Fuzz

Must cut down on Co2 emissions and or tax your **** off for producing them...

Oh lets build another terminal at LHR to spew more Co2 into the atmosphere.

I believe that is where the hypocrisy lies.

Martin2005

Well thats not hypocrisy though is it, it's governing.

Any govenment has to make choices, and balance the impacts of various issues.

We need our economy to grow, therefore we need to keep pace with the increased demand for aviation. At the same time they are planning more nuclear powerstations, and energy generation is a MUCH bigger co2 generater.

So it's about balance.

Also I hear what you say about taxation, but in reality is it's hard to point to many areas where we are 'having our ***** taxed off' in the name of the climate

Klaatu

Your question IS answered in bold in my post containing a post made by Leslie. If you don't understand that, I cannot help you.

Martin2005

Well my answer to that is above

Plus try to be not so unpleasant, can't we discuss without all the macho bullsiht

Klaatu

That's afallacy. Economies do not need to grow (And in economics this means an environment with limitless resources) to be sustainable.

Klaatu

Puhlease!!!!!!

Martin2005

Ermm thats an interesting point, I suppose we could all go back to the stone as as well?

OK let's put it this way, people want economies to grow, and (in an ideal world) share in the wealth and opportunity it brings, governments need economies to grow, otherwise they don't stay in power for long.

Odds on

Try visiting London. We have a 'Low Emission Zone' and the Congestion charge is about to go through the roof to tax anyone that succeeds in life.

Klaatu

Basic economic models are unsustainable (Because most people don't understand economics anyway) in the real world regardless what Govn'ts will do/say. The facts are there cannot be growth without emissions as we stand today. We can change technologhy which reduces emissions however, with compound growth in an economy, you only slow growth in emission volumes for a short period.

We'll all be back to sqaure one soon enough.

Leslie

I'll have to say it again, I personally was not blaming extra CO2 pollution, it was the protestors using that as a reason. I was stating the hypocrisy of the Govt advocating doubling air traffic at the same time that they are wittling on about GBW and charging us all extra money under that excuse. Actually I gather that GBW is caused more by water vapour rather than CO2 and I know that aircraft produce an awfull lot of that, but I don't relish getting into a discussion about that. I have said often enough that I think climate change is quite likely to be cyclical with a bit of help from ourselves.

yes I can imagine what people say about noise, and I well remember how careful we had to be departing LHR in a VC10 so as not to bust the noise restrictions with what was a pretty loud aircraft.

How many times have I ranted about how how our taxes are "pissed against the wall" by these clowns I wonder. I must be famous for it!

I can't speculate on job losses. I also can't imagine that much of a decrease in the present traffic levels at LHR if at all anyway. Still need all the people you have there now and more I bet.

Les

Klaatu

This is hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped. Which falls inline with Russian figures since 1998, decadel trends have been negative.