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.

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.

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.

Pratts Bottom is near me.

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.

I have a friend who is a member of the Ugley Women's Institute.

What an honor, indeed.

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.)

(And it goes without saying that I'm happy to hear that essexjan's friends won't lose their houses.)

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?