• Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Some day I’d like to hear about a forest twice the size of London getting planted without there being a gigantic airport built.

  • wewbull
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Increasing airport size as a way to stimulate economic growth seems like dated thinking to me. Flights are increasingly not used for business travel as communications technology has advanced. All you’re really doing is trying to maintain hub status for London which doesn’t drive economic activity outside of the airport industry.

    Heathrow needs a third runway as much as it needs a rollercoaster. A huge construction project, with all the emissions that brings, that paves over houses, green spaces and the M25 (on a bridge).

    Finally, I guess we can see why Labour whipped against the environment bill last week.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      if only there was some painfully obvious and immortal way to stimulate economic growth, like idk… building housing and factories with public transport connecting the two…

      oh right shit i forgot, that would annoy the real estate investors in london, can’t do that.

  • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    The level of production of CO2 is so vast that planting trees is not going to do anything meaningful. We need to sharply and rapidly stop producing CO2 immediately and work on viable scalable CO2 removal and storage methods with urgency.

    • HumanPenguin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      We need to sharply and rapidly stop producing CO2 immediately

      Can I recommend a new law requiring billionaires the travel only by trebuchet. May solve more issues then just CO2

  • JohnSmith
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    The depth of climate crisis denial is depressing. We should be cutting drastically down on flying. We should be cutting drastically down on miles driven in cars. Nope, none of that.

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    The rationale of electric planes is unhinged. “We’re going to plan to expend energy as if future technology has already been implemented”.

    • kralk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      Straight out of the David Cameron “carbon capture” playbook

    • wewbull
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      An electric plane will expend similar levels of energy to a jet plane.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        That’s beside my point, considering that all commercial electric aircraft being developed are basically all at or near the “announced plans to develop” stage and they’re already talking about expanding airports using these erstwhile emissions savings as a rationale. It would be more honest to say they don’t actually give a damn about the climate.

        • wewbull
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Ok, I see where you’re coming from and agree.

  • ddash@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    Haven’t we debunked the offsetting as useful? There was a lot of fraud going on in that space as well.