Protesters blockade at Stansted airport

sturll

Voyager2002 wrote: »

See tpday's Guardian. George Monbiot makes the point that the protesters understand the severity of global warming far better than do our so-called leaders.

I am glad that they were protesting, but I think they could have found a better way to get their message across

Global Warming is a con.

ynot2005

sturll wrote: »

Global Warming is a con.

im not undecided on that sturl, there are other planets in the solar aystem that don't have ryanair flying about and they are warming up too so you could be right.

if you take a look at plane stupids website and the 10 reasons to ground the plane you can see how wishy washy, fake and feeble their argument is.

that nonsense is not how they recruit the muppets who broke into stansted yesterday, they got a free ride down to stansted, got someone else to pay their fines and had a jolly good time doing a bit of civil unrest.

sturll

I watched a programme some time back and it was called the Global Warming Myth - on Discovery or something and on it were several of the worlds most experianced boffins in regards to Global Warming. Not only that but i read National Geographic and New Scientist on a partially regular basis and the general feeling is that about half of scientists agree it does exist and hafl don't.

Both have extremely strong arguments for and against and both generally agree that pollution and C02 is bad for the planet. The dissagreement begins when they talk of it having a direct effect on the warming element and the weather etc. Lets not forget a few million years back we had an ice age, there have been recorded freak weather since records began and that was way before cars were on the roads.

I mean, forgive my ignorance but i remember being a child at school and watching the rain forests be chopped down and being told because of that there was an ozone layer and that in 10 years there would be no trees on earth. Well, there are still plenty of trees... Not only that but my neighbour is (i think) 72 and he claims that he has noticed no major changes in the weather and that if anything things have improved from the smock ridden days of the 60's.

So no - ill side with the half that think its nothing more than a theory made bigger than it actually is so the governments can tax us accordingly and convince us that paying a few extra quid on flights is helping the environment.

davetrousers

sturll wrote: »

I watched a programme some time back and it was called the Global Warming Myth -

Do you mean the programme called the Great Global Warming Swindle? The one that has been largely discredited?

pcg2001

I was affected by a flight cancellation yesterday. I had paid £5 for my Ryanair flight caoming back to the UK and ended up having to buy a last minute replacement at the airport for £150. I've tried claiming it from my travel insurance (Columbus), who clearly state they cover:

"strike, industrial action or security alert (provided that when this policy was issued or the trip was booked, whichever was later, no such action had already been declared and therefore there was no reasonable expectation that this would affect your trip);"

However they are saying this was not a "security alert" but "protesters"., so they won't pay. I wouldn't be getting a lot, just £150-the excess of £100, so only £50, but it's the principle of the thing. I get insurance to insure against these things!! If the flight had cost a lot more, I would have had to pay a lot more.

Is there anything else I can do to claim this back?

I am very upset about this. On the one hand because someone else's views cost me money and a lot of anxiety. And all I read on the web, except here :rolleyes:, is how right these activists were to do what they did. How lovely!! Next time these people go on holiday, let's hope some nice activists disrupt their flights!!

On the other hand, this was a security incident. These people entered private property endangering security. If they had had other intentions, I am sure security measure would have increased a lot today. I find it very hypocritical that you have to almost strip to go through security and wait often hours in line for silly security reasons. And in the end, you can enter an airport and cause major disruptions. We are being fooled by airport security.

Glad to hear fellow MSE agree with me.


PS: Don't get me wrong, I think a bit more taxes should be charged for flying to offset carbon emissions and I am all for reducing our climate footprint... but this is not the way to protest. Also cheap flights have brought holidays abroad for a lot of people who could not afford them. Travelling is a lot more democratic now and I personally like that Ryanair keeps making profits and showing that flying need not be an elitist thing. So targeting Stansted is targeting cheap flights and not binge flying, since in the ideal world of these activists you can fly often as long as you are rich.

sturll

davetrousers wrote: »

Do you mean the programme called the Great Global Warming Swindle? The one that has been largely discredited?

Im not entirely sure - but i doubt ity since the title of the film you mention sounds somewhat biased. The programme i watched was impartial.

sturll

pcg2001 wrote: »

PS: Don't get me wrong, I think a bit more taxes should be charged for flying to offset carbon emissions and I am all for reducing our climate footprint... but this is not the way to protest. Also cheap flights have brought holidays abroad for a lot of people who could not afford them. Travelling is a lot more democratic now and I personally like that Ryanair keeps making profits and showing that flying need not be an elitist thing. So targeting Stansted is targeting cheap flights and not binge flying, since in the ideal world of these activists you can fly often as long as you are rich.

More that the £80pp long haul it is set to be?

Its a ridiculous tax on an unfounded concern.

redux

pcg2001 wrote: »

PS: Don't get me wrong, I think a bit more taxes should be charged for flying to offset carbon emissions and I am all for reducing our climate footprint...

according to the Guardian after a previous Plane Stupid protest:

What Plane Stupid are campaigning for is the removal of that choice - by the closure of all short-haul flight routes. But what about long-haul flights? These would be acceptable, only if they were "necessary". But who would be the judge of that? "We're not policy wonks," says Murray. "But we're calling for some kind of demand constraint."

Last year, I flew to Paris on an aeroplane that is more fuel-efficient per seat mile than virtually all cars with 2 people in, and roughly on a par with the train.

But if I'd gone by train, the distance would have been about twice as far as the flight, so double the emissions

If I'd driven there, someone would have had to come with me to drive the car back. So also double.

Basically, that woman protestor who went to New York and back has a larger personal carbon footprint from one flight than I have aggregated across all the flights I've done in the last 18 years. And I bet some of those twits go skiing at Christmas

vikingaero

withabix wrote: »

SHOPPING AT LUSH IS DIRECTLY SUPPORTING PLANE STUPID - DON'T DO IT!

The owner of Lush Costmetics (that disgusting smelly high street shop) supports Plane Stupid financially and is going to pay all the legal costs and fines of the 47 so far arrested and charged with AGGRAVATED TRESPASSING (clearly a form of PEACEFUL protest).

PLEASE AVOID SHOPPING AT LUSH - ITS' JUST PLAIN STUPID!


HOPEFULLY WE CAN ALL HELP LUSH GO BUST - SORRY IF YOU WORK THERE...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092783/Soap-tycoon-Why-I-funding-airport-demonstrations-paying-protesters-legal-bills.html

I'd be interested to see where Mark Constantine takes his holidays. I suspect it's a case of do as I say and not leading by example.

I never shop at Lush. The acrid smell puts me off.

ynot2005

im sure its ok for mark to run his worldwide business by extensive air travel "192 stores worldwide, 40 of which are in the UK"

its all for a good cause, bringing lush perfume to the world