internal fff

The strongest argument yet for ’runway number three’

By Russell B. Hurley


Even the climate change advisers have decided that the ‘extensive building program’ of Heathrow’s the third runway can proceed. It simply ‘will not jeopardize’ the governments carbon emissions targets.

There is one remaining problem, however; finding 60% increase in flights that warranted the idea in the first place.

With British Airways in a critically-ill state, and in the process of axing many unused routes and cutting down on flights to major destinations - a trend shared with even the most savvy of budget airlines  - there could be a genuine difficulty in filling all those new slots we are getting so excited about.

Another part of the provisions for meeting the carbon test is to have more people on the planes. Maxing out the plane is, after all the only way to maximise aircraft efficiency, even if disorderly (and quite possibly drunk) queues have formed around the toilets by landing time.

Meanwhile, the climate change summit at Copenhagen continues. As I write this,  the problem of how to deal with the ‘fasted growing source of greenhouse gases’ is being addressed. Any ideas what it is???

The solution to cutting Aviation is being revealed: Cutting edge ‘high definition’ video conferencing will reduce the need for air travel altogether.

Bingo! The bubble gum machine hit the jackpot, baby!

This  means we don’t really need to worry about ‘maxing out’ our latest super-size-me Airbus 380s.

We don’t even need to worry about trying to find the right grade of chip fat to run it under the carbon foot print radar, either.

“Mr. Airbus, there appears to be a slight demand problem in our calculations. You will have to keep those seven-hundred-seater zoo-class monsters.”

But of course we just got to have that new runway.








Don’t mention the war.

By Russell B. Hurley

The 100th British soldier to die in Afghanistan this year was praised for his sacrifice yesterday by the Prime Minister amongst growing doubts about Britain’s role in a war that is attracting a bigger economic resource from America than what is currently being spent on propping up their native economy or fiddling their environmental policies.

The USA has confirmed an additional 30,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan, and is asking the EU to contribute towards the cause.

The EU is telling the USA that their carbon emission targets are not good enough (the USA has proposed to cut emissions by 4% (based on 1990 levels) by 2020. The EU wants 20%),

One question that sits perilously between these two demands, is a difficult one to ask at a difficult time.

With the 100th British solider dead this year, can we even ask about the environmental impact of this war???

Sir General David Richards -  the head of the British army tells us this week ’The (war) campaign cannot be judged on casualties alone’.

How right he is.

Just don’t mention the war.

Whole internet

Skype

Flkr

Myspace

Fb

Yt

Gmail

Blogger