Join the plot to stop airport expansion

Posted by tracy — 12 January 2009 at 10:05pm - Comments
Alistair McGowan
All rights reserved. Credit: Jiri Rezac / Greenpeace

TV impressionist Alistair McGowan has bought a piece of the Heathrow third runway site along with Emma Thompson, Zac Goldsmith and Greenpeace.

It started like most good ideas around here, with a conversation down at the pub. And there have been many times over the last few months when I wasn't sure we were going to pull it off, but we're now the proud owners of a small piece of land within the site of the proposed third runway at Heathrow.

We're expecting the government will announce that they're going ahead with expansion at Heathrow this week and we now need you to join us. Sign up now to get your own piece of the plot. It's not a financial thing, but you will be included as an owner on the legal deed of trust.

 Join the plot  

Sign up to get your piece of the plot and updates about the campaign to stop airport expansion.

Email*

First name*

Last name*

Postcode

Country

 

Fields with an * are mandatory.

Heathrow expansion isn't only an issue for those of us unfortunate enough to live on the flight path. If expansion goes ahead Heathrow will become the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the whole country. And the government's plans to expand airports across the UK will make it impossible for us to meet our commitment to reduce emissions and stop runaway climate change.

As legal owners of this plot we will take the opportunity to oppose airport expansion at every stage in the planning process. We're joined on the deeds by Oscar winning actress Emma Thompson, comedian Alistair McGowan and prospective Tory parliamentary candidate Zac Goldsmith. Along with Greenpeace UK, that's the maximum number of owners we can put on the deed, but you can sign up to add your name and stand beside us to resist all attempts of a compulsory purchase of the land.

You'll be joining beneficial owners who've already signed-up including local Labour MP John McDonnell, Tory frontbench spokeswoman Justine Greening, Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer, environmentalist George Monbiot and acclaimed climate scientist and Royal Society Research Fellow Dr Simon Lewis.

The runway is by no means inevitable. BAA now faces a long process to get its tarmac laid. So there will be many ways you can get involved in the years it will take to get the runway through the planning process, and we will need your creativity and energy to make sure the runway never gets built. In the coming months and years we will need the help of thousands of people like you to put pressure on your MP, write letters to your local media, join us at events, tell your own community, and much more.

We'll let you know more about that shortly, we only got the final papers for the land through the end of last week, so the first step is to sign up and let us know you want to be part of the plot over the coming years.

If all our attempts to stop the runway fail, we will stand with the people from the community whose homes will be demolished to build the third runway and block the bulldozers. There will be many ways you can support the blockade even if you don't fancy joining us on the plot.

We are not going to let this new runway be built to make sure we have a healthy climate and environment for all of us and future generations. Sign up today to join the plot. If we're serious about tackling climate change, we have to stop airport expansion.

Find out more about Airplot »
Invite your friends to join »
See where our plot is on the map »
Legal and beneficial owners »
The case against Heathrow expansion (pdf) »

A great idea, I've signed up and so will my friends, I hope. I was a Greenpeace member in the 80's; they didn't listen then, and by the looks of it, not much has changed, apart from the acknowledgment of a problem. I'm heavily involved in green activities and run a free membership organisation called GardenLend which aims to turn neglected gardens into spaces filled with vegetables and flowers. If Emma wants a hand planting some vegetables on the field she can count me in.
With video conferencing, emails and the good old fashioned telephone, business people don't need to fly to do a deal. Our technology can help to save the planet if we let it. The Government needs to act now and decisively, or we'll have to take charge ourselves. The plot thickens!

Wonderful news!
I would suggest planting wild pears and other protected plants on the site. All the ones which are illegal to remove. bats are also a good idea. Perhaps Ken Livingstone can suggest which newts to introduce as well in order to create a site of outstanding natural interest.
Funnily enough, I'm not against airport developments per se. A third runway at Heathrow is wrong for most of the country, and will result in extra and longer car journeys. And to top it all the government want to spend £8 billion creating a new motorway from Heathrow to the North.
All we in the midlands want is to make long haul flights out of the midlands or Manchester or Leeds. Getting to Heathrow or bloody Gatwick is a pain.

Very well done, however I'm suprised so few names on the land register. There was a piece of land on Snowdown that was bought by thousands - each person buying a 10cm square piece. Also heard of registering the land for business use, starting a 'business' and selling shares to 1000's of people, both to make a compulsory purchase very difficult. Your bit of land looks quite big - room for most of Greenpeace's members to have a bit or why not rent it as allotments so it is also being put to some sustainable use, or plant trees on it, the offices' carbon trade-off bank!

Sorry for sounding negative, but I do have a serious question about this idea. What about Compulsory Purchase Orders. I know Local Authourities and Councils have used them in the past to obtain planning permissions for other controversial developments. Will this not be the same? If not, why not and please forgive the pun but is this idea really "as safe as houses"? Good luck with the campaign though.

Also at risk of sounding negative, it would only take one deed to transfer to the airport under a compulsory purchaser order. If the land were sold to lots of people in units of a square foot for instance, it would entail much more paperwork and bureaucracy - a CPO served on every owner, and individual transfers, and legal costs to pay too.

@JulesKing There are only four people on the deed because that's the maximum number you can legally have on a single piece of land. Contrary to what's being reported in the media, we're not going to sell it off in small chunks to thousands of people (I guess that's what happened in Snowdon), but you can become a beneficial owner. And we're working on other ideas that everyone can get involved in - stay tuned!

@Ian S Our legal guys are on top of compulsory purchase orders and we'll be fighting this all the way. Want to join us?

@Ianredrose Great ideas! Those are exactly the kind of things we want to think about if we want to frustrate the planning process. Hang on to those ideas - they may come in handy later...

web editor
gpuk

Congratulations Greenpeace and to the team who got this started.I have admired your work over many years and this particular fight has got me off my backside to do something positive.I will follow progress with great interest and count me in for any additional support or help on the ground.
In both the short and long term, Government policies are not to be trusted on environmental issues as their insatiable appetite for economic growth and excuses for jobs continues at the expense of our planet.We are truly at a crossroad - economic expansion including population growth has to be controlled for the sake of future generations.

I have just heard Ben and Alistair on Radio 2 (Jeremy Vine show)- what a fantastic idea; and who says beer is bad for the brain cells?!? I thank you all for a sanguine brainstorming session, and have my fingers crossed that the Government and pro-aviation will stand corrected and that this project prevents further CO2 emmisions. You have made my day, my week, my year- well done!

If you split this land into thousands of plots can you not turn them in to allotments so people can grow veg? If they then sell those veg to local produce vendors or people they become cottage industries, yes?

Won't it be that much harder to compulsary purchase the land if it A) has a thousand owners and B) puts businesses out of practice?

Just a thought.

Although I have had my reservations about Greenpeace's methods in the past, I must admit that this is the most brilliant piece of activism that I have ever seen! Keep up the good work, I'll be getting my hands on one of those pieces ASAP.

A great idea , as a commited "green"and member of FOE I am very much against the expansion of airports how can it be justified when we have such significant climate change problems ?I have registered as a beneficial owner and hope there will be further opportunities to help .I was involved
with the Wmondham Bypass in Norfolk where FOE (Norwich )purchased land on the route of the proposed bypass and sold off 1m2 plots to thousands of peoplethroughout the world.It did not stop the road but made life dificult for the highway authority and increased their costs-they had to pay compensation and surveyors fees for each plot and serve legal notices on all owners

.As a Chartered Surveyor dealing with CPO compensation claims I represented FOE and the plot owners and negotiated the compensation - if Greenpeace or the Airplot owners need similar help I would be delighted to assist

I wish the campaign every success

Hi Guys,
Well done I think its great what you have done. Just a note (you may already know this?) but if Heathrow try to use Compulsory Powers to buy your plot, you can really slow them down by splitting the plot up into 1m square chuncks before hand!
Cheers,
Morgan

Bunch of hypocrites the lot of them. The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming. I'm surprised the media hasn't picked up on this yet.

The owners including Greenpeace UK are:

Alistair McGowan - a man who has a career based on travelling up and down the country to gigs and then jumping on a plane to go to bookings abroad.

Emma Thompson - who spends half her time on transatlantic flights and travelling to acting jobs and attending award ceremonies in the USA.

Zac Goldsmith - The son of Billionaire financer James goldsmith, he is an environmental advisor for the Conservatives who did his A levels at Cambridge and then embarked on a bit of globe trotting. After school, he traveled through New Zealand, Mexico, Hungary, Italy, Thailand, and worked in the United States and India. While working with ISEC, Goldsmith traveled to India. He spent a short time on an ashram in Rajasthan and lived in Ladakh for six months, before returning to England.

So there you have it, people. 3 of the 4 land owners spend more time on planes in a year than many people do in their lifetimes.

2 very simple questions I would like to ask Ms Thompson.

As a Hollywood movie star how many times has she flown in and out of Heathrow in the last 12 months.

Has she commited not to fly anywhere in the future as she is calling the Government hypocritical for pushing forward with this project?

John

I'm a member of a students union and am wondering if we can sign up as an organisation?

1. Does anyone know if we can?

2. Would this help make life more difficult when compulsory purchasing etc comes along?? ie - is it worth doing it?!

GREAT action!

I suggest applying for whatever planning permission / change of use is required to turn the site into a graveyard. If you can get anyone buried on the site it will create some extra hurdles for anyone wanting to develop on it.

Good Luck.

you know wat theyll do dont you, they will order a compulsary purchase you are all idiots, heathrow needs this new runway to expand, and by the way wats with the oil tanker?!

i do not beleive that this is the way to conduct as the "party" which you held in heathrow terminal 1 was a very bad idea and i personally dont agree with what you are doing everyone has there opinions but come on could you not just host a online protest by jamming some websites so i hope you sell your plot of land to Ba

with thanks

the unknown

As an alternative to creating a graveyard how about allowing a small island nation (I suggest one just above sea level) to set up an embassy on the plot. Legally I believe it would cease to be part of the UK, which could make issuing a CPO rather more difficult.

The third runway at heathrow is vital for the UK's economy and for the UK to be able to compete with Germany and France. The people of Greenpeace only have a one track mind on this issue and cant seem to see the benefits this runway will bring, not only for our economy as i said earlier but the thousands of jobs it will create which is even more vital for the UK as unemployment is starting to rise in the economic slump.

As far as im concerned the third runway is essential despite the polution it will create, the pros outway the cons in this case!

Could you donate the land to the national trust and get them to make it "inalienable"....

Would that not then force the government to get MPs to agree to the runway before doing anything?

My 8 month old daughter has flown twice. At 6 months she'd travelled by plane, car, train, tube and boat. So, you can see, I'm not opposed to freedom to travel but I am opposed to the building of a 3rd runway at Heathrow- why on earth do we need this extra capacity?

I want my baby daughter and all of her generation to grow up in a world without the devastation of severe climatic events, without dwindling energy supplies, and without uncontrolled selfish consumption of it's precious resources.

I hope those who believe job creation and our little island's economy are more important than the welfare of our planet don't have beautiful little children too!

Well done Greenpeace- what a stroke of brilliance Airplot is!

We all need to travel - some more than others.The argument is not on this issue but one of expansion of an airport which already is too big for its location and purpose when other alternatives are possible.Creating an airport for the sake of global/job reasons cannot make sense - what excuses will be used in future years when this proposed expansion (if it goes ahead) has passed its sale by date.
If future economic growth and population is contained then the planet can survive along with mankind behaving accordingly with nature.Do not think otherwise - nature will eventually correct our mistakes by eliminating vast numbers through the consequences of global warming.Perhaps not in our lifetime but we are laying the bricks - today we have the 1911 census results showing a population of some 30 million then, and now despite two World Wars, a population of some 60 million.Just think what the numbers may be in this country 98 years from now.We all need to consider lifestyles - and not just those who purchased this plot in our defence against Government "Porkies".

Wonderful idea. We must stop the BAA/ BA hypocrites. Their gratuitous polluting of my world and that of my children and grandchildren for nothing more than greed and selfishness, is worth fighting for. I am signed up and looking forward to the struggle.

Greenpeace's undoubted good intentions should be enough to quash any suggestion that it is being done for vexatious or frivolous purposes, as has already been proved by the Greenpeace 6 trial.

What fantastic news that the use of Eurostar is growing rapidly despite the economic downturn. I will VERY gladly never use a plane for shorthaul at Heathrow, Gatwick or any other airport and propose to never fly anywhere longhaul either (it's 19 years since I last did) A new rail link into Heathrow should vastly reduce the need for shorthaul.

Attitudes are changing, but there's still a very long way to go.
Keep up the good work Greenpeace and all other climate activists.

@greengiant29 - getting individual people to sign up is what we need to do so if you can spread the word around your college, that would be fantastic.

It was a bit of a rush launch so we're still working on things like banners you can use on websites and the like, but for the time being point everyone towards www.greenpeace.org.uk/airplot.

web editor
gpuk

Would it be feasible for members of the public to buy plots of land? I am very happy putting my name as a beneficial member, but would also like to buy a piece too, as various posts have mentioned that this step makes serving CPO a lot harder. I know asking us to buy land isn't the intention, but what happens if we volunteer?! Interested in selling? Are there any other possible buyers out there also?

My mum and grandparents used to live in Zealand Ave, which as you can see from the map (bottom left) will be right up against the boundary fence if this goes ahead. My grandparents lived there from before Heathrow even existed, when the huge flat fields were used for ploughing competitions (i.e. horse-drawn).
When we used to visit as children in the 1960s we were naturally quite excited by the aircraft (Comets and suchlike!!) but over time the noise became deafening and their lives were purgatory. So all you guys who can only see jobs and money, spare a thought for those who actually have to live with the racket 365/24/7.
I'm proud to be part of this campaign.
Thanks Greenpeace for such a smart idea!

Hello, my Kompilment for your opposition against removal of Heathrow and kind regards from Frankfurt. The airport here in Frankfurt is also developed. 300 hectares of wood should be soon liked for it. One already works on a fence. And the police prepares for the application against peaceful demonstrators. But the opposition against it is big. It is the biggest construction project in Germany against the nature and against the climate. Unfortunately, Greenpeace of Germany is not present in the protests. But British Greenpeace-Activits make it right! Further thus and a lot of success!

I think the airport should be expanded. Cuts in domestic carbon output should be made elsewhere, a reduction in the number of cars for example. Heathrow is for international travel not domestic; trying to link trains and air travel is ridiculous.

There seems to exist within Greenpeace and many other environmental campaign groups the idea that if you are in favour of Heathrow's expansion you tacitly reject climate science. This is not true and very frustrating when encountered.

I personally think this is quite childish by Greenpeace, the airport does need this expansion and in terms of the economy the country needs it too. Noise pollution is a silly argument in a way as the airport has been there since world war 1 and its silly when people move next to a airport for example and then complain about it.

As for emissions, we have had powered flight for just over 100 years, and in that time we have gone from a small wright brothers aircraft to ones like the Boeing 787 which is cutting edge on passenger comfort and efficiency. We are talking about Heathrow's emissions by 2050, by this time those aircraft will be in service and new aircraft with hydrogen fuel cells will be at least in the prototype stage which of course only emission is water.

Anyway, this is all meaningless as it will happen.

Despite the pathetic whinges of some of the less-informed posters on here, i think that this is a fantastic idea. As a Planning Officer in the North East of England, I am bound by the Government's targets for sustainable development and climate change. The proposed expansion of Heathrow is not, in my opinion, sustainable development.

The planning process cannot be overlooked simply because this will create jobs. Jobs are a short-term issue when compared with the loss of a large area of countryside and the wider implications of climate change. The issues around the development of the runway reach much further than simply the land surrounding it. Think of coastal towns/villages all over the world. Think of the many species that are affected by climate change, which are unable to voice their concerns. Now compare that with jobs and the economy. This expansion will not fix the UK's economy. It is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

Fair enough, the expansion of Heathrow won't end the world. That said, no drop of water thinks it's responsible for the flood.

Hi Ive just joined the campaign and I am looking forward to future developments. I am very concerned on our (or the British governments) plans to continue expanding this Airport as it seems very hypocritical. The government has promised to cut emissions by 2050 from air traffic but I believe we need this now. I feel that the time has definatley come to start the work on cutting air pollution.

Some of the comments below are exceptionally suspect though, some what, how shall I say similar ie (I want a new Runway type of comments).

I believe allowing corporations to build what they like and do as they please is a naive view we should stand up to this for the sake of clean skies all over the world and to ensure democracy flourishes in this country, if that's naive then naive i would like to be.

I support Emma Thompson's move as an actress considering her profession it must be hard to attach herself to something which could become controversial and if she does fly then shes joining something that could make flying harder, I believe her intentions are good.

Lets stay the course.

I dont think you need to create a cemetary on the Air Plot piece of land as we already have one that is effected by the latest decision to expand Heathrow. My father is buried at Cherry Lane Cemetary along with other family friends. Due to the expansion of Heathrow Cherry Lane Cemetary is to have a dual carriageway built through it, which means that all our relatives' bodies will have to be exhumed. This is something that is not being reported on the news, which I find astonishing. I think if it was given more exposure people nationwide would be horrified to learn that graves are to be desecrated just so an airport, which is more than big enough, wants yet another runway. In the meantime, Cherry Lane Cemetary is still open and people are still being buried there. Please try to imagine the horror that hundreds of us are going to have to go through should all this go ahead. Burying a loved one is deeply distressing but to stand and watch as they then exhume them, ...... breaks my heart.

So basically you want to keep capacity at Heathrow at it's current stretched state, thus keeping the planes in the air for longer (waiting to land) using more fuel and creating more pollution if there was a 3rd runway planes would land much more quickly so they are not using as much fuel which means less pollution green peace need to concentrate there funds and brain power(brain power debatable) on issues such as finding alternative ways to help the earth instead of causing more hastle for people coz at the end of the day you'll lose everytime mojarity over minority thank god.

how about an 'event' on facebook for this?

A few years ago, I was watching 'Who do you Think you Are?' who I think Jeremy Clarkson was the subject of and I heard him reference his ancestor who was refused permission to build a factory in the nineteenth century after locals complained the emissions from it would pollute their habitat and environment. Consequently, the case was presented before a court of law and the magistrate had subsequently refused permission for the factory to be erected and cited an ancient British common law which states 'no man has the right to interfere with the freedom of air'.

The common law I think the magistrate was referring to is purported to have been introduced in the 14th century in the reign of King Edward I and has been allegedly cited throughout history in law and is still applicable. Therfore if this is correct, then is it not the case that BA cannot erect a third runway unless it and it's cohorts, i.e. the government, can prove emissions as a consequence of the third runway's erection will not interfere with the freedom of air?

However, can it not be argued that the government is an unreliable and incredible witness for BA and the proposal of the third Heathrow runway because, at present, it is incapable of currently securing freedom of air for its' citizens because emissions from pollution in London are currently exceeding levels established by the EU who determine at which level pollutants become a hazard to our health which could be argued is the criteria for the determination of 'freedom of air'?

I have no idea how it works in the UK, but in Canada and the US, you can add a conservation easement to a piece of land that protects it in perpetuity.
Just a thought.

Isnt it strange that all the publicity on the news channels has been about the village of Sipson and all those people who stand to lose their homes. Its great that you have all been highlighted and that the nation will now stand with you to fight it. But dont you find it strange that there has been no mention whatsoever about Cherry Lane Cemetary? If the nation also knew that the Governmennt were intending to dig up a whole cemetary to build a dual carriageway - I think there would be a sharp intake of breath and the country would be shocked to the core at the very thought of it. Knocking down people's homes is bad enough. Those people that live in Sipson probably have family members buried in Cherry Lane as well! Can you imagine standing by the graveside as some stranger digs up your loved one? I have family buried there and I can assure you I wont be allowing anyone near their grave. I would rather die protecting it. I think this should now be "Front Page News". Show everyone exactly how low the government has stooped.

Someone above said that Heathrow flights are international. This is not the case. How many people really think before they take flights?

I must admit that I fly to USA a maximum of once a year to see good friends and I am very conscious of this. However, taking part in The Big No action at Heathrow, I decided to avoid flying unnecessarily.

Last Summer I took the train to Cornwall then sailed to Brittany with my family then took the train and ferry home. My brother planned to fly to Cornwall - he got dumped in Bristol because of fog and had to take a coach the rest of the way!! Check in, delays etc took him a long time. He then proceeded to fly back from France.

This year I have been invited to a wedding at Lake Como in Italy. I will take the Eurostar to Paris - love it! - then trains to Lyon and on to my destination. I'll get a much better view!

So, what is a beneficial owner? I've been scouring the site, and it doesn't seem to mention this anywhere! Is this just a fancy name for "join our mailing list" or does it make an actual difference? How does having no beneficial owners, compare to having a few, or thousands?

Hi there,

Being a benefical owner is not just another name for being on the mailing list! We currently have over 30,000 benefical owners signed up. Beneficial ownership means that your name is included on the declaration of trust for the land.

The more people we have on the declaration, the harder it's going to be for the runway to be built.

Best,

Christian @ GPUK Web Team

Hi Christian - thanks for your reply.

How does this declaration make it harder for the runway to be built? Do they need to get everyone's permission before they can do anything? I understand the idea of splitting a piece of land into small pieces to make compulsory purchase hard, but the article said that the land could only be owned by a maximum of 4 people, so I thought this was trying to do something else besides split up the ownership.

Can you explain any further?

Hey there,

As I understand it, being a beneficial owner will come with a range of rights and responsibilities towards the land. That sounds slightly frightening in theory - but in practice it just means that:

a) there will be lots of opportunities to get involved with the campaign against Heathrow, to help us defend the land

b) our lawyers will have drafted something called the 'Declaration of Trust' - which beneficial owners will be named on. This will mean that the 4 legal owners can represent everyone, if and when it comes to any legal proceedings to take the land from us (which if ever, wouldn’t happen for at least several years).

Basically, the world of exciting campaigns moves fast, while the world of lawyers moves carefully and slowly. We want to make this watertight! More in the next week, hopefully. Stay tuned!

Christian
Gpuk

Hi Christian - thanks for the information. I notice that there is now a page which explains the whole thing in a lot more detail (http://www.airplot.org.uk/qna.html), which is great. I have signed myself up, and will be encouraging my friends to do the same. Thanks for your helpful explanations.

...

Christian
@ GPUK

Seriously, if you're going to try to imply that Greenpeace are stupid/inept/whatever, you should really learn the correct application of the word "there". Also, i suggest you look up "punctuation" in a dictionary.

The expansion of the existing airport is in no way an attempt by the Government to reduce the amount of time that planes are in the air. If it's an attempt to stimulate the economy then its primary function is to allow an increase in air traffic.

Yes, indeed, well done Gordon Brown. You've made us realise how good we had it with Tony Blair. With a certain illegal war aside, he did actually achieve a lot and give some impression that he actually listened to people. None of that "listening" nonsense for you eh Gordon? Have you realised you don't stand a chance in hell of getting re-elected and are just trying to piss off as many people as possible before you go? This is certainly doing that on a grand scale!

OK, so tirade aside, I agree with some of the other posters. I'm not against ALL airport expansion per se. Planes in themselves are not evil; it's the amount of them and the cheap flights that so many of us take that cause the problem, and after all is said and done, it is cars that we really need to be tackling head on as collectively they make up by far the biggest percentage of our emissions.

However, Heathrow does not need expanding. If London really needs a better airport then it would be far better to build a new, more eco-friendly one on a different site that would not destroy an entire village!

I also agree with the comments above that what is really needed is smaller scale expansion at some of the airports in smaller cities. I live in Birmingham and plans to extend the existing runway to allow bigger planes access to the airport are well underway. I do not oppose this expansion because as well as being a benefit to the city economy, it will also ease congestion at the London airports, because long haul flights will be able to land at Birmingham, and cut all that wasteful time circling about over London. If managed properly, expansion at Northern airports could reduce air pollution considerably by cutting out congestion, providing the number of flights remained pretty much the same. If more flights were chartered as a result, we could then only blame ourselves as airlines don't want to fly empty planes, so an increase in flights would then be down to demand, which we can easily prevent by not flying as much.

So, to summarise, Heathrow expansion is WRONG. It will be extremely bad for the environment, will not help those people who do not live round London i.e. the vast majority of the UK population (yes London, we DO exist) and despite being good for the London economy I have to ask, does London really need to be any bigger and any more crowded?

Gordon Brown, if you want to stand a chance in hell of ever seeing office again, start using those big wobbly things on the side of your head. They're called ears.

I think this is a wonderful initiative, I really liked the idea
I've signed up
thanks
Julia from Magaluf

I'm a geography/planning student and I signed the petition today in Sheffield, the guy only had one signature on his paper before mine!
The expansion at Heathrow isn't sustainable and surely the people who live there and will be forced to move are more important than the creation of jobs which will probably go to people who aren't local and to that area or who have just shifted job anyway?
I've been to the town that will need to be demolished for the runway and it's bigger than peope think.
Why does everything revolve around money? Is nothing else important anymore?

A great idea, I've signed up and so will my friends, I hope. I was a Greenpeace member in the 80's; they didn't listen then, and by the looks of it, not much has changed, apart from the acknowledgment of a problem. I'm heavily involved in green activities and run a free membership organisation called GardenLend which aims to turn neglected gardens into spaces filled with vegetables and flowers. If Emma wants a hand planting some vegetables on the field she can count me in. With video conferencing, emails and the good old fashioned telephone, business people don't need to fly to do a deal. Our technology can help to save the planet if we let it. The Government needs to act now and decisively, or we'll have to take charge ourselves. The plot thickens!

About Tracy

I work for Greenpeace in the UK office. Most people in the office might describe what I do as "something to do with computers". That might be followed up with "and she is not a morning person". Clearly I think it is far more interesting than that. I have been helping Greenpeace organise and deliver online campaigns for more than 10 years (I’m going to stop counting) in Canada, Brazil, India and from our international headquarters. And then I realised my carbon foot print was out of control and have settled in the UK bought a boat and a solar panel and am now trying to make amends.

Follow Greenpeace UK