llamatron Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 The Metro LMAO what a credible source of info. The fact that you think we even have the land to, or the climate to grow the food we consume betrays your mental incapacity. Were it that you were looking at all! Certainly no further than the back of your eyelids. If you had read my post carefully you'd have realised I had even predicted your response. Subsistence farming requires something like an acre of fertile land per person. Those countries which rely on this approach are the ones where people consistently die of starvation. Evidence from the once productive Zimbabwe only goes to prove the point. On the issue of sustainability I agree, but to do it in the way you are suggesting would mean significantly thinning our population density. Are you prepared to live by the courage of your convictions and be the first to volunteer? We don't have enough land that is my point:loopy: How exactly does building over the land we have help! Ps we take plenty of food from places like zimbabwe and ethiopia. Their governments would rather have our money than food for their own people. If their government was to do what they should our food prices would probably rocket. The solution is clearly to thin our population and yes I totally support that. I am supporting that by not having children. Just resort to insults if you wish:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Just heard question time from the other night, No-one seems to be supporting it and they seem to be as flummoxed as I was about why you would put it in an area of environmental importance. It clearly is a bit of a joke. even ryanair said it was bonkers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forumosaurus Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 People like you make me dispair! The environment is a hell of a lot more important than the economy, we need it for things like food and water. What is the point in having a life if you have to exist on a vast industrial estate. Theres much more to life than money! To build an airport on such an important envronmental area is not necessary, its just damn stupid. I am pretty sure that this is a joke/threat rather than a serious idea anyway. By the time climate change gets into full swing, me and you will be dead. So what's the concern? Also, do you really think Governments don't know how to carbon free travel? They're just figuring out a way to tax it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The bbc keeps mentioning a new airport "boris island" on the thames estuary which sounds to me like an environmental nightmare and a quick way around the unpopularity of a new runway at heathrow which I thought was decided against due to things like environmental concerns I am missing something aren't I? Yes- it will be an excellent (albeit costly) airport, far better placed than Heathrow and Gatwick. What's not to like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I've got a "World of Wonder Book" from 1971 and there's a brilliant two page spread on "London's Third Airport" to be built on an island in the estuary. I'll snap it later and upload. As promised: http://nwex.co.uk/temp/borisisland.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Yes- it will be an excellent (albeit costly) airport, far better placed than Heathrow and Gatwick. What's not to like? (Not in any particular order) : 1. Birdstrikes. 2. Lack of direct accessibility (from anywhere not called 'London') 3. High cost of accommodation for staff who will work at the airport. 4. Cost of noise abatement procedures. If you ask a major airline whether the UK should build an additional runway at Heathrow or build/adapt an airport elsewhere, they will tell you to build at Heathrow. What else would you expect them to say? If they operate out of Heathrow and you build an airport elsewhere, they will have to go to the additional expense of setting up aircraft, passenger and freight handling facilities elsewhere, or they will risk losing market share to the competition. There is rather less competition (particularly on trans-atlantic flights) than you might think and the airlines have no intention of increasing that competition. The major airline consortia do not want to move away from Heathrow or Gatwick and they probably wouldn't be at all happy if other (particularly long-haul) carriers did start using other airports Stansted is already operating at near capacity. I understand that the 2nd runway option there has been scrapped, but even if the airport did suddenly grow a second runway, the passenger-handling facilities are already stretched and communication links (road and rail) are also heavily loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.