This week Labour MPs have endorsed the third runway at Heathrow Airport, doubling passenger throughput from 67 million per year to 135 million. This equates to an additional 220,000 flights per year. Without this expansion, according to government boffins, these passengers would go via other European airports such as Paris Charles de Gaulle or Schipol instead.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are both against this expansion, with Susan Kramer, Liberal Democrats Heathrow spokesperson, saying;
“In light of the new government guidance on the cost of CO2 emissions, Heathrow expansion will actually cost us billions. Only this government could dress up a loss of billions of pounds as a reason to have a third runway.”
On the face of it, I’m all for this expansion. It has to be good for Britain if passengers are using our facilities and not those of competing European nations. The Government has said there would be considerable impact on British jobs if airport expansion was not permitted.
But this week is the start of the Copenhagen climate change conference where world leaders convene to talk about legislating for reduced carbon emissions over expensive lunches and fine wine. Maybe if they all stopped talking that would be a good way to reduce CO2 emissions..
Anyway the question is if climate change is so real and ongoing, why are the Government facilitating an enormous increase in capacity for what is already one of the world’s biggest airports? Destroying the ozone layer, suffering tsunami, earthquakes, Godzilla destroying Tokyo culminating in a global cataclysm in the name of jobs? Surely it’s pure madness?
The conspiracy theorist in me suggests that this expansion might be a way of increasing tax revenues for the Government. If they can bring in a further 220,000 flights per year to Heathrow alone, then assuming each plane has 200 people on it and each pays £15 climate change tax that would bring in an additional £660million. Small beer in the grand scheme but a lot of “free” money on the face of it.
But again what about climate change? This horrible nasty monster lurking on the horizon to which hundreds if not thousands of scientists are working away in Government funded organisations, coming up with massaged statistics proving that we will all spontaneously combust by AD 2101.
If they want us to have faith that climate change is as serious as we are being told, the government must be seen to be doing something. Until then, I’ll remain a sceptic and keep paying my inflated road tax. Bastards.
loading…
Well the ozone layer thing is apparently a problem. Not because there’s a hole but because it’s closing up again. And that’s making us more at risk re CO2 emmissions and global warming.
But there’s also a theory that the earth is tilting nearer the sun at present and there’s nothing we can do anyway.
The thing that bugs me most though is that we are presented with “science” as a fact. Well having a science background I very much doubt scientific “integrity” or “fact” because the whole thing is usually far too complicated with far too many factors for anyone to have anything other than a best guess at what is happening and then try to find evidence to “prove it”.
And if climate change is such a big issue – why are we importing so much from China and India still and why are we still not persuading people to limit families to slow the rate of population growth? That would do far more than any other measure the government is wittering on about.
loading...
Yes population growth is the biggest threat, it drains ALL resources and increases carbon production and thats mainly the third world who are to blame.
Aid to third world countries should be stipulated on population control, if they cant stop breeding then give them NOTHING, not a penny.
loading...
I’m a bit bemused as to why the likes of India get tons of millions from the UK yet have a nuclear arms programme..
loading...
Our money that could be and should be spent on our country.
loading...
875 million I believe.
loading...
Global warming is happening the evidence is out there, ice caps are reducing atmospheric humidity is increase water levels are rising slightly. The question that’s is open for debate here is not is global warming happening but why is it happening? Is CO2 the driving factor or is it a natural cycle? If we ever decide that it is Carbon emissions then the next question is how can we control these emissions?
Is Taxation the best answer? I don’t think so because all you are saying here is “if you are rich do what you want, just pay for it” is this the fair why to control Carbon emissions?
I feel the only way to control Carbon emissions are to put a limit on how much you can use not on how much you can afford. The only way you can do this is some kind of Carbon credit card, which you issue to individuals and companies. This credit limit cannot be exceeded or perhaps you could purchase someone else’s Carbon allowance. I grant you this may seem complex system but no more complex or costly as the national ID card scheme.
loading...
Satellite records have been kept for polar sea ice over the last thirty years by the University Of Illinois. In 2007 2008, two very different records were set. The Arctic broke the previous record for the least sea ice area ever recorded, while the Antarctic broke the record for the most sea ice area ever recorded. Summed up over the entire earth, polar ice has remained constant. There has been no net gain or loss of polar sea ice since records began.
Heres a graph:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/07/03/ice_change_large.jpg
Arctic mean temperatures have barely changed since the start of their records in 1958. The Arctic was in fact warmer in the 1940s than it is now, but cooled between 1940 and 1980.
A few extra bits:
UN IPCC hockey stick graph is based on cherry-picked data.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/what-do-the-leaked-cru-e-mails-really-prove-about-global-warming/
FUDGE FACTOR. In ten years time people are going to be like what the fuck.
loading...
Just to add to that, what make me steam is when Gorden Brown says stuff like to doubt the science means you are ether stupid or hate the earth.
The bottem line is not about if the world is warming or not but are WE making it warm. There is still NO FACTS or data that proves we are. Its such an amazing guilt free way for the goverment to put more tax’s on everything and with the green eco nutjobs as there strong arm to hammer ANY opersition. Its perfect for them.
loading...
Sounds like a decent idea that not only would control carbon emissions, but would encourage companies to create more efficient products.
loading...
Hey Phil what about a thread on this please?
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Closing-arguments-for-huge-Fylde.5887012.jp
loading...
Which makes the earth’s tilt to the sun theory seem by far the most likely explanation. But then no-one could think of a way of increasing taxes on that basis and keeping the world too busy recycling their rubbish and cycling everywhere to think for themselves whilst obviously the bigger sources of the problem were ignored.
And if that makes me a “flat-earther” in your opinion Mr Brown, your policies have historically proved to never have been thought out properly and I don’t think of you as an intellectual equal to my dog.
loading...
And he’s only just 4.
loading...