Close Bristol Airport Permanently

by greenie Sat Jan 06, 2007 13:47

HOW?

by reason Sat Jan 06, 2007 15:50

I can't help but thinking that a lot of indymedia readers probably take a lot of unnecessary flights ... a lot of people probably are keen on promoting the idea of helping the environment by not flying but when it comes down to it do they follow through with it in their actions.

Personally I have never been on a plane out of the country; I would like to think I am not the exception to the rule. Think of the planet; take your holiday in the UK ... as unpredictable as the weather is there are a lot of beautiful locations in the UK.

by surfer Sun Jan 07, 2007 14:01

I do find it amusing that the end result of the spurious internationalism of these trendies is that they spend half their lives actually flying more than the ordinary people they affect to despise... showing once again how thoroughly recouperated they have been. Although I don't know if you can recouperate something that's that phoney in the first place.

Even businessmen tend to use computer and video links these days - actually going somewhere is pointless unless you are actually lugging something physical around...

by start talking sense Sun Jan 07, 2007 14:22

You claim that most people flying out of Bristol Airport are rich people going to their second homes.

Do you have any evidence for this or are you fabricating 'fact'?

Would it be better for the environment if people from Bristol drive 100+ miles across the country to catch flights from other airports?

Quite frankly your environmental argument makes no sense unless all airports are closed (which ain't going to happen). Yet another case of a so-called environmentalist coming up with spurios information, proposing an environmentally dangerous policy.

by Crash Sun Jan 07, 2007 20:06

Users of Bristol Airport are almost certainly rich. The CAA did a survey which showed that those flying from Stansted, which is dominated by budget airlines, have an average household income of £57,000. http://tinyurl.com/y82zad Actually it would be better if people drove hundreds of miles to Heathrow to catch their flight... a - they'd be less likely to make the flight in the first place, as it would cost more in time and money b - average emissions per mile of flying are higher than those of driving There is plenty of research out there that shows that a major effect of the massive subsidies we all pay to support cheap flights is to encourage the rich to fly more often, taking their money out of the country. http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/predictanddecide.pdf What is 'environmentally dangerous' is fostering a flight dependent culture, just as we have fostered a car dependent culture. We spent millions of pounds building motorways to encourage people to use their cars and waste energy, now we are told we need to spend millions more to reverse these trends. Do we want to create the same problem with flying?

by The Bristol Blogger Sun Jan 07, 2007 20:09

"Time for the authority to actually "regulate" I suspect.There are two airfields in the UK where the runways give me serious safety concern BRS [Bristol] and LBA [Leeds]. In the course of my job I have to operate into both, each are barely acceptable in reasonable conditions and marginal to "unsafe" in poor conditions for commercial aircraft.
I would never allow my family to fly from them as passengers in anything other than good weather conditions.Commercial and planning pressures have allowed their terminals to be developed way in excess of their runways physical characteristics and local weather.It will be a brave manager who ignores the recent 3 events at BRS ,should a more serious accident occur the lawyers will have a field day.wake up Bristol,wake up CAA"

by Reason Mon Jan 08, 2007 08:56

In 2003 74% of passengers were travelling for leisure purposes. Of those 65% were in socio economic groups C1* and C2*, these are hardly the high earners in society.

The actual average income for leisure passengers in just under £40000 a year, saying that an "average" income is always a bad guide to the earnings of people going through an airport, for example most people traveling internationaly (19%) come from the £28,750-£34,499 earnings bracket which encompasses a fairly broad range to start with, who is to say that 80% of this income bracket aren’t earning £28,750.

My overall point is that quoting an average earnings figure might make a nice sound bite but isn't necessarily reflective of the true picture.

*C1 Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial/administrative/professional
**C2 Skilled manual workers

by Jografer Mon Jan 08, 2007 09:56

Yey, airport is open again at 10 this morning, was worried for a while that next week's trip to Portugal would involve a coach trip to B'ham, but not a problem.

I will obviously beat myself up about being so rich as to be able to travel by air (I wish...) and also about daring to have a holiday abroad when I should be going to Weston for the week..... but hey, I'll leave that to the Indy little Englanders...

.....kiss, kiss, I'll send you all a postcard.... surface rather than airmail of course.....

by greenie Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:58

how about less facetious comments and cO2 .............. and more intelligence from the likes of jografer?

by Jografer Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:22 jografer at hotmail dot com

I'm soooo upset, I'll cry all the way to the beach...

... if you wonder why Indies & trustafarians have such a marginal influence, then a thread that tells Bristolians that they are both rich and bad if they use air travel has to be an example of why..

... but hey, being so right in such a terrible world must almost be a religious experience for you... don't worry, you'll get your reward in the socialist millenium/anarchist dreamland/green heaven ** when it eventually arrives......


** please indicate your current preferable fantasy as appropriate

by freedom Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:39

With all these cancelled flights, the skys above Bristol have been nice and quiet, im shure much more quite for people living neer the airport. you dont realize how noisey the planes are until you dont hear them for a few days. i have tried not to fly anymore but you have to be very quick to get cheep railfares cos most are the price of an airfair to the other side of the world, Renationolise the railways cos we subsidise private railoperators anyway (but not enough).

by ivan noke Mon Jan 08, 2007 14:49 ivan at dodosegg dot org

Interesting to read here that some people that fly on airplanes do not consider themselves to be rich.

Perhaps if they were to read these U.N. findings they might reconsider?


http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-1/wider-wdhw-launch-5-12-2006/wider-wdhw-press-release-5-12-2006.pdf


http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-1/wider-wdhw-launch-5-12-2006/wider-wdhw-report-5-12-2006.pdf

by Followers of Clarkson Mon Jan 08, 2007 19:45

"Whilst the world was being ran to ruin, whilst the seas rose, whilst the tragedies unfolded, what did you do to stop the madness Daddy?"

"Why, son, I posted messages on websites saying how proud I was to play more than my part in the destruction! I delighted in my own cynicism!"

"Why Daddy?"

"Because I feared change, and i didnt like the people who supported that change."

"Daddy"

"Yes son?"

"I hate you."

by get real Tue Jan 09, 2007 08:00

Human beings are ultimately destructive as would any species which evolved enough to control their environment (even as hunter gathers we stripped an area then moved on). Any true green would surely advocate the death of all humans to 'save' the planet.

Despite all the focus on climate change have you suddenly seen everyone abandoning their cars or flight numbers falling. Of course not.

The only form of government that could stop this destruction could be a totalitarian one, as a democratically elected Government would be voted out as soon as it tried to introduce such measures (look what happens to councils that try to increase parking charges).

For the so-called greenies on this site, either explain how a democratic government can sort out the environment or what measures their totalitarian (left or right) government will need to take to stop us all destroying the planet.

by ? Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:59

I have flown out of Bristol a few times and am most certainly not rich. If you can fly to Dublin for £12.50 or catch a train to Leeds for £120 (standard class) I know what i'd do.

by Bob Tue Jan 09, 2007 13:37

get real wrote: Human beings are ultimately destructive as would any species which evolved enough to control their environment (even as hunter gathers we stripped an area then moved on). Any true green would surely advocate the death of all humans to 'save' the planet.

Not ture, most hunter gather groups live in blance with the enviroment and develop complex social codes to ensure this such as natative american tribes forbidding hunting of buffalo buring the calving season. The population base of such tribes means hat they could/can stay in one area, hang out depleting the resources then money one, but they did not destroy the ability of the area to recover, hence the next time they return to it, it has fully recovered. Yes, there were tribes who did not (e.g. easter island) but they paid the price for thier inbalance.

get real wrote: The only form of government that could stop this destruction could be a totalitarian one, as a democratically elected Government would be voted out as soon as it tried to introduce such measures (look what happens to councils that try to increase parking charges).

The NIMBY approach of our society is a problem and has lead us down this path of destruction. It is quite possible that people will cling to thier oil-debt lifestyles even in the face of destruction, this is what the current phase of the battle of climate change is about - do the become adults and take responsibility or be children and burry our heads in the sand, selling our long term survial for short term conforts.

get real wrote: For the so-called greenies on this site, either explain how a democratic government can sort out the environment or what measures their totalitarian (left or right) government will need to take to stop us all destroying the planet.

It can only be done through information - we need to get more information to people about what is happening and trust that they will make the sustainable choice. There is good evidence that green issues are growing in people inportance, such issues were marginal only 10 years ago, and now all the parties (except the fringe right) are begun to embrace them (though we need action, not lip-service). More than that, I think people will take action as the effects of oil running out and climate change cease to be just newspaper reports and become reaility in thier lives, but by then it might be too late.

by skint Thu Jan 11, 2007 20:34

I have family in Ireland and the only way I can afford to visit them is to fly. If I took a train/ferry it would take a couple of days to get there and cost twice as much. Sure I am rich compared to a starving Ethiopian, but so is a homeless British smackhead.

by Global rich Thu Jan 11, 2007 22:49

Welcome to capitalism, to which everything is relative.

by Crash Mon Feb 26, 2007 22:44

The UK emits three times the world average of CO2.
Transport is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions in the UK.
Aviation is the fastest growing source of CO2 within transportation.
Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

by Jografer Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52

Just flown back from a nice relaxing holiday, glad to see I wasn't diverted to Cardiff, so guessed you haven't closed Bristol Airport yet. Getting a date sorted out soon ??