Tomorrow is the official first day (they started early) of a protest camp north of the airport to complain about the British Airports Authority's intention to build a third runway and yet another terminal so that this already hyperactive airline hub can take on yet more business. The protesters are largely focusing on the impact of air travel on global warming but travel of people and materials to the airport as well as in some of the destinations they reach must also be issues. Some of the local protesters are apparently more concerned about the the potential demolition of their houses (seems fair enough) and/or the increased noise pollution (this is already a problem over a wide area). The organisers hope for between 1000 and 1500 protesters at the camp. They have promised not to 'go air side' but have not ruled out direct action to 'make their point'. The Government has stated that any disruption to passenger travel on what is normally the airport's busiest week would be 'unacceptable' and there is a considerable police presence that has been instructed to be 'robust but lawful' (this sounds like a rather combustible mixture). The police/BAA 'battle plan' is described in http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2148458,00.html The suggestion that the protests might impair the effective anti-terror activities of the police seems a mite contrived. The official view is that air travel is not currently a major UK producer of greenhouse gases (that could be simply because we are efficient in terms of producing them in other ways, notably road and sea transport and in home heating and lighting) and that further development of air travel will have economic (including 'jobs'- such as baggage handling and security?) and leisure benefits. The claim that we need more flights to go out into the world for business opportunities does not seem to consider the potential for using other means of communication (videolinks etc). I don't really get the impression that there is much government (or opposition) appetite for seriously considering curtailing this airport expansion. There is a perception that, if they do not allow the expansion in the UK, it will simply go elsewhere. It also seems strange that aircraft fuel still avoids the kind of duty that is applied to motor vehicles. The travelling public appear 'hooked' on 'their' cheap flights and do not seem convinced that they contribute in a substantial way to global warming (its all the fault of the increased economic activity in China and India!). My pessimistic pronouncement seems supported by a recent survey ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/15/ethicalliving ). I suspect that the debate has some distance to run. The protesters clearly feel that the time available is distinctly limited. I suspect that the Government don't feel that they could take the voters with them.
STOP PRESS
The final 'day of direct action' (18th August) reportedly ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/19/climatechange.travelandtransport ) resulted in 1600 police confronting the estimated 1400 protesters and brought the number of arrests over the entire week of the camp to 44. The protesters did not attempt to disrupt road traffic or the airport but did attempt to surround the BAA offices.
No comments:
Post a Comment