51–58 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heathrow should be scrapped and replaced with the estuary airport.
Isn't that the one that would require digging up the SS Richard Montgomery and its thousand tons of waterlogged explosives? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile any efficiency savings are eaten up by huge increases in air travel. See Jevons paradox. I'm also very sceptical that we can synthesise enough fuel to power even a fraction of the current fleet. We need to fix this problem now and that means relying on technology we have now.
As flying is frequently better for the environment than driving, increased flights might not be a bad thing for the environment. It really comes down to if their replacing existing travel or adding more travel.
You can't drive across the Atlantic or Pacific, this a rather silly argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
plus we can invest that money improving bus services and rail networks, which will help poorer people participate in the economy. If you can't get the bus to work, you probably don't need a plane to Dubai...
What do you mean by improving bus services? Greater West London is the most connected outside of Central, it's TfL policy not to invest in better, cleaner, greener buses not because the money is instead going to LHR expansion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by improving bus services? Greater West London is the most connected outside of Central, it's TfL policy not to invest in better, cleaner, greener buses not because the money is instead going to LHR expansion.
buses outside of London are (mainly) massively overpriced and horrifically irregular - it's a problem we need to fix right now imo
Personally I'm pro expansion but not too concerned if it never happens. However, it will be a great shame if, after all of this effort in the name of environment, these smaller issues I mentioned don't get solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As flying is frequently better for the environment than driving, increased flights might not be a bad thing for the environment. It really comes down to if their replacing existing travel or adding more travel.
As flying is frequently better for the environment than driving You can't drive across the Atlantic or Pacific, this a rather silly argument.
The majority of flights are between locations you can drive to. Even long haul flights often have at least one leg within driving distance ie: DC > NYC > Hawaii rather than a direct flight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that the one that would require digging up the SS Richard Montgomery and its thousand tons of waterlogged explosives? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery
Next thing you know you'll be expected to wipe your arse after toileting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As flying is frequently better for the environment than driving You can't drive across the Atlantic or Pacific, this a rather silly argument.
Which is why I said: It really comes down to if their replacing existing travel or adding more travel. The majority of flights are between locations you can drive to. Even long haul flights often have at least one leg within driving distance ie: DC > NYC > Hawaii rather than a direct flight.
Not out of Heathrow they aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why I said: It really comes down to if their replacing existing travel or adding more travel. The majority of flights are between locations you can drive to. Even long haul flights often have at least one leg within driving distance ie: DC > NYC > Hawaii rather than a direct flight.
The majority of flights are between locations you can drive to. Not out of Heathrow they aren't.
Basically, you can fly from almost any airport to almost any other airport. But, you can only directly fly between a tiny subset of those pairs.