<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 3rd runway for Heathrow ?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.michaelwood.me.uk/wordpress/2009/01/16/3rd-runway-for-heathrow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.michaelwood.me.uk/wordpress/2009/01/16/3rd-runway-for-heathrow/</link>
	<description>Tech stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:15:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: andylockran</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelwood.me.uk/wordpress/2009/01/16/3rd-runway-for-heathrow/#comment-13690</link>
		<dc:creator>andylockran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelwood.me.uk/wordpress/2009/01/16/3rd-runway-for-heathrow/#comment-13690</guid>
		<description>Michael,

I agree with you that it&#039;s a shame that the government have chosen this route - however, air travel is a necessity to keep up with the pace of the global economy.  Having recently traveled through Dubai - the size of their airport really hit me - it&#039;s HUGE!

However, it&#039;s a little bit of a vicious circle... if we don&#039;t develop our aiports to keep up with the new global economy - then we&#039;ll lose wealth as a country - and be less able to research and develop greener ideas.   I think we need to force the government to have a much more strict &#039;green agenda&#039; rather than to halt &#039;progress.&#039;  

I read the paper a bit whilst I was in India - and one of the comments a political commentator made was that &quot;The West&#039;s CO2 emissions are largely &#039;lifestyle emissions&#039; whilst India, China and other developing nations&#039; CO2 emissions were &#039;necessity&#039; emissions.&quot;

Unfortunately, I think expanding the airports are a necessity - however, leaving the emissions (both chemical and noise) from planes unchecked is the greater issue.  We need to be pushing the development of a green agenda in everything.  Geoff Hoon stated in his speech, that reducing car emissions by relatively little would offset the pollutants produced by this new extension.

I, unfortunately, don&#039;t agree with &#039;offsetting&#039; - it&#039;s a buzz word that doesn&#039;t improve the problem, but stops it from getting worse than the current level.  Like &#039;tolerance&#039; it&#039;s a temporary measure, and not a solution.  We need to be improving the efficiency of everything - and maybe changing things at a more fundamental level.

The one comment that really changed my mind of Heathrow was that if the runway weren&#039;t to be built, the secondary option would be for mixed-use.. but due to planes having to circle around Heathrow (burning fuel that otherwise wouldn&#039;t need to be burned) the level of pollution falling on the surrounding area would actually increase.  

There&#039;s much more to be said on the issue - and it&#039;s a fine balancing act.  However, I think that the external pressure of other countries wanting to fly into Britain means that the government had little choice.  Especially given the current economic climate, putting a limit on incoming air traffic into Britain would be massively damaging.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael,</p>
<p>I agree with you that it&#8217;s a shame that the government have chosen this route &#8211; however, air travel is a necessity to keep up with the pace of the global economy.  Having recently traveled through Dubai &#8211; the size of their airport really hit me &#8211; it&#8217;s HUGE!</p>
<p>However, it&#8217;s a little bit of a vicious circle&#8230; if we don&#8217;t develop our aiports to keep up with the new global economy &#8211; then we&#8217;ll lose wealth as a country &#8211; and be less able to research and develop greener ideas.   I think we need to force the government to have a much more strict &#8216;green agenda&#8217; rather than to halt &#8216;progress.&#8217;  </p>
<p>I read the paper a bit whilst I was in India &#8211; and one of the comments a political commentator made was that &#8220;The West&#8217;s CO2 emissions are largely &#8216;lifestyle emissions&#8217; whilst India, China and other developing nations&#8217; CO2 emissions were &#8216;necessity&#8217; emissions.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I think expanding the airports are a necessity &#8211; however, leaving the emissions (both chemical and noise) from planes unchecked is the greater issue.  We need to be pushing the development of a green agenda in everything.  Geoff Hoon stated in his speech, that reducing car emissions by relatively little would offset the pollutants produced by this new extension.</p>
<p>I, unfortunately, don&#8217;t agree with &#8216;offsetting&#8217; &#8211; it&#8217;s a buzz word that doesn&#8217;t improve the problem, but stops it from getting worse than the current level.  Like &#8216;tolerance&#8217; it&#8217;s a temporary measure, and not a solution.  We need to be improving the efficiency of everything &#8211; and maybe changing things at a more fundamental level.</p>
<p>The one comment that really changed my mind of Heathrow was that if the runway weren&#8217;t to be built, the secondary option would be for mixed-use.. but due to planes having to circle around Heathrow (burning fuel that otherwise wouldn&#8217;t need to be burned) the level of pollution falling on the surrounding area would actually increase.  </p>
<p>There&#8217;s much more to be said on the issue &#8211; and it&#8217;s a fine balancing act.  However, I think that the external pressure of other countries wanting to fly into Britain means that the government had little choice.  Especially given the current economic climate, putting a limit on incoming air traffic into Britain would be massively damaging.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

