MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

29 November 2006

This is really very good news indeed. [More:]I live far enough away from Stansted that I'm not affected by planes, but have friends who live at Takeley who were in danger of losing their home and business in the airport expansion. Stansted is just at the point of Essex where the urban fingers that reach from London via Harlow end and the old money part of the county begins. Some beautiful villages, farmland, and part of Hatfield Forest, would all have been lost or ruined in the airport expansion.

I know this isn't the end of it, and ultimately BAA will probably get their way, but the evil day is put off for a few more years.
Wow! Very good news for the environment but I doubt such micro-scale change will affect "climate change". Maybe if a lot of micro-scales get together... I think people are confusing the term climate change with local climate change which are not the same thing, although connected. Anyhow, maybe it is good that some terms become less exotic even through wrong usage.
posted by carmina 29 November | 13:58
That's just about to be on Channel 4 news, I think. And yes, it's great news and I hope the inevitable appeal fails.
posted by TheDonF 29 November | 14:35
carmina, I think the idea here is something like "if you don't build it, they won't come" -- purposefully limited air traffic, to reduce fuel consumption. I'm not sure how that works if the traffic just finds its own way someplace else, though.

Looking at Gmaps, it's just a wonderfully British litany of town names:
* Mountfitchet
* Bishop's Stortford
* Burton End
* Molehill Green
* Great Hallingbury
* Much Hadham
* Ugley
* Broxted
* Aythorp Roding
* High Easter
OK I stop now

Midsomer and Causton must be nearby.
posted by stilicho 29 November | 15:15
Pratts Bottom is near me.
posted by TheDonF 29 November | 15:29
stilicho, I agree with you, I don't think "building fewer airports" will prevent people depending on air-travel a lot which is the reason behind large fuel consumption. For that we would probably have to consider life style changes. Of course, I have absolutely no problem with micro-climate management, in fact I am all for it because it trains people to think about the individual factor. I just thought it is cute to say "we are not building an airport --good news for climate change".

I so have a soft spot for small English towns' names.
posted by carmina 29 November | 15:42
I have a friend who is a member of the Ugley Women's Institute.
posted by essexjan 29 November | 15:44
What an honor, indeed.
posted by carmina 29 November | 16:37
Wow! Very good news for the environment but I doubt such micro-scale change will affect "climate change".


Me too, especially in light of the following numbers:

One billion Indians, two hundred million of whom are now living a lifestyle comparable to that of the West.

One point three billion Chinese, with a comparable percentage living, spending, and consuming in ways that aren't what you'd call earth-friendly.

I think about these numbers every time someone tells me that turning off the faucet as I shave or separating my recyclables is really going to make a difference.

(I'm not singling them out as perpetrators of environmental damage; the wealthy, developed countries still commit the lion's share of such offenses. I'm just sayin' that the capitalist world-system is evolving in such a way that serious damage to the environment isn't just a product of the traditionally wealthy countries anymore.)
posted by jason's_planet 29 November | 21:07
(And it goes without saying that I'm happy to hear that essexjan's friends won't lose their houses.)

posted by jason's_planet 29 November | 21:08
I doubt such micro-scale change will affect "climate change". Maybe if a lot of micro-scales get together...
Exactly, plus - more airports means more flights, so more competetion, so cheaper fares, so more people flying. I feel the same way about the building of more and more roads, freeways and bridges - don't build the fucking roads, then the cars won't drive on them and, if the traffic problems are bad enough, people will use public transport - use the money you were going to spend on new roads to improve the public transport network (or, in the case of my city, create one!) - win, win, win. Also, get rid of all the parking in cities so there is nowhere for cars to go and replace it with secure, free parking at suburban rail stations to encourage people not to bring a car into the city with one person in it, just to have it sit in a car park all day.

Can you tell I'm a recent convert to public transport?
posted by dg 29 November | 21:31
My most memorable overheard quote from last week: || Ruthlessly efficient.

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN