Climate campaigners bring peaceful protest to Heathrow

Posted by bex — 25 February 2008 at 11:41am - Comments

Greenpeace campaigners unfurl a banner on the tailfin

Climate emergency - no third runway

As the banner on top of this London - Manchester flight says, we're in the middle of a climate emergency. The fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK is just about to get another boost from Brown's government. On Wednesday, the consultation on whether to nearly double the size of Heathrow by building a new runway will close, and the government looks set to cave in to the aviation industry.

This morning, four of our volunteers have climbed on top of a plane at Heathrow and are wrapping a banner around the tailfin. The plane - one of 32 flights every day between London and Manchester - had just arrived in Heathrow and the passengers had disembarked when four volunteers walked through the double doors at Heathrow Terminal One, crossing an area of tarmac and climbing onto the fuselage of the British Airways flight.

100,000 flights a year go between Heathrow and destinations that are easily reachable by train (the most popular destination is Paris - easily reachable by the Eurostar). And, looking at the price of train travel in Britain, it's understandable that some people are still choosing to fly. If the £9 billion tax subsidies the aviation industry receives to make flying cheaper and airports bigger were spent on making trains cheaper and better, we could reduce the environmental impact of Heathrow instead of vastly increasing it.

Security threat? Yes, we've exposed a security hole at Heathrow, but we've done it to expose the gaping hole on Brown's climate change policy. Brown's carrying on as though climate change has never happened. The planet's leading scientists are warning us we only have a few years left to get climate change emissions down, yet, if the aviation industry is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation alone would destroy any hope of hitting his emissions reductions targets.

There's still time to stop Heathrow expansion - add your voice to the roar of opposition, and come along to the rally at Westminster tonight.

 

Update: You can also write to Gordon Brown asking him to get serious about tackling climate change and stop Heathrow expansion.

 

Update: here's the video:

 

 

Article tagged as: aviation, climate change, direct actions, heathrow
Comments Commenting is now closed

Some people seem to think we're calling for all flying to stop, tomorrow. We're not - what we’re opposed to is Gordon Brown’s dash to double the size of Heathrow, in the face of climate change. If we don’t put a cap on emissions, at predicted rates of expansion the aviation industry will be emitting our total carbon budget by 2050. That means we wouldn't be able to emit C02 anywhere else in the country if we want to hit the emission reduction targets set by the government.

This isn't about telling people they can or can't fly. This is about stabilising the number of flights from UK airports, which is why we're calling for the government to stop all plans for airport expansion, for a ban on domestic flights, for a cap on long haul flights and for a transfer of the £9 billion subsidies the aviation industry gets over to rail, to make train travel better and cheaper (at the moment, per person, Britons emit more from flying than any other people on the planet...).

On Greenpeace's flying habits: We never take domestic flights in the UK or fly to continental destinations which are reachable by train in a day. We’re also making better use of video and phone conferencing but, yep, as an international organisation, it still is necessary for us to fly sometimes, unfortunately.

On irresponsibility: Journalists have gone into restricted zones in airports several times to expose security holes, and technicians walk on top of aircraft all the time. We just did it for different reasons: to expose government irresponsibility when it comes to climate change. We waited until all passengers had left the plane, and we told BAA of the protest just before the campaigners climbed onto the plane.

It's the government that's being irresponsible here - the consultation's a sham; the government's in bed with BAA to the extent that BAA actually wrote parts of the consultation document. The so-called consultation ignores the views of millions of Londoners and doesn’t even consider the (huge) climate change impacts of a new runway.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 25 February 2008 at 7:52pm

Hi arabzac

On "the jobs and the business and the continued growth of this country". Firstly, a report published just last week suggests the government's seriously overstated the economic benefits of a third runway. Then there's the fact that any short term economic benefits of expanding Heathrow will be massively outweighed by the costs of climate change. (Last summer’s floods cost the UK £3bn, and extreme weather events like floods are expected to become much more regular.) And, obviously, investing in railways will also bring economic benefits - but much less damaging to the climate.

On environmentally friendly flights, big reductions in pollution from planes are decades away (according to an influential Royal Commission), by which time, say scientists, it will be too late to beat climate change - and any small efficiency savings on planes would be more than wiped out by unrestrained aviation expansion. The only way to make efficiency gains mean anything is to place a cap on the total number of flights.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 26 February 2008 at 3:08pm

Macca

Yep, it's a rubbish state of affairs that flying's so much more expensive than trains and, with prices like that, it's not really surprising so many people choose to fly. Which is why we're not asking people not to fly - we're calling on government to transfer the £9 billion pound subsidy aviation gets over to making trains cheaper and better - a genuinely low carbon transport system.

On convenience / time - weigh that up against the impacts of climate change that are already happening (150,000 human deaths a year and counting, according to the UN - and one-third of all land-based species could face extinction within 50 years).

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 26 February 2008 at 3:18pm

I'd argue your point that the protest was dangerous. Firstly, we told BAA (the airport authority) what we were doing just before we climbed onto the plane. We also waited until all passengers had disembarked before boarding, so as not to scare them.

It's an accusation we often receive so I'm going to quote a comment from graham when he was responding to the same accusation on a completely different direct action:

We have about thirty offices around the world, all doing direct actions on a regular basis, and after every one representatives or sympathisers with the target industry or organisation claim that we are recklessly putting people’s lives at risk. So, if so many people are telling us this, why aren’t Greenpeace listening?

Well, we always respond that we plan these things very carefully in accordance with our core principle of non-violence so that no-one, neither our activists nor the target nor any third parties, are put at risk. We exist to change opinions, and we’re fully aware that deaths or serious injuries wouldn’t help our cause.

So who do you believe? Well, fortunately it doesn’t have to come down to trust – using the internet, anyone can pretty easily find out how often activists and others are killed or seriously injured on Greenpeace actions. Have a look for yourself, then see if you can find any job, occupation or hobby which is safer, statistically, than taking part in a Greenpeace action.

If you still maintain that we are irresponsibly reckless, and the lack of accidents is merely down to a thirty year lucky streak, well, perhaps we’ve got someone watching over us.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 26 February 2008 at 3:26pm

Some people seem to think we're calling for all flying to stop, tomorrow. We're not - what we’re opposed to is Gordon Brown’s dash to double the size of Heathrow, in the face of climate change. If we don’t put a cap on emissions, at predicted rates of expansion the aviation industry will be emitting our total carbon budget by 2050. That means we wouldn't be able to emit C02 anywhere else in the country if we want to hit the emission reduction targets set by the government. This isn't about telling people they can or can't fly. This is about stabilising the number of flights from UK airports, which is why we're calling for the government to stop all plans for airport expansion, for a ban on domestic flights, for a cap on long haul flights and for a transfer of the £9 billion subsidies the aviation industry gets over to rail, to make train travel better and cheaper (at the moment, per person, Britons emit more from flying than any other people on the planet...). On Greenpeace's flying habits: We never take domestic flights in the UK or fly to continental destinations which are reachable by train in a day. We’re also making better use of video and phone conferencing but, yep, as an international organisation, it still is necessary for us to fly sometimes, unfortunately. On irresponsibility: Journalists have gone into restricted zones in airports several times to expose security holes, and technicians walk on top of aircraft all the time. We just did it for different reasons: to expose government irresponsibility when it comes to climate change. We waited until all passengers had left the plane, and we told BAA of the protest just before the campaigners climbed onto the plane. It's the government that's being irresponsible here - the consultation's a sham; the government's in bed with BAA to the extent that BAA actually wrote parts of the consultation document. The so-called consultation ignores the views of millions of Londoners and doesn’t even consider the (huge) climate change impacts of a new runway. Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 25 February 2008 at 7:52pm

Hi arabzac On "the jobs and the business and the continued growth of this country". Firstly, a report published just last week suggests the government's seriously overstated the economic benefits of a third runway. Then there's the fact that any short term economic benefits of expanding Heathrow will be massively outweighed by the costs of climate change. (Last summer’s floods cost the UK £3bn, and extreme weather events like floods are expected to become much more regular.) And, obviously, investing in railways will also bring economic benefits - but much less damaging to the climate. On environmentally friendly flights, big reductions in pollution from planes are decades away (according to an influential Royal Commission), by which time, say scientists, it will be too late to beat climate change - and any small efficiency savings on planes would be more than wiped out by unrestrained aviation expansion. The only way to make efficiency gains mean anything is to place a cap on the total number of flights. Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 26 February 2008 at 3:08pm

Macca Yep, it's a rubbish state of affairs that flying's so much more expensive than trains and, with prices like that, it's not really surprising so many people choose to fly. Which is why we're not asking people not to fly - we're calling on government to transfer the £9 billion pound subsidy aviation gets over to making trains cheaper and better - a genuinely low carbon transport system. On convenience / time - weigh that up against the impacts of climate change that are already happening (150,000 human deaths a year and counting, according to the UN - and one-third of all land-based species could face extinction within 50 years). Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 26 February 2008 at 3:18pm

I'd argue your point that the protest was dangerous. Firstly, we told BAA (the airport authority) what we were doing just before we climbed onto the plane. We also waited until all passengers had disembarked before boarding, so as not to scare them. It's an accusation we often receive so I'm going to quote a comment from graham when he was responding to the same accusation on a completely different direct action: We have about thirty offices around the world, all doing direct actions on a regular basis, and after every one representatives or sympathisers with the target industry or organisation claim that we are recklessly putting people’s lives at risk. So, if so many people are telling us this, why aren’t Greenpeace listening? Well, we always respond that we plan these things very carefully in accordance with our core principle of non-violence so that no-one, neither our activists nor the target nor any third parties, are put at risk. We exist to change opinions, and we’re fully aware that deaths or serious injuries wouldn’t help our cause. So who do you believe? Well, fortunately it doesn’t have to come down to trust – using the internet, anyone can pretty easily find out how often activists and others are killed or seriously injured on Greenpeace actions. Have a look for yourself, then see if you can find any job, occupation or hobby which is safer, statistically, than taking part in a Greenpeace action. If you still maintain that we are irresponsibly reckless, and the lack of accidents is merely down to a thirty year lucky streak, well, perhaps we’ve got someone watching over us. Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 26 February 2008 at 3:26pm

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK