Leading green campaigner Jonathan Porritt was worried before Boris' victory:
"The prospect of Boris as Mayor of London is just so scary. The prospect of Boris taking over London’s Climate Change Action Plan is even scarier. He may have learnt not to reveal his full contrarian bigotry on climate change, but he really doesn’t get it, and would rapidly scale back or completely get rid off the ambitious targets in the Action Plan. And that would be a massive set back. I just hope all the environmental NGOs can rally the troops in London in a pro-Ken campaign, even if they can’t come out and explicitly endorse him."
The Independent on Sunday is worried today:
"Although his father, Stanley (who would like to replace him as MP for Henley), was a pioneer of environmentalism, Boris has been until recently a climate-change sceptic. Seven years ago, he called George Bush's rejection of the Kyoto protocol "right not just for America but for the world". After Mr Cameron went green, Boris said he was "terrified to dissent from the growing world creed of global warming", but that his mind was still "bubbling with blasphemous thoughts". So when he said in his manifesto for London that "City Hall should... strongly support efforts to tackle climate change", we are entitled to doubt the sincerity of his conversion. Especially as one of his pledges is to ditch Mr Livingstone's planned £25 congestion charge on larger vehicles."
Boris Johnson will be a 'green mayor'. He presented an environmental manifesto that opposed expansion of Heathrow, promised 10,000 more trees on London's streets, opposed garden grabbing, promised more recycling and home insulation and supported a ban on carrier bags. But this is a sensible environmentalism. Boris Johnson does not have Ken Livingstone's green zeal. The zeal that made London's outgoing mayor declare that this would be "the first election in British history to be decided largely on environmental issues".
As the Adam Smith Institute noted yesterday, Livingstone hitched himself to the wrong bandwagon:
"Much of Ken Livingstone's historic electoral success has been his ability to put himself across as a man of the people, in touch with the concerns of everyday folk. Why, then, did he put climate change at the centre of his campaign? Only 21% of respondents to a March Yougov poll thought that climate change should be in the top three priorities of the Mayor. Respondents considered issues like crime, transport, housing and tax to be of far greater importance."
In his statement on priorities yesterday, Boris Johnson showed that he is close to public priorities. He didn't emphasise the environment. His priorities were crime, transport and housing. In terms of a 'change issue', he appears much more enthused by his plan for a Mayor's Fund to help London's poorest communities. As are we.
Now that economic times are tougher, voters will vote for sensible
environmentalism but will be weary of politicians who raise taxes with
promises to 'save the planet'. Friday's Independent
reported that seven in ten Britons are unwilling to pay higher taxes to
combat climate change. Boris, in emphasising a more modest green
agenda, won't be out of touch with the Tory leadership. Cameron
himself has shifted away from the regulation and tax heavy
environmentalism of the first 18 months of his leadership to a more
technology-driven environmentalism (see Greg Barker).
Where there may be a difference between Cameron and Boris will be on Heathrow expansion. Boris is against an extra runway but the Tory leader and George Osborne have yet to decide.
Is Mr Porritt suggesting that failure to accept man-made global warming as a)real b)a catastrophe, makes one a 'bigot'?
Posted by: Dave B | May 04, 2008 at 09:28
Lets hope Boris avoids the temptation to sign up for the various idiotic and anti-capitalist "green initiatives" kicking around. Ken was doing a good job at strangling small business in Central London.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | May 04, 2008 at 09:34
Perhaps Boris ,as a very intelligent man will examine the available evidence and make decisions accordingly and not be bullied by career greens who contribute nowt to our economy.
One of the most amusing sights at City Hall on Friday was watching a leading green candidate puffing away on what was assumed to be a cigarette.How dare she pollute the London Air and add to global climate change.
Posted by: michael mcgough | May 04, 2008 at 09:41
Much of the flak aimed at enviromentalists is because of the way many have made green-issues into an ideological dogma. For many green-issues have become a complete obsession as they become preoccupied with the size of their carbon footprint or feel 'guilt' because they left the TV on standy rather than switching it off entirely. The environmentalists remind me of a orthodox Christians who are constantly on the look-out for 'sin' and aren't happy unless they can find that they have transgressed. Only a fool doesn't want a better environment but the green-agenda has now become the green-diktat and is ruining people's lives on a day-to-day basis.
It is extraordinary to see that the new-age agenda of the early 1970s has now become mainstream political thinking, however with every transient social movement there is always a reaction and greenpolitik will soon become a historical curiosity. Boris Johnson, being a man who isn't given to 'trends' will provide a sensible environmental strategy for London, that we can be sure
Posted by: Tony Makara | May 04, 2008 at 10:06
I'd recommend reading Chris Booker's piece in today's Telegrah, exposing some of the myths purported by the pro-warming brigade and showing how they're desperately changin their projections and calculations in an attempt to argue that warming is still happening, and ice-sheets still receding, despite massive evidence to the contrary
Posted by: Paul D | May 04, 2008 at 10:09
'It is extraordinary to see that the new-age agenda of the early 1970s has now become mainstream political thinking,'
I thought we were all supposed to be buying snow shoes and comfy fur hats in the 70s and being nice to ozone.
The zealotry of the Green Eyed Ones has more of its roots in the politics of jealousy and good old fashioned Socialism than any religious take on the common good. It fills a void for those that seek to control human behaviour rageing beneath a veneer of moral invincibility. Red and Green should never be seen but here they are telling us what to do 'for our own good' (again).
The practical effects of Greening up now mean that I burn my burnable rubbish because the Council trucks now only call when there is a G in the month. The reverse of the intention.
But englandism is going Green by switching from heating oil (now £1300 a tank) to a ground source heat pump. Because it saves me money not because it makes me feel superior.
Unless anyone hereabouts knows that this technology is rubbish in which case I will clear fell my woods.
Posted by: englandism.com | May 04, 2008 at 10:26
Boris should give a big v sign to the Green lobby. They're obsessed with controlling and regulating our lives. They're the same sort of people who got excited over the idea of Marxism - smash the middle class, the people in charge know best etc. The Green Party's long-term manifesto would be a recipe for economic ruin (they talk about how economic growth doesn't bring happiness - where do they think we get the capital and money from to build hospitals to keep people from dying?).
On a more important note, because this will be a real test of just how much Boris is prepared to break from the old regime, when is Boris going to sack all the non-jobbers? And will he shut down the LDA and give us massive tax cuts so that any future left-wing Mayor finds it electorally impossible to raise them? Unless I'm mistaken the LDA just seems to be a body that gives out subsidies. We should be calling for the market, dictated by consumer choicve, to allocated investment, not local government.
Posted by: Richard | May 04, 2008 at 10:48
@Englandism
Matthew Parris gave heat pumps a big thumbs up after installing one in his home.
Posted by: Dave B | May 04, 2008 at 11:01
Will Boris be as green as Gordon? - Excuse me, it's only toilet humour.
Posted by: Curly | May 04, 2008 at 11:14
Cheers Dave B,
I'm sold but it is a bit confusing as to why you need planning permission when a trench, by definition, is underground. Are badgers upset by it or something?
Posted by: englandism.com | May 04, 2008 at 11:50
I hope that Boris will show his green credentials. It's a bit boring and cliched to say that 'green' types contribute nothing to the economy. These vacuous prejudices do not contribute anything to the debate.
Instead, Boris should look at the evidence and go for solutions that will improve things - not greenwash. Promoting solar panels for microgeneration would be a great idea, and getting the government to be more flexible about selling electricity back to the National Grid would be even better.
If Boris does end up doing nothing, I will have to leave the Conservative Party. The last thing I want to see is the re-invention of the dishonest and ineffectual Blair Machine.
Posted by: Sam S | May 04, 2008 at 11:52
contrarian bigotry on climate change
"bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry"
Sounds like a perfect description of Porritt, Monbiot, and rest of the Eco-Taliban.
Posted by: Jim Carr | May 04, 2008 at 11:54
PS. looking at Richard's comments. Whilst I don't know much about the LDA, his suggestion that we should all have market led investment won't necessary work.
The LDA might be a waste of time, but the market is not perfect, either. Consumer 'choice' wont solve London's problems everywhere.
Posted by: Sam S | May 04, 2008 at 11:56
"PS. looking at Richard's comments. Whilst I don't know much about the LDA, his suggestion that we should all have market led investment won't necessary work.
The LDA might be a waste of time, but the market is not perfect, either. Consumer 'choice' wont solve London's problems everywhere."
Maybe not but it's less imperfect than government investment. Furthermore I believe people should be allowed to choose how their money is spent. If they don't spend it on what we think they should be spending it on, well tough luck for us, it's not our money. If people say "but we really really need to spend money on project x" then why don't they ask everyone to voluntarily contribute? Surely if everyone agrees it's that vital they'll chip in?
Posted by: Richard | May 04, 2008 at 12:46
It's funny how people who haven't won elections (i.e. Jonathan Porritt and his Green friends) feel they have the moral right to tell people who have won elections (i.e. Boris) what they should do.
Posted by: DOS | May 04, 2008 at 13:29
A ban on carrier bags is "sensible environmentalism"? And there was me thinking it was politically-correct lunacy.
In any case, you've got to respect Boris for statements like:
he was "terrified to dissent from the growing world creed of global warming", but that his mind was still "bubbling with blasphemous thoughts".
I only wish Cameron said things like that!
Posted by: friedmanite | May 04, 2008 at 13:31
As a survey noted earlier this week, 67% of British people believe that the green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes. 72% of Brits would be unwilling to pay more in taxes, even if used for environmental purposes.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/brassneck/may2008/british-oppose-green-taxes.htm
Boris, and the Conservatives, should read what the people are saying and respond accordingly.
"I drive and I vote". We need to dump the 'green' nonsense.
Posted by: Tanuki | May 04, 2008 at 15:05
Boris is the new Shrek!
Posted by: Not Boris | May 04, 2008 at 15:05
Boris is the new Shrek!
Does that make Cameron the donkey?
Posted by: friedmanite | May 04, 2008 at 15:17
"Is Mr Porritt suggesting that failure to accept man-made global warming as a)real b)a catastrophe, makes one a 'bigot'? "
That is indeed what he's saying.
Posted by: Sean Fear | May 04, 2008 at 16:19
Good to see the Tories showing their true colours again. As a Lib Dem, I can only thank you for this little display of what you really think.
Posted by: asquith | May 04, 2008 at 17:01
If Kyoto is the independants idea of a success story id hate to see what they consider a failure to be.
The left in this country has an unhealthy addiction to groupthink regarding these areas.
Posted by: Conservative Homer | May 04, 2008 at 17:31
"Good to see the Tories showing their true colours again. As a Lib Dem, I can only thank you for this little display of what you really think."
What, that we're in tune with public opinion? Do you honestly think most people out there want to be clobberedd by Green taxes or actually give a damn about climate change? Just look at the scale of opposition to bi-weekly rubbish collections. Look at anger at high fuel prices. Environmental issues always rank low down in voters' preferences. Plus as the poster above points out, most people (correctly) view the Green agenda as an excuse to regulate and control. We want to leave people alone, we are the true party of freedom, not the Liberal Democrats with their desire to boss and nanny.
Posted by: Richard | May 04, 2008 at 17:57
Even the BBC is reporting that the Earth will be cooling for the next decade.
Simple thought; if the Earth can still cool itself down *despite* man-made problems, then obviously it can heat itself up to, showing that we really make bugger all real difference on the Earth's cooling and heating cycles.
I hope you don't mind me saying that, concurring with Boris' blasphemous thoughts, the whole industry of 'man-made global warming' is total bollocks.
And good on Boris if he instead focusses on more localised environmental issues where he will be able to make a big difference.
I bet Cameron himself will be a lot less 'passionate' about global warming and the so-called 'green taxes' over the next 18 months.
Does that make me a climate change bigot too? Well I'd rather smell of Issey Miyake than piss and sewage which appears to be the scent of most tree-huggers.
Posted by: Chad Noble | May 04, 2008 at 18:01
"bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry"
Sounds like a perfect description of Porritt, Monbiot, and rest of the Eco-Taliban
It also sounds like a perfect description of many regular posters on this website.
I wish the climate change ostriches would shut up. The green agenda from Cameron kick-started the Tory revival.
Do you honestly think most people out there want to be clobberedd by Green taxes or actually give a damn about climate change?
Ignorant comments like this illustrate why it's taken so long to get people to come back to the Tories, and risk driving them away again.
Global warming is far more important than the issue of greedy rich people in obscenely big cars paying a bit more in tax.
Posted by: Ephraim Gadsby | May 04, 2008 at 22:42
"Ignorant comments like this illustrate why it's taken so long to get people to come back to the Tories, and risk driving them away again."
You mean the 72% opposed to Green taxation and the 67% who believe the Green agenda has been hijacked as an excuse to put taxes up?
"Global warming is far more important than the issue of greedy rich people in obscenely big cars paying a bit more in tax."
I think you'll find it's those on lower incomes who are more likely to suffer from Green taxation. The wealthy can afford the environmentalist agenda. Going on about cars being "obscenely" big just makes you sound like a class warrior. I don't wish to dictate to people what size cars they should have, why do you? Do you get kicks out of bossing people around?
Posted by: Richard | May 04, 2008 at 23:03
PS For the record I have nothing against "private property rights methods" of dealing with pollution e.g. if the local factory pumps out fumes that ruins the air round my house I'm entitled to sue for compensation. What I am not entitled to do is demand that people on the other side of the country should be punished for driving big cars.
Posted by: Richard | May 04, 2008 at 23:07
Just because 67% of people believe something doesn't make it true.
Just because 72% of people are opposed to something doesn't mean it's wrong.
I prefer to trust the opinion of the vast majority of environmental scientists over the selfish prejudice of a Chelsea tractor driver who objects to paying more for petrol to choke the planet so they can get from one end of the King's Road to the other without working up a sweat.
The way to avoid paying green taxes is simple. If people object to paying more for petrol, they should get off their lazy backsides, get out of their car and get on a bike, or on a bus or a train. Or even walk.
Complaining about green taxation is like those idiots who complain about speed cameras being used "just to raise revenue from innocent motorists". The answer is simple - if you don't want to get a speeding ticket, don't break the speed limit! If you don't want to pay the congestion charge, or pay increased prices for petrol, don't drive! It's that simple.
...And for the record, I live in London and I own a car. I don't drive it in London (I cycle, like Boris), but use it occasionally for driving elsewhere in the country as and when my work requires it. I pay whatever is the going rate for petrol at the time, and I don't moan about it. It's the penalty I pay for choosing to drive rather than take alternative means of transport (which I will do if it is at all practical), and I'm perfectly happy to pay that penalty, I see it as my civic duty.
Posted by: Ephraim Gadsby | May 04, 2008 at 23:29
"Just because 67% of people believe something doesn't make it true.
Just because 72% of people are opposed to something doesn't mean it's wrong."
Nevertheless it disproves your point that support for Green policies will bring people flooding back to us.
"I prefer to trust the opinion of the vast majority of environmental scientists over the selfish prejudice of a Chelsea tractor driver who objects to paying more for petrol to choke the planet so they can get from one end of the King's Road to the other without working up a sweat."
The fact that a majority of environmental scientists believe something doesn't mean that they are right. Incidently I have no opinion either way on whether or not humans are responsible for global warming. I just happen to believe that a) crippling our economies in an attempt to stop it will only benefit the Chinese andb) improved technology and more wealth brought about by economig growth is the best way to deal with any ecological catastrophe. And once again your attack on the selfish Chelsea tractor drivers sounds suspiciously like the anti-middle class rhetoric of the Left. I am not a Chelsea dwelling driver of a large car but I have nothing against these people.
"The way to avoid paying green taxes is simple. If people object to paying more for petrol, they should get off their lazy backsides, get out of their car and get on a bike, or on a bus or a train. Or even walk."
Whether or not people choose to be lazy is none of your business. Once again you show a disturbing "I know best so people should do as I want" tendency.
"Complaining about green taxation is like those idiots who complain about speed cameras being used "just to raise revenue from innocent motorists". The answer is simple - if you don't want to get a speeding ticket, don't break the speed limit! If you don't want to pay the congestion charge, or pay increased prices for petrol, don't drive! It's that simple."
Except that speed limits are introduced to save lives. This planned Congestion Charge for K&C is being introduced due to the anti-middle class Green agenda.
"...And for the record, I live in London and I own a car. I don't drive it in London (I cycle, like Boris), but use it occasionally for driving elsewhere in the country as and when my work requires it. I pay whatever is the going rate for petrol at the time, and I don't moan about it."
I also live in london during the week and don't make use of a car. I simply don't need to but I don't begrudge those that do.
"It's the penalty I pay for choosing to drive rather than take alternative means of transport (which I will do if it is at all practical), and I'm perfectly happy to pay that penalty, I see it as my civic duty."
Where does this civic duty emanate from? Furthermore, while you may view it as your civic duty, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to. By all means follow your environmental principles, I respect that. The problem comes when you try to force everyone else join in with them.
Posted by: Richard | May 05, 2008 at 00:36
Rightly Greenery was not a major issue in this campaign because the major aspects of it are more a national or international issue than a local government one. But his election is certainly no mandate to ignore green issues - he did not attack Ken particularly on the issue and therefore the public will have assumed that he largely agreed with the previous Mayor. If he lays himself open to be attacked as a dinosaur on these issues he will do himself a lot of harm with a significant minority of those who voted for him.
He specifically said he was against the package of £25 super-C charge and free access for small cars because it was NOT green (as well as being unfair to people with large families).
Also remember that alone outside the two largest parties, the Greens held their ground with 2 LA seats and the Lib Dems, although weakened still have 3 (and are relatively green). So if he ever wants support on specific things beyond the minority Conservatives, he will need support from people who think these things are important.
His best green issue is airports but he is subtly different from the dark greens because he is saying there should be an airport east of London instead of relentless Heathrow expansion. Reducing aircraft noise over densely populated areas is a sort of greenery that will have very wide support.
Therefore - lots of poor advice to Boris earlier on this thread I am afraid.
Posted by: Londoner | May 05, 2008 at 00:52
"Just because 67% of people believe something doesn't make it true.
Just because 72% of people are opposed to something doesn't mean it's wrong."
The current democratic option has failed, then?
Posted by: Dave J | May 05, 2008 at 02:07
Hmmm. So presumably Mr Gadsby would have no problem with the following:
The way to avoid re-education camps is simple. If people object to being persecuted for being Catholic or Jewish, they should put down their blasphemous objects and convert to the prevailing faith.
This is not a straw man. The technocracy Mr Gadsby thinks is so superior to democracy has much in common with theocracy. We established a church to keep theocracy in check (imperfectly, I admit). The US ruled it out completely. Ceding political power to "environmental scientists" is just as much a hostage to fortune as ceding it to priests (although I imagine many on the left these days wouldn't mind Dr Williams having the power of his predecessors).
And Richard's point about the recourse to the courts rather than regulation is exactly right.
Posted by: Iain Murray | May 05, 2008 at 04:26
"Global warming is far more important than the issue of greedy rich people in obscenely big cars paying a bit more in tax."
Ephraim: and there you blew it. It's the Green-eyed-envy thing that motivates you isn't it?
A question. What produces up to 87% of global atmospheric oxygen by processing CO2?
(a) Sting's rainforests 'The Lungs of the Earth'?
(b) Chelsea tractors and greedy rich people in stove pipe hats eating caviar and burning £50 notes for fun?
(c) Pond slime?
Answer. Pond slime AKA Algae AKA a biofuel that does not compete for agricultural land, grows more quickly than a global warming computer model and could replace the entire energy needs of the USA with less than 1% of the US land mass.
But let's throw our resources at bigging up the problem rather than focussing upon solutions.
Posted by: englandism.com | May 05, 2008 at 08:08
Boris Johnson will be a 'green mayor' [...] he [...] opposed expansion of Heathrow
What exactly does Boris want to happen at Heathrow?
In his "environmental manifesto" it says Boris is opposed to "a third runway at Heathrow and mixed mode operation".
What alternative(s) does Boris propose?
I fly regularly in and out of Heathrow and I have to say LHR as a whole should be viewed as a national embarrassment.
Posted by: ToryJim | May 05, 2008 at 09:47
Posted by: englandism.com | May 05, 2008 at 08:08
A question. What produces up to 87% of global atmospheric oxygen by processing CO2?
Can you give us your references for this figure? I'd always thought trees were a significant source of atmospheric oxygen.
[snip](c) Pond slime?
Answer. Pond slime AKA Algae AKA a biofuel [...]
First, a short prayer: Dear God - please save us all from armchair scientists...
1) Last time I checked, most UK road vehicles won't run on pond slime. Does yours? In what sense does pond slime count as a biofuel? In the same way that forests count as a biofuel? Good luck with the wood-burning car idea...
2) I'm not particularly aware of a national over-supply of ponds. Is there one? Which bits of the UK do you you propose to flood to create extra ponds?
or
3) Are you going to volunteer your own consitutency to run a pilot project in which all existing ponds are siezed and will be used to grow pond slime for "fuel"...?
Posted by: ToryJim | May 05, 2008 at 10:01
It is asked above: "In his "environmental manifesto" it says Boris is opposed to "a third runway at Heathrow and mixed mode operation".
What alternative(s) does Boris propose?"
In his acceptance speech on Friday night he said he wanted airport development east of London. This poster was clearly not "up for Boris" to hear his speech. It was important enough to be one of the very few policy points he mentioned then.
I think he should also press for Eurostar to go to more places in northern Europe. There is really little need for most people to fly there is a really fast and efficient train service.
Finally, instead of weekend breaks in Europe - how about making London so fun at week-ends that everyone wants to stay here?!
Posted by: Londoner | May 05, 2008 at 11:00
Posted by: Londoner | May 05, 2008 at 11:00:
In his acceptance speech on Friday night he said he wanted airport development east of London.
"East of London"?
WHERE EXACTLY East of London???
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but we already have an airport (London City) in the East of London, and the residents there are fighting expension.
What would E. London residents think of Boris' plan to build a major **international** airport? Or is Boris going to build one out at sea? :-)
I think he should also press for Eurostar to go to more places in northern Europe
In case you haven't noticed, Eurostar trains connect to SNCF services perfectly well at Lille Europe and you connect in Brussels Midi to servies for Belgium and (Thalys) services for Cologne, Frankfurt and the rest of Germany.
I've done this several times. How many times have **you** done this?
From where I'm standing the problem is on our side of the channel, not in France/Belgium/Germany.
How about we concentrate on our own problems - and try to set up Eurostar services to Paris/Brussels from, say ... York... Leeds... Birmingham... Manchester...
Posted by: ToryJim | May 05, 2008 at 13:44
First, a short prayer: Dear God - please save us all from armchair scientists...
Here you go (for children):
'Are Algae Important?
Algae are extremely important. They produce more oxygen than all the plants in the world, put together. They are also a very important food source for tiny animals such as little shrimps and huge animals like whales.'
Source:
http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/biodiversity/plants/crypalga.html#import
If you need to learn yourself what science does then take a gander at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture
Or, if you prefer bullet points for ease of comprehension (children's version again):
1) Algae produce 100 times more oil per acre than traditional food oilseed crops (i.e. corn, soy, etc.).
2) Algae eat CO2, the major Global Warming Gas, and produce oxygen.
3) Algae require only sunshine and non-drinkable (salt or brackish) water.
4) Algae do not compete with food crops for either agricultural land or fresh water.
5) Algae can reproduce themselves and their oil every 6 hours, while it takes Mother Nature millions of years to produce crude oil in the ground.
Posted by: englandism.com | May 05, 2008 at 14:34
And he was Biggles' mate.
Posted by: englandism.com | May 05, 2008 at 14:35
Posted by: englandism.com | May 05, 2008 at 14:34:
1) Algae produce 100 times more oil per acre than traditional food oilseed crops (i.e. corn, soy, etc.).
How many times have **you** seen algae growing on farmland?
Oh, wait a minute, are you saying that algae grow only in ***water***?
OK, I'll ask **again**:
Which bits of **your** constituency do you proposed converting into flood plain so you can "grow" algae for "fuel"...?
Posted by: ToryJim | May 05, 2008 at 14:47
ToryJim - Thanks for your info, I have only used Eurostar to Paris and taken connections on from there within France. I am sure you are right about railway connections beyond there, but do they get publicised in this country as an alternative to flying? In my experience, not much.
Despite visiting France more often than anywhere else outside the UK, I have not flown to Northern France, Benelux or Germany since a school trip in the 1960s. But obviously I agree about our connections within the UK although, as we were talking about alternatives to airport use for short hops, they may not be that relevent as an alternative to Heathrow.
An airport east OF London means just that, not IN the east of London like docklands. it means in South Essex or North Kent near or on the Thames Estuary. The point is that prevailing winds mean much less aircraft noise over heavily populated areas if any additional capacity is put there (much of the flight paths would be over the channel)- and it also links with Thames corridor development to house the aircraft workers etc - instead of putting more and more development into the area west of London which is too congested already.
Posted by: Londoner | May 05, 2008 at 15:05
Ephraim Gadsby:
The way to avoid paying green taxes is simple. If people object to paying more for petrol, they should get off their lazy backsides, get out of their car and get on a bike, or on a bus or a train. Or even walk.
And the way for certain people to avoid being perceived as arrogant, self-important, dictatorial, interfering and authoritarian (i.e. like the ruling Labour elite) is to keep there high and mighty opinions to themselves!
...And for the record, I live in London and I own a car. I don't drive it in London (I cycle, like Boris), but use it occasionally for driving elsewhere in the country as and when my work requires it.
Oh so its OK to pollute other parts of the country to ensure that one has money in one's pocket just as long as no one pollutes one's own City. Add to the list above - self-serving and hypocritical (again just like Labour!).
Posted by: John Leonard | May 05, 2008 at 15:10
Posted by: ToryJim | May 05, 2008 at 14:47
Err… and you point is?
'How many times have **you** seen algae growing on farmland?'
It grows virtually anywhere and everywhere. In the States the vision is to use semi-desert but if you want to use prime agricultural land for corn based bio diesel then, hey ho, you are obviously a very bright chap.
'Oh, wait a minute, are you saying that algae grow only in ***water***?'
I refer the right honourable gent to response one.
'Which bits of **your** constituency do you proposed converting into flood plain so you can "grow" algae for "fuel"...?'
I refer the right honourable gent to response one.
Posted by: englandism.com | May 05, 2008 at 16:12
Posted by: englandism.com | May 05, 2008 at 16:12:
It grows virtually anywhere and everywhere. In the States the vision is to use semi-desert
What? Algae grows "virtually anywhere and everywhere"? Perhaps I've had my eyes closed all the time, but I don't see that much of it about on my travels round the UK. I've noticed the wind blowing (wind turbines?), the sun shining (solar?) and the tide going in and out (tidal?) but somehow AlgaePower(TM) has passed me by. Never seen it mentioned in the scientific press either...
1) Can you give us an references for the use of algae as a fuel? (I mentioned trees and the 'wood-burning car' - you seem to have ignored this question).
2) If algae is so abundant in the UK why don't you get started harvesting and selling the stuff? Surely there's money to be made? :-)
3) Could inform us which areas of the UK now count as "semi-desert"? My (admittedly out-of-date) school geography textbook doesn't show the UK having very much of this...
Posted by: ToryJim | May 05, 2008 at 17:05
Henry Root or was it Routemaster did it better?
Congrats anywaysup.
Posted by: englandism.com | May 05, 2008 at 18:44