Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Plane Stupid shut down Stansted Airport

Watching BBC news last night. Surprised at the emphasis on inconvienence of passengers making extensive headlines. Anyone who spends time in airports home and abroad will note that Ryanair is notorious for bumping passengers and leaving them stranded on a daily basis. And shucks! That never makes the news.

All Direct Action inconviences someone, somewhere. But far more productive than investing one's energies in electing lesser-evil candidates.
 
Plane Stupid are self-righteous rich kids pursuing an anti working class agenda, deliberately targeting working class travellers (most non business Standsted users are C1C2Ds; less than 20% of Ryanair flights are for business purposes).

Spot on.
 
First of all - all corporations are profit hungry. Some of them make this profit performing shit that could be seen as useful. The NHS makes a profit, but it also performs a socially useful function. But it also releases carbon dioxide as part of its operations. Does this mean it should be blockaded? Sorry thats a stupid example - but do you see where i am heading with this.

I would include enabling ordinary people to nip somewhere abroad to recover from a relentless year of ever more intense work to be a socially useful function (at this moment in time). This is because cheap flights, when viewed as part of the overall system ARE NOT THE MAIN FUCKING PROBLEM.

People going on holiday ARE NOT THE MAIN FUCKING PROBLEM.

I am not disputing that we shouldn't be really really serious about climate change. I just can't get my head around the fact that the very best outcome for Plane Stupid would be flights increased in price so only the rich and business get access to them. And this for me is not a way to create an ecological revolution.

I am quite willing to not fly - but only if *all* business is conducted by video conferencing, *and* if we get longer holidays and better pay to actually afford both the time and money to use the alternatives that are available to us. Free, beautiful designed and reliable public transport - then the car stays at home (well if i had one - but this is what people who do drive say to me). Free insulation for homes. Lets get in there demanding stuff that could actually get people excited, not 'stay in your homes' type ideas.

An example - for the past few years there has been 6 million tonnes of CO2 released (each year) from burning 'waste' gas as a result of north sea oil drilling operations. This gas could have been used , but it is just flared and burnt because it's 'not profitable' to make use of it. And this system is full to the brim of this sort of waste. The end consumer choice is possibly the last place to go if we want big savings in CO2.
 
The best outcome for Plane Stupid would be Heathrow R3 not being built and more planes flying over their houses in West London.
 
I'm sure most of the protesters drove to the area as well, instead of using organic bicycles or something.

I think you're wrong.

Heard them on TV and I'm now almost certain that Olivia, Lily et al, rode to Stanstead on their ponies!

"Fifty-four of us, one hundred rozzers. Must be Pimms o'clock! What, what?"
 
Elbows says "A million people flying once is less sustainable than one git flying a thousand times", but it is a matter of priorities, and how resources are spread. Blaming aviation for CO2 emissions has even more of a multiplier effect than trying to hit government targets via the 30% non business energy use, instead of the 70% business energy use: Globally, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation are responsible for around 1.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions.(Source.). Whereas, the internet is already producing more CO2 emissions than worldwide air traffic (Source.).

Well regarding priorities, I think a lot of the current agenda is about the limits to available liquid fuels, rather than climate change. The internet may be using a lot of energy, but at least it is feasible to run it off renewables or nuclear, whereas this is much harder with physical transport. And its probably a lot easier to make the internet & computers more efficient. If any semblance of advanced society is to remain after the oil runs low, it will be in large part due to computers & the net. It has a substantial role to play in reducing travel & physical entertainment goods. Right now it is quite wasteful, there is much to be done, but at least it will be possible to do so, in a largely non-controvertial way. Throw the book at spammers for a start, our broken email system wastes a lot of energy Im sure.

I believe that both business and individuals will be forced to do their bit, I do not think that business is just going to carry on as normal. Over the next few years a large chunk of this will be via a lot of businesses downsizing or disappearing completely. Of course this will affect the masses too via job losses and less availability of goods & services.

The rhetoric of class struggle may enable you to demand that others make the big sacrifices first, but it wont do anything to save you from the pain.
 
The problem with flying is it's faster and thus more convenient.

London to Aberdeen. An hour and a half in the air and you're there. Train? 8 hours. Driving? Even longer.

Even adding an hour check in and half an hour each end to sort our luggage, that's still significantly quicker.
 
FWIW - anyone setting up a 'Ship Stupid' pressure group to blockade ports? Marine trade is responsible for not just more atmospheric pollution than the aviation industry, but also huge amounts of fuel and waste dumping in the oceans. Where are the climate change protestors at Felixstowe and the other major docks where the ships from China come filled with unsustainably produced goods, and then return mostly unladen?

This is slightly misleading. Although the shipping industry could be doing more, its CO2 emissions , in proportion to the amount of goods carried, are much much less than that from airlines. Ships are responsible for about twice as much total emissions as aviation but they carry 90% of the world's goods.

Transport by sea is the most efficient method of transport we have.

As for unsustainably produced Chinese goods, I think it's a little unfair to blame the shipping companies for this. Blame the people who buy them or the Chinese factories that make them.
 
Doesn't alter the fact that it emits more, it's emissions are/were (mahoosive decline in marine miles over the last few months) growing faster, and something like 40% of all marine miles are done with completely empty ships.

And of course, your argument buys into the idea that shipping goods from one side of the planet to the other is actually a good thing too.

The unsustainable bit was just a hyperbolic sop really, a rhetorical flourish if you will.
 
Even adding an hour check in and half an hour each end to sort our luggage, that's still significantly quicker.

There is no check-in or luggage to collect if you travel with hand luggage only and the majority of internal flights are taken by business people who carry no hold baggage.

Flying is often half the price of train travel too. Until the speed and cost advantages are addressed anti-aviation protestors have absolutely no chance.

What will make a difference is a reliable London-Edinburgh high speed rail link.

If there are genuine alternatives people will use them. Nobody wants to contribute more emissions than they have to but right now the argument in favour of some internal flying is too compelling.
 
And of course, your argument buys into the idea that shipping goods from one side of the planet to the other is actually a good thing too.

It does nothing of the sort. I was simply pointing out that if you want to discourage this from happening, blockading ports to make shipping look unattractive (and therefore much more energy-intensive modes more attractive) isn't the most effective way of doing so.
 
Well no, the best way would be to encourage retailers to stop stocking product that has to be transported 10,000 miles to get here, but you won't do that until you persuade consumers that £20 DVD players are a bad idea. For example.

My point, such as it was, is that the Plane Stupid lot, and many on this thread, focus solely on airtravel and do themselves or their cause no favours by stopping blockading average punters, who as I said earlier just see/hear 'protest/climate change/airport shut' and think 'Fucking hippys/students/unwashed' and ignore the actual issue being protested about.
 
Well no, the best way would be to encourage retailers to stop stocking product that has to be transported 10,000 miles to get here, but you won't do that until you persuade consumers that £20 DVD players are a bad idea. For example.

My point, such as it was, is that the Plane Stupid lot, and many on this thread, focus solely on airtravel and do themselves or their cause no favours by stopping blockading average punters, who as I said earlier just see/hear 'protest/climate change/airport shut' and think 'Fucking hippys/students/unwashed' and ignore the actual issue being protested about.
You are of course correct that moving back to a more localised system of production, supply and distribution of goods is a vital measure if we're really going to tackle CO2 emissions.

How you then manage to use this as a stick with which to beat the plane stupid lot is beyond me though.

by your logic climate change protestors would never be able to target any individual aspect of climate change without also simultaneously targetting every other aspect of it all at the same time. In case you'd missed it, the environmental movement has done a lot of campaigning on stuff like food miles, the localisation of goods, anti-globalisation etc. which is probably largely where you're getting your information from, so please don't use it as a stick to beat environmentalists with just because yesterday morning at 4am the environmental movement took action against airport expansion.
 
As for unsustainably produced Chinese goods, I think it's a little unfair to blame the shipping companies for this. Blame the people who buy them or the Chinese factories that make them.
Reply With Quote

this is the problem is we have ended up targeting objects or chemicals to the extent that we can't see the overall system that drives all of this. You don't have to 'blame' shipping companies, or 'blame' people buying cheap plastic shite, or 'blame' the chinese factories (probably a mixture of UK/US finance and chinese capital ). Shipping companies exist to make a profit or they go bust. Stuff is only manufactured in china because it makes more profits than workers demanding more wages in the west lets you make.

CO2 is now the most demonised molecule in the history of chemistry - but CO2 doesn't cause climate change - it is 'work'. Why do we do the work that we do? how has the work we do changed over time? to make profits? for who?

This might sound abstract, but its really worth asking these questions otherwise we are going to end up in a situation where you have a vanguard of ecological activists who become fixated on the release of a molecule to the detriment of any other process. In fact it might be atagonistic to other organising. And that would be a shame cos the same processes that cause climate change are the same process attacking the wage, attacking housing, and generally making life unpleasant for the majority, so we should have a lot in common really.
this site thinks about some of these sorts of questions
 
Good on them for taking action that has drawn attention to the issue. For the most part the debate moves from whether they were right to take the action they took to what needs to be done to halt climate change. Pretty much a validation of their action that so many people are debating this serious topic.

I had the pleasure of meeting these campaigners recently and they know their stuff. The same organisation had 'stormed' Parliament dressed as suffragettes. As for taking the argument to the Government - they have done just that and have met with three Secretary of State's to press for common sense with regards to airport expansion. They were given a cup of tea and a smile but no movement on policy. Gordon Brown has commited the UK Government to the necessary reduction (by 80%) of carbon ommissions. Trouble is he intends to do his by voluntary action by industry and individuals - leaving it to the market. In the meantime his Government expands airports bowing to the market driven desire to place short term profit before the future of the planet - now that is plane stupid.

Plane Stupid said:
We did so with heavy hearts, knowing it would disrupt passengers, because we knew the consequences of this action couldn't be worse than the consequences of inaction. If irreversible climate change kicks in, millions of lives will be destroyed.

http://www.planestupid.com/
 
ffs - so lets judge a profit hungy corporation with a notorious climate change 'sceptic' for a a CEO , by the alleged class composition of it 's consumers !!

genius , roll on the apocalypse
Are you saying that Ryanair doesn't know its customer base? Whatever else you think about Michael O'Leary, he'll know who is buying his product. If you think you know better, let us have your figures.

Yes, Ryanair is a profit-hungry corporation, and Michael O'Leary is a disreputable spiv. So target the boardroom. Plane Stupid - and you - are confused about where responsibility lies.

All corporations are out for themselves. Ryanair is not unusual in this respect. (Famously, the film The Corporation compared the typical activity of corporations with DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy). So what is your point?
 
just because yesterday morning at 4am the environmental movement took action against airport expansion.
A group of campaigners. Not "the environmental movement". I've been interested in environmental issues since the 70s, and these guys do not represent me.
 
A group of campaigners. Not "the environmental movement". I've been interested in environmental issues since the 70s, and these guys do not represent me.

Move aside the young people have seen your failure and do not wish to emulate it ;)

(knows this can be equally said of me:))
 
A group of campaigners. Not "the environmental movement". I've been interested in environmental issues since the 70s, and these guys do not represent me.

nor me, i think they are reformist, capitalist scumbags of the worst kind and are very close to the top of the list of people who will need to be quietly offed in the chaos of revolution
 
You are of course correct that moving back to a more localised system of production, supply and distribution of goods is a vital measure if we're really going to tackle CO2 emissions.

How you then manage to use this as a stick with which to beat the plane stupid lot is beyond me though.

by your logic climate change protestors would never be able to target any individual aspect of climate change without also simultaneously targetting every other aspect of it all at the same time. In case you'd missed it, the environmental movement has done a lot of campaigning on stuff like food miles, the localisation of goods, anti-globalisation etc. which is probably largely where you're getting your information from, so please don't use it as a stick to beat environmentalists with just because yesterday morning at 4am the environmental movement took action against airport expansion.

Ok, well aside from your taking two separate conversations I've been having on the thread (the first paragraph was a reply to teuchters comments about marine freighting, not a stick to beat the whole environmental movement with).

I will restate my point, again since clearly there are many people on here who can't see the consequences of disruptive action like this, is that the long term effects of this type of protest - one that causes significant inconvenience to lots of people - don't do causes of any description any good in the minds of the public, build new, or on pre-existing stereotypes of whom will take part in such protests, and how despite mealy mouthed press statements about 'With heavy hearts we did this...' they aren't concerned with people, only their cause.

All the crap that's been written on this thread about awareness raising, that it's suceeded because we're talking about it on this website...it's a fucking joke, it really is. Go see the torygraph comment pages about this 'action', or The Sun's - you want w/c reaction to this, go and read the comments made on The Sun's website. This is where this great awareness raising campaign gets you:

Posh Protestors Cause Airport Chaos

So all of those who think this is good and worthwhile, is doing a job of reaching out to those not convinced about AGW, is raising awareness of the issue, you should congratulate yourselves on this coverage in the Bun.
 
A group of campaigners. Not "the environmental movement". I've been interested in environmental issues since the 70s, and these guys do not represent me.
ok, sorry you're right, I should have said 'members of the environmental movement'

a few question - as an environmentalist, do you support the governments plans to expand airport capacity? if so, how do you square this with your interest in environmental issues?

It's very easy to sit on the side lines passing judgement, effectively saying 'ooh you don't want to do it like that, you should have protested by targeting this or that target...'. In reality no protest movement has ever done things perfectly, maybe they should have targeted BAA's head office or something, but then they've never have got any more than a footnote on page 15 of the independant, rather than full live bbc news coverage... and Plane Stupid have already targeted Parliament, Heathrow etc. etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom