London's position as world financial capital does NOT depend on the number of runways at Heathrow - London is world financial capital because of its centrality in the time zone spread of developed nations, and the universality of English. Most financial business is done via electronic communications, not aircraft.
- UK's per capita CO2 emissions are well above the world average, UNLIKE China's. Now is no longer the time to be increasing them. 13% of UK climate-changing emissions are from aviation (Govt. answer, Hansard 2/5/2007) yet developed country emissions need to be cut by over 90%, as the Live Earth pledge noted.
- Emissions trading would not render unsustainable growth like from a third runway sustainable, since 1:1 emissions trading does not cut emissions, it merely moves them around. When the cheap opportunities to trade emissions are exhausted, the growth in emissions habits is harder to escape from.
- Air pollution in vicinity already often exceeds EU statutory limits which are progressively reducing. Incremental improvements in aircraft fleet and cars on the M4 will struggle to fulfil those, let alone with a third runway and the additional flights.
THE TIME TO CHANGE COURSE IS NOW
http://www.notrag.org/
http://www.hacan.org.uk/
http://www.2mgroup.org.uk/
http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/
SEVEN KEY REASONS AGAINST A THIRD RUNWAY AT HEATHROW
- A third runway would obliterate Sipson and most of Harmondsworth, both of which appear in Doomsday Book and lie on a Roman Road. 3,300-4,000 homes would need to be demolished, contrary to Consultation document's claims.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387930.html - 2.5 million likely to be adversely affected by noise - Govt. report. Heathrow's alignment with the prevailing wind to London means a disproportionate amount of noise will fall over the densely populated west half of London.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382788.html?c=on#c182120 - 78% of London businesses OPPOSE it - LCC report 2006. Over 60% Heathrow traffic is leisure, NOT business. Most Britons don't support airport expansion, and want less short-haul flying from Heathrow.
http://www.hacan.org.uk/news/press_releases.php?id=209 - London's position as world financial capital does NOT depend on the number of runways at Heathrow - London is world financial capital because of its centrality in the time zone spread of developed nations, and the universality of English. Most financial business is done via electronic communications, not aircraft.
- UK's per capita CO2 emissions are well above the world average, UNLIKE China's. Now is no longer the time to be increasing them. 13% of UK climate-changing emissions are from aviation (Govt. answer, Hansard 2/5/2007) yet developed country emissions need to be cut by over 90%, as the Live Earth pledge noted.
- Emissions trading would not render unsustainable growth like from a third runway sustainable, since 1:1 emissions trading does not cut emissions, it merely moves them around. When the cheap opportunities to trade emissions are exhausted, the growth in emissions habits is harder to escape from.
- Air pollution in vicinity already often exceeds EU statutory limits which are progressively reducing. Incremental improvements in aircraft fleet and cars on the M4 will struggle to fulfil those, let alone with a third runway and the additional flights.
THE TIME TO CHANGE COURSE IS NOW
http://www.notrag.org/ http://www.hacan.org.uk/ http://www.2mgroup.org.uk/ http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
8th reason to oppose it.
04.01.2008 14:12
party going happy clappy protesting hippie
Another Reason: Peak Oil
04.01.2008 16:00
Play Dough
90% emissions cut: not enough
04.01.2008 16:36
Yet we are already at 385ppm:
Revenge of Gaia
Contrails and Aviationsmog
04.01.2008 16:40
Aircraft contrails - the streams of water droplets and ice that form when hot exhaust meets cold, moist air - can persist for many hours, spreading to an average width of 2 kilometres before dispersing. They are known to contribute to global warming by trapping the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface (New Scientist, 19 October 2002, p 6).
SkyWatcher
Homepage:
http://www.contrails.nl/
Contrails incorporated (partially)
05.01.2008 01:12
As an IMC-UK post earlier this year noted, the real figure is considerably higher since also the 13% allocates the UK 50% of international air traffic to/from UK whereas UK citizens are over 50% of passengers. However, then you get into the issue of are you allocating emissions to end user rather than territorial sphere as most of the non-aviation emissions are defined.
Me
Kiwis say jets are 10 percent of NZ's climate impact, not 2-3 percent
08.01.2008 19:44
repost
Homepage:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/3/205119/1611
Suggested alteration to point #5
21.01.2008 17:14
jimroland
Homepage:
http://www.portal.campaigncc.org/node/1116