TAKE ACTION
Recent entries
- Some good news for Indonesia's rainforests
- It's official: EU fishing policy is crazy
- Waiting for a nuclear disaster
- John West: the worst on tinned tuna
- Lean, green killing machine
- What it’s like at Climate Camp
- Get involved: Give coal the boot!
- Sustainable plywood and how to find it
- Climate actions in Gatwick, Essex and... Legoland?
- Jellyfish and chip supper?
Heathrow: what do we do if the worst comes to the worst and the government says yes?
Posted by bex on 4 July 2008.
Special Conference on July 26th
In recent news: The Arctic sea ice melt began significantly earlier this year than last year. UK's CO2 emissions higher than official figures, government admits. CO2 emissions up by nearly a fifth in 12 years. Avoiding climate change is affordable, says PWC.
And yet, still, the government plans to build new coal plants and, of course, new runways.
It's not certain that they'll succeed. Mass mobilisation destroyed the sense of inevitability about the third runway months ago, and mass mobilisation will certainly be giving the government cause for thought on both new runways and new coal. The bigger the movements get, the greater the political costs that will be incurred by a 'yes' to Heathrow and a 'yes' to new coal.
Campaigners and activists around the country are working hard for a no to Heathrow when the government makes its decision (October looks likely now). But knowing this government's record on climate change - not to mention its relationship with the aviation industry - we think it's worth preparing for the worst too.
So Camp for Climate Action, HACAN Clearskies and ourselves are inviting you to help create a plan of action, in case the government says yes to Heathrow. More of a conversation than a conference, we'll be discussing what the plan should be with residents local to Heathrow, climate campaigners, noise campaigners, and anyone else who wants to come along.
The conference will be held at Harlington Baptist Church, High St, Harlington on Saturday 26th July (12 noon to 5pm). That's the day before the Climate Camp caravan leaves from Sipson to journey to Kingsnorth in Kent for the start of Climate Camp proper, so you'll be well placed to join that too, if you'd like to.
Download the leaflet to print and pass around.
Please come along. Here's another of today's headlines for you: Time for deeds not words to reach emissions targets.
More information on the conference on HACAN's website.
I'm confused
Hi
Nice article.
I'm a bit confused though.
I understand of the pressing need for CO2 reduction (a point which this article gets across very well!).
I don't understand the PWC report though - I think that it says the only way of making these reductions affordably is (as well as increasing renewables to a very large fraction) by using more nuclear power (doubling current capacity), and by putting carbon capture and storage on baseload power stations.
Link
Pages 10-12 and 14.
I thought that greenpeace was against both of these things? Can someone help me out?
aviation - don't forget Stansted too!
The end of consultation time on the expansion plans for Stansted is also imminent - this has been extended by the local council for another few weeks to enable more voices to be heard: take your chance to OBJECT today!
More aviation is a bad idea for emissions, and there are other reasons to add to the debate, too.. The Woodland Trust for example is campaigning against any expansion at Stansted due to the precious, ancient woodland a new runway threatens to completely destroy - you can see their view at www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns - and the highly organised Stop Stansted Expansion campaign is another good site to visit for help and advice on how to get your message across.
Consultation doesn't get extended often! Make the most of it..
Stansted is also a stone's throw from 2 USAF bases, so planes overhead is a daily pain for residents already. If you objected to Heathrow, take the chance while you still can to stop Stansted's second runway too.
Confusion
Hi mfflower
Sorry for the confusion - I was trying to use the headlines to illustrate the fact that there are solutions to climate change around, rather than specifically talking about the PWC report but...
Yes, you're right, the scenario PWC presents includes nuclear and CCS (along with renewables, efficiency and less deforestation). But, as the report says: "The scenario we present... is not, of course, the only possible 'road map' to a low carbon world, but it does illustrate the type and scale of changes that will be needed".
Our road map is here by the way (more in depth here). And it doesn't include nuclear which, as you rightly say, we are against for these reasons - mainly because it can't stop climate change.
Our energy vision doesn't include CCS either, because no-one knows when, if ever, CCS will become commercially available. The theoretical possibility of CCS is being used by government and industry as a smokescreen to bulldoze through new, bog standard, inefficient and polluting coal fired power plants.
And building new coal plants now - when scientists say we have less than 100 months to peak in emissions and then start drastically reducing them - in the hope that CCS will one day become available seems like lunacy to me. More on CCS here.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Cheers,
Bex
gpuk