Amy says NO, no, no to a 3rd runway

Posted by tracy - 10 June 2008 at 1:30pm - 16 Comments

A few months back when Niall and Jason from Tellyjuice contacted us, they said they liked our videos on YouTube but thought we could be "well, um… funnier". I had to admit that we often forget to see the funny side of things surrounded by all this doom and gloom (did you hear about the bees on the Today programme this morning?!).

So we thought why can’t we campaign for a healthy planet and have some fun at the same time? So I got the guys into the office and briefed them on our climate campaign. They came back a couple weeks later with a few ideas and, while this was the most leftfield idea of the bunch, we thought it would be perfect for the Make a Noise carnival.

We’re hoping to see more of Amy in the future. Enjoy.

Article tagged as: 3rd runway, amy greenhouse, aviation, climate change, heathrow, make a noise, videos
  • share
Comments Commenting is now closed

that's horrific.

By savetheWales - 10 June 2008 at 3:07pm

I think he's got a bigger problem than she does.

Third runway YES!!!

By Heathrow Expansion Yes - 12 June 2008 at 10:18am

Amy may so "No no no" but I say "Yes yes yes"!

By Heathrow Expansion Yes - 12 June 2008 at 10:19am

Stringing three identical words together is about all this pro-expansion loner can do. (Billy-no-mates even had to post two comments saying the same thing twice so that he looked like someone agreed with him!)

Let's face it, no one in their right mind would want to expand Heathrow. We can afford some humour in the campaign to highlight the insanity of the government's plans to increase flights while claiming to tackle climate change.

This video shows how the airport looms over Sipson - the NO
and the aerial photography was a brilliant idea. All those homes you see behind the NO (and many of those shown behind Amy at various points) are to be destroyed if Brown gets his way. The real people living in them face eviction - with no help, despite a housing shortage, to find anywhere else to live. That's not funny but it doesn't mean we can't use humour to wake people up.

(The banner at the end was put up weeks ago by Sipson residents who are sick of BAA, a Spanish company, dictating to the government because it thinks it can make money from our misery. Other local villages face a similar fate.)

I'm an Amy fan, she's welcome back anytime.

By Save Sipson - 14 June 2008 at 1:00pm

Heathrow airport should have been moved a long time ago like many other Airports had the sense to do. I also think BAA should be British owned by the Airports.

By Realist - 18 June 2008 at 3:48am

I agree with you that a third Runway is needed to help the airport keep up with competitors.

By Realist - 18 June 2008 at 3:49am

There is a lot of congestion above airports in the sky. Aircraft that are unable to land at the time are put into circular 'holding patterns' with other aircraft, circling until there is space to land.

Ultimately, this is causing more pollution because of unnecessary flight.

If people want to complain about the increasing number of flights or construction of aircraft on a global scale, that makes sense.

However, although a new runway will cause more noise and visual pollution, it will reduce the amount of time that aircraft stay in the holding pattern above the air, and therefore be better for the environment.

Possibly more flights as a result will come to Heathrow, but unless aircraft are constructed specifically as a result of the new runway there would be no more impact on the environment than at the moment.

However, I can understand that noise pollution is extremely irritating.

150,000 people a year dying from global warming? Is that taking into account the number of people who were dying each year from heat BEFORE global warming?

By HailJimmy - 7 November 2008 at 11:46am

The 150,000 figure comes from a World Health Organization report released in 2005, which said that "150,000 people a year are dying from the effects of global warming, and that number could double in the next 15 years". It also estimated 5 million people would be affected by illness as a result.

The WHO has a good chart of the interlinking issues between changing climate and health.

By jossc - 10 November 2008 at 10:45am

that's horrific.

By savetheWales - 10 June 2008 at 3:07pm

I think he's got a bigger problem than she does. Third runway YES!!!

By Heathrow Expansion Yes - 12 June 2008 at 10:18am

Amy may so "No no no" but I say "Yes yes yes"!

By Heathrow Expansion Yes - 12 June 2008 at 10:19am

Stringing three identical words together is about all this pro-expansion loner can do. (Billy-no-mates even had to post two comments saying the same thing twice so that he looked like someone agreed with him!) Let's face it, no one in their right mind would want to expand Heathrow. We can afford some humour in the campaign to highlight the insanity of the government's plans to increase flights while claiming to tackle climate change. This video shows how the airport looms over Sipson - the NO and the aerial photography was a brilliant idea. All those homes you see behind the NO (and many of those shown behind Amy at various points) are to be destroyed if Brown gets his way. The real people living in them face eviction - with no help, despite a housing shortage, to find anywhere else to live. That's not funny but it doesn't mean we can't use humour to wake people up. (The banner at the end was put up weeks ago by Sipson residents who are sick of BAA, a Spanish company, dictating to the government because it thinks it can make money from our misery. Other local villages face a similar fate.) I'm an Amy fan, she's welcome back anytime.

By Save Sipson - 14 June 2008 at 1:00pm

Heathrow airport should have been moved a long time ago like many other Airports had the sense to do. I also think BAA should be British owned by the Airports.

By Realist - 18 June 2008 at 3:48am

I agree with you that a third Runway is needed to help the airport keep up with competitors.

By Realist - 18 June 2008 at 3:49am

There is a lot of congestion above airports in the sky. Aircraft that are unable to land at the time are put into circular 'holding patterns' with other aircraft, circling until there is space to land. Ultimately, this is causing more pollution because of unnecessary flight. If people want to complain about the increasing number of flights or construction of aircraft on a global scale, that makes sense. However, although a new runway will cause more noise and visual pollution, it will reduce the amount of time that aircraft stay in the holding pattern above the air, and therefore be better for the environment. Possibly more flights as a result will come to Heathrow, but unless aircraft are constructed specifically as a result of the new runway there would be no more impact on the environment than at the moment. However, I can understand that noise pollution is extremely irritating. 150,000 people a year dying from global warming? Is that taking into account the number of people who were dying each year from heat BEFORE global warming?

By HailJimmy - 7 November 2008 at 11:46am

The 150,000 figure comes from a World Health Organization report released in 2005, which said that "150,000 people a year are dying from the effects of global warming, and that number could double in the next 15 years". It also estimated 5 million people would be affected by illness as a result. The WHO has a good chart of the interlinking issues between changing climate and health.

By jossc - 10 November 2008 at 10:45am

GP online