Climate protests in London

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

Extinction rebellion have announced plans to close Heathrow for a day later this month, and then for 10 days next month, unless the planned expansion of Heathrow is cancelled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48470623

That's Emma Thompson buggered then.

[eightonedee]

Perhaps that might be rephrased?

Underlying sentiment understood!

[TaplowGreen]

Perhaps that might be rephrased?

Underlying sentiment understood!

It certainly wasn't meant literally! 

Notwithstanding the activities of hypocritical luvvies, I hope that anyone from "Extinction Rebellion" moronic enough to put lives at risk by flying drones near Heathrow is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[Red Squirrel]

Notwithstanding the activities of hypocritical luvvies, I hope that anyone from "Extinction Rebellion" moronic enough to put lives at risk by flying drones near Heathrow is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

As you will know, TG, I (like your good self) have no political bias whatsoever. However your use of the word 'moronic' and the phrases 'put lives at risk' and ''prosecuted to the full extent of the law' almost make me wonder if you are beginning to consider coming down from the fence on this issue?

As an aside, are any lives at risk if global heating develops in the way a number of people suggest that it may?

[broadgage]

The more extreme climate change activists consider that peaceful and legal protests seldom change anything.

An analogy would be the fur trade. This has now largely ceased in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), not entirely I know but largely.
Was this achieved by peaceful protest and by voting ? no it was not ! The mainstream fur trade was ended by a determined campaign of arson attacks against stores selling furs.

"A bomb is worth a million votes"

I very much doubt that any aircraft will actually be brought down. However the threat thereof may put some people of flying which is the idea.
Many flights may be diverted, again a dis-incentive to air travel.
Any anti-drone operations will be expensive and disruptive, again no doubt this is the idea.
A few hundred or even a few dozen protestors equipped with small and cheap drones could be a very effective protest.

Or of course this may be fake news, put about by extinction rebellion in order to distract attention from some other mode of attack.
It would be easy for protestors to infiltrate one of the many outsourced services in a modern airport.
Once on the "inside" consider the fun they could have !

[Western Pathfinder]

Doesn't bear thinking about,but you can bet the security services have done so.

[TaplowGreen]

Notwithstanding the activities of hypocritical luvvies, I hope that anyone from "Extinction Rebellion" moronic enough to put lives at risk by flying drones near Heathrow is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

As an aside, are any lives at risk if global heating develops in the way a number of people suggest that it may?

Yes. of course they are, that's not in question. I'm far closer to helping to  alleviate it through my business on a daily basis than you could ever know.
Do you think a proper or acceptable way to mitigate this is to put hundreds of lives at risk by flying drones across Heathrow Airport, or would you agree that it's thoroughly irresponsible and illegal?

[ellendune]

Notwithstanding the activities of hypocritical luvvies, I hope that anyone from "Extinction Rebellion" moronic enough to put lives at risk by flying drones near Heathrow is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

As an aside, are any lives at risk if global heating develops in the way a number of people suggest that it may?

Yes. of course they are, that's not in question. I'm far closer to helping to  alleviate it through my business on a daily basis than you could ever know.
Do you think a proper or acceptable way to mitigate this is to put hundreds of lives at risk by flying drones across Heathrow Airport, or would you agree that it's thoroughly irresponsible and illegal?

Ironically if Heathrow have the sort of detection that they say they have and react accordingly. or if the protesters are a bit careful then lives will not be put at risk, but disruption will be severe.  Though there are some big ifs in that. 

[Timmer]

I find it sad that some appear to be saying it’s okay to break the law and bring potentially severe disruption to people’s lives through no fault of their own. The genie is out of the bottle as far as the masses travelling the world is concerned. You may stop it here and in Europe, but you have no chance in most of the rest of the developed world. If you think they will pay attention to what our little island does/doesn’t do you may well be disappointed. Those days are long gone and you can thank our politicians for that.

[Bmblbzzz]

A few hundred or even a few dozen protestors equipped with small and cheap drones could be a very effective protest.

Phones not drones.

[Surrey 455]

I find it sad that some appear to be saying it’s okay to break the law and bring potentially severe disruption to people’s lives through no fault of their own. The genie is out of the bottle as far as the masses travelling the world is concerned. You may stop it here and in Europe, but you have no chance in most of the rest of the developed world. If you think they will pay attention to what our little island does/doesn’t do you may well be disappointed. Those days are long gone and you can thank our politicians for that.

Yes, I'd like to see what would happen if they tried to pull that stunt at an American airport or Chinese or Russian etc

[Red Squirrel]

The genie is out of the bottle as far as the masses travelling the world is concerned.

In the late sixties it seemed inevitable that our local railway would close, and that a six-lane urban motorway would be built within a few hundred metres of where I live. The railway is now flourishing, and the motorway never happened. Things can change.

There may be no practical alternative to air for long-distance travel, but should we be expanding short-haul flights? Would Heathrow need additional capacity if more short-haul flights switched to high speed rail?

The budget for expanding Heathrow is £14BN... how does this investment sit with the climate emergency?

[Rhydgaled]

Do you think a proper or acceptable way to mitigate this is to put hundreds of lives at risk by flying drones across Heathrow Airport, or would you agree that it's thoroughly irresponsible and illegal?

Illegal yes, irresponsible too if it puts lives at risk. I don't see why it necessarily would put lives at risk, if the protest drone flights were carefully planned to avoid any risk of impact with an aircraft that is landing, taking off or flying.

I cannot support Extinction Rebellion's tactics, because they (the tactics) are illegal. But the objective of this campaign, to stop the expansion of Heathrow, is a worthy aim; if they weren't proposing to break the law to acheive that I'd agree with them completely.

[broadgage]

I find it sad that some appear to be saying it’s okay to break the law and bring potentially severe disruption to people’s lives through no fault of their own. The genie is out of the bottle as far as the masses travelling the world is concerned. You may stop it here and in Europe, but you have no chance in most of the rest of the developed world. If you think they will pay attention to what our little island does/doesn’t do you may well be disappointed. Those days are long gone and you can thank our politicians for that.

I have mixed feelings about this.
I do not really agree with violent or otherwise illegal protests, but on the other hand lawful actions seem unlikely to have any effect whatsoever.
If serious about climate change, we may have to try and put the "genie back in the bottle". Air transport is inherently and unavoidably highly polluting with very little scope for improvement.
Flying large numbers of people for long distances needs a lot of fuel.
Only liquid hydrocarbon fuels have the required energy density.

I cant see air transport closing down in just a few years as is being demanded by some protesters. In view of the concerns about both climate change, and about the continued availability of cheap oil, it seems most unwise to actively expand air transport.

IME^▸ (in my experience), most of the population ARE concerned about climate change, but WONT accept anything significant that affects THEIR lifestyle.
"of course air travel should be restricted, provided that this does not affect MY right to foreign holidays"
"petrol or diesel cars should be discouraged, but I HAVE to drive MY little darlings to school"

And of course the excellent point has been made that such protests would be dealt with very firmly indeed in many other countries.

[Timmer]

There may be no practical alternative to air for long-distance travel, but should we be expanding short-haul flights? Would Heathrow need additional capacity if more short-haul flights switched to high speed rail?

The budget for expanding Heathrow is £14BN... how does this investment sit with the climate emergency?

Yes we should be expanding high speed rail to cut back on short haul flights.

We have the Channel Tunnel that opens up most of Europe to the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) but so far little advantage of this has been taken with trains to Amsterdam having only recently started and that’s only one way! Crazy.

Then you have HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). Look at all the fuss being caused over building that. If you could get London-Edinburgh/Glasgow down to less than three hours then you would stand a chance of eliminating most air travel between London and Scotland.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see the third runway ever being built at Heathrow. Not now.