Plane Stupid shut down Stansted Airport

[free spirit]

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.

so... causing a bad reaction in the Sun or Telegraph is the knew arbiter of whether an action was worthwhile or not is it?

why not go the whole hog and include the daily mail as well ffs

 

[kyser_soze]

It's an almost universal reaction across the board.

How exactly is it a positive awareness raising activity if all it achieves is press and people slagging it off? Indeed, the fact that it's got people like dlr and I pissed off about it should tell you bundles - that at best it's playing to the crowd, at worst it displays a horrifying low level of awareness...

 

[danny la rouge]

a few question - as an environmentalist, do you support the governments plans to expand airport capacity?

No. As I've already said in the thread.

It's very easy to sit on the side lines passing judgement

I've had that one, too. I target my activism in ways I judge best. Obviously.

 

[free spirit]

btw Kyser- what was the suns reaction to say the fuel protests? I could have sworn that people were inconvenienced by lorry drivers blockading fuel depots and motorways across the country?

and if we're talking about inconveneincing passengers, what about stuff like the baggage handlers strikes, or the french blocking ports, or the people who're inconveneinced when roads are closed to facilitate a protest march etc. Is it just environmentalists who should make sure they never inconvenience anyone ever, or is your position consistent to never supporting any strike, or protest that may inconvenience anyone?

 

[danny la rouge]

and if we're talking about inconveneincing passengers, what about stuff like the baggage handlers strikes [...]?

I've done that one, passim, too.

 

[free spirit]

No. As I've already said in the thread.

I've had that one, too. I target my activism in ways I judge best. Obviously.

I did say I felt a JC2 moment coming on...

*goes off to read rest of thread*

 

[danny la rouge]

I did say I felt a JC2 moment coming on...

*goes off to read rest of thread*

Remember the multiquote function!

 

[free spirit]

I've done that one, passim, too.

A strike is a different thing altogether. First, working class solidarity is paramount, so no decent worker would scab. Second, the inconvenience wasn't a by-product of this action, it was the purpose of the action. And third, it was targeted at flyers, thereby blaming the individuals and not the business. And fourth, the stated aim was publicity, not the withdrawal of labour to further the interests of the workforce.

righto - so strikes in support of workers pay and conditions (or similar) is ok to inconvenience anyone, but protests over climate change should never inconvenience anyone (well not working class people anyway).

ok, I disagree.

But that doesn't cover the fuel protests, which IMO are directly comparible... not that I particularly expect you to be supportive of the fuel protests, I was more trying to point out (to kyser) that using the reactions of the likes of the Sun as a yardstick for whether an action is acceptable is bollocks, as it's reaction isn't based on logic, it's based on it's agenda.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Most pointelss protest ever. They were saying that for every minute the planes were on the ground they were stopping 4.2 million tonnes of Carbon Emissions from happening.

So what did they do - kept the planes in the air for 4 hours.

*pulls 'hhhnnnnnggg' face*

The protestors should all be charged with attempted manslaughter. Manslaughter cos of the non-deliberate actions that endangered people lives whilst they were in the air with dwindling fuel supplies, and attempted cos no-one actually crashed.

And as for global warming etc etc....cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cowzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

Does the phrase "cost/benefit analysis" mean anything to you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sure most of the protesters drove to the area as well, instead of using organic bicycles or something.

You're "sure" of a lot of things, but you're not often actually correct, are you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

If the protesters could single out frequent flyers and business class, then fair play. But they can't. Some of the people disrupted will be folk who have saved up for ages, and who don't get many holidays. I'd be furious if it had been me on one of the less-than-a-handful of occasions I'd flown.

Yes, I'm more angry at the government, but frankly so should the protesters be.

While I agree that the disruption to some of the public is regrettable, and that those people have a right to be angry, I suspect Stansted was targeted because it would affect fewer non-business flyers than an action at Heathrow or Gatwick would.
If this is a one-off action, then I'm personally inclined to approve of it, but if it were to be a regular occurrence to the exclusion of trying to address the issues by other means (pushing for regulation, exposing government hypocrisy, doing DA on BAA etc) then I'd think it was pointless except as a mechanism for turning people away from the issues.

 

[DownwardDog]

Why didn't they shut down an airport that handles mainly cargo? Maybe East Midlands at night. Then they would have only inconvenienced ebil crapitalists not that gang of schoolkids who thought they were going on a trip this week, etc.

I did LOL at the Plane Stupid spokes-termagant on TV when she said the passengers were "probably" flying to second homes and shouldn't do it.

 

[Groucho]

Stansted was targeted because it is controversially being expanded to take more flights as approved by the Government against advice.

 

[danny la rouge]

righto - so strikes in support of workers pay and conditions (or similar) is ok to inconvenience anyone, but protests over climate change should never inconvenience anyone (well not working class people anyway).

Not quite. The target in a strike isn't the customer. Whereas the target in yesterday's protest was.

I'm not saying don't ever inconvenience people, I'm saying make sure you target the right people. Make sure you understand where responsibility lies. Make sure you have a structural understanding. And, fundamentally, make sure you have a class analysis, otherwise you are firing blind.

 

[free spirit]

Not quite. The target in a strike isn't the customer. Whereas the target in yesterday's protest was.

I'm not saying don't ever inconvenience people, I'm saying make sure you target the right people. Make sure you understand where responsibility lies. Make sure you have a structural understanding. And, fundamentally, make sure you have a class analysis, otherwise you are firing blind.

erm no, the target in yesterdays action was the government*.

pretty much the same as a baggage handlers stike's target being the company they work for, but to get to their target they have to inconvenience the passengers.

*or more specifically the government's decision to overrule the local council and grant permission for a 2nd runway at stansed, and an extra 10 million passengers per yer.

by class analysis do you mean an analysis of which class will be worst affected by climate change? that being the working class / poorest sections of society.

 

[free spirit]

Why didn't they shut down an airport that handles mainly cargo? Maybe East Midlands at night. Then they would have only inconvenienced ebil crapitalists not that gang of schoolkids who thought they were going on a trip this week, etc.

I did LOL at the Plane Stupid spokes-termagant on TV when she said the passengers were "probably" flying to second homes and shouldn't do it.

would have been prety hard to link a protest at east midlands airport to the decision to build a second runway at stansted though...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why not? If there's not enough airport capacity, all you can do is expand them or build new airports.

Why do people insist on regressing us back to the middle ages technologically?

There's enough airport capacity.

You do realise that extra runways are built to accommodate PROJECTED capacity, don't you?

You might want to apprise yourself of the fall-off in air travel during the recessions of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s to see how such projections might be affected.

 

[free spirit]

IT'S a lot of paperwork to get permission from each and every member of The Working Class™ before embarking on these protests. The last time I tried to have an all inclusive, multi-faith and apolitical demo on a busy airport runway, I got almost everyone's written approval, with my message-free banners at the ready, when a Ms. Dean from Barnstaple rang to say she was going to Ibiza to get fucked up on E and I had to call it all off.

best post on this thead btw

 

[ViolentPanda]

I flew Ryanair from Prestwick to Pisa. It was (much) cheaper than a train ticket to my mother-in-law's in Staffordshire.

I'll be visiting her later this month. I'll drive, since that's cheaper and more convenient. If we were really serious about climate change, it wouldn't be.

And there's the rub.

If our government (this one or any other) were serious about reducing emissions they'd legislate for (as snadge has mentioned) tax on aviation fuel, on an electricity rate for business users that factored in social/environmental costs of production and use, for a nationalised, subsidised, expanded and centrally (as in by a "British Rail" equivalent, rather than by central government) administered public transport system, and tangible "personal user" alternative energy production funding, rather than the green fig-leaf of the allowances for wind turbines etc.

 

[DownwardDog]

would have been prety hard to link a protest at east midlands airport to the decision to build a second runway at stansted though...

It's pretty hard to link building a runway at Stansted and the weather in 2108 but people have bought into that.

 

[danny la rouge]

I suspect Stansted was targeted because it would affect fewer non-business flyers than an action at Heathrow or Gatwick would.

Well, Heathrow is far more reliant on business travel than Stansted. PDF. 49% ABs using the airport, and 42% business flights. As opposed to Ryanair's 19% business flights, and Stansted's greater reliance on C1C2D passengers.

According to the CAA, the last available figures show that 30.8 per cent of the UK’s passengers travelled via Heathrow, followed by 14.4 per cent at Gatwick, 9.6 per cent at Stansted and 3.4 per cent at Luton.

 

[danny la rouge]

erm no, the target in yesterdays action was the government*.

No it wasn't. I don't remember seeing government ministers having their travel disrupted.

 

[free spirit]

It's pretty hard to link building a runway at Stansted and the weather in 2108 but people have bought into that.

hard it may have been in say 1980, luckily after several decades scientific research it's a fairly simple link to make.

 

[free spirit]

No it wasn't. I don't remember seeing government ministers having their travel disrupted.

well, it depends what you mean by the 'target' doesn't it.

the target of an airport workers strike is the company, but they use disruption of the airports function - ie distruption of passengers to put pressure on the company.

the target of yesterdays protest was the government, and they used disruption of the airports function / disruption of passengers to put pressure on the government.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yup.

Must have left the scouts at the age of 27, which is interesting, as he has claimed to be in his mid-20s.

 

[N_igma]

Plane takes off....airport shuts down!

 

[teuchter]

Yup.

Must have left the scouts at the age of 27, which is interesting, as he has claimed to be in his mid-20s.

In the interests of accuracy: he has stated that he is 37.

 

[teuchter]

well, it depends what you mean by the 'target' doesn't it.

the target of an airport workers strike is the company, but they use disruption of the airports function - ie distruption of passengers to put pressure on the company.

the target of yesterdays protest was the government, and they used disruption of the airports function / disruption of passengers to put pressure on the government.

Yes.


And...

All this "class" nonsense is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.

I don't really see why the "working class" should be exempted from having to give up a few luxuries as part of an attempt to reduce carbon emissions. The point about climate change is that its effects will be felt soonest and hardest by the poorest people on the planet, who are unlikely to shed many tears over the idea that a "working class" Brit, living in one of the richest countries on earth with (in relative terms) decent healthcare and working conditions and housing and benefits and all the rest might have to suffer the hardship of giving up one of his overseas holidays.

It's inevitable that, if we have to make sacrifices in order to achieve carbon emissions reductions, then these will affect those with less disposable income more. But that doesn't seem like a good reason not to make those sacrifices. If the concern is that poorer Brits are going to suffer from environmental measures then it's long-standing questions of wealth redistribution that need to be addressed rather than using this as an excuse to duck out of making decisions like whether or not we should be expanding airports.

And I suspect there's a fair bit of reverse snobbery going on here as a result of these Plane Stupid people being apparently "middle class".

 

[free spirit]

Plane takes off....airport shuts down!

at least this lot knew planes take off from runways... if it's been the 'Anonymous' internet protest lot they'd have probably been targeting the conveyor belts

 

[ViolentPanda]

In the interests of accuracy: he has stated that he is 37.

He's stated lots of things.