Forum Topics

The Camp for Climate Action  at Heathrow

Yesterday the protestors started to arrive and have erected the protest Camp for Climate Change on the Northern fringes of Heathrow on playing fields in a village at Sipson, where the proposed third runway is planned to be built. They intend to highlight the problem of airport expansion and the damage it does to the environment. They are very organised with marquee tents and lectures and talks on the issues.  See their website: http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/And article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2147503,00.htmlIf kept peaceful I think it is a great exercise in putting across the objections to airport expansion, outside the controlled channels of lobby groups.What do you think about the issues and tactics here?Their statement on their website is:"Eight days of low-impact living, debates, learning skills, and high-impact direct action tackling the root causes of climate change. Why?The science is clear: global emissions of carbon dioxide must go into rapid decline within the next decade. If they don't, humanity faces a bleak future.To achieve this in a way that respects global justice means 90% cuts in developed countries like the UK. How will we cut emissions and end inequality? How will we achieve this in the face of an economic system intent on expanding at any cost, with corporations stealing the language of change to disguise business as usual? Ordinary people will have to join together to create real solutions and take direct action against the root causes of the problem.This year the Camp for Climate Action will be at Heathrow, the world's busiest airport and a bigger source of CO2 emissions than most countries. It's sheer lunacy in this time of ecological crisis, but the aviation industry are pushing to almost double the airport's capacity by increasing flights and building a third runway. The battle to stop them will be one of the most important environmental battles in Western Europe.What we do now decides what the future holds. Those who came before us didn't know the problem, those who come after us will have severely limited options. We have both the power and the responsibility to make a radically better world.By uniting in collective action this summer we can begin to make it happen."

Duncan Walker ● 7026d42 Comments ● 7019d

Reducing the population the best solution?

I have been thinking that maybe a solution for ‘Earth out-of-control’ is to halve the population, then we can better live within our resource means and maybe rebuild them. Also it would give us more psychological space. What about a target of halving the population to 3 billion and live within our means? The government’s economic logic of ‘we must have population growth to sustain our economies’ seems a dangerous model. I had a search for information on overpopulation and found this site which has some useful stats.http://www.overpopulation.org/There seems to have been a lot of talking about this problem over the past 30 years and little progress made, apart from awareness in some quarters, which is a start.The population has doubled from 3bn to 6bn today from 1960, so the world I was brought into as a child had ½ the people fighting for the same resources.I also found this fascinating calculation:http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews2/carbonnews2_081.htm"July 2007While not advocating genocide, the new head of the Science Museum has an unusual view about how global warming should be dealt with: get rid of a few billion people.Chris Rapley, who takes up his post on September 1, is suggesting that by improving contraception, education and healthcare it will be possible to stop the world's population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.'That in turn will mean less carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere because there will be fewer people to drive cars and use electricity.Researching Mr. Rapley's point, Carbon-info.org has discovered that surprisingly short timescales are involved in reducing the population.It is possible to calculate the time (t) it will take for the UK's population to shrink from 60 million to 25 million based on the number of women, who decides to have 1 child or 2 children.While a controversial subject, the calculations shows that if 40% of women have 2 children, 40% have 1 child and the last 20% no children, then it will take about 34 years before the UK population reaches the 25 million target.It is therefore theoretically possible, by offering incentives to women and families, to reduce the UK population to 25 million in about 1.5 generations!The calculation can also be applied to the world population. And while clearly a very difficult thing to achieve in practice, it is potentially a cheap and quick way of reducing the world CO2 output, if it could be implemented on a voluntary basis."--So things can be done fairly quickly.

Duncan Walker ● 7031d16 Comments ● 7021d