Slacktivism: don't rain on my parade

By Richard on 20/03/2009
Tags:

Those of you who read this blog know that we don't really like to have a go at NGOs and other campaign groups. We feel, rightly or wrongly, that the whole climate change catastrophe is rather more important than some silly in-fighting vanguardism. It's what seperates us from the Revolutionary Communist Party / Living Marxism sect currently masquerading as Modern Movement.

But sometimes I get sent things that really piss me off. This video (and Earth Hour) is one of them. Earth Hour, for those of you who didn't get the memo, is a coming together of lots of people who will all turn their lights off for an hour. And then turn them back on again afterwards. Or something.

Now some of us at the coal face of climate change campaigning might choose to describe such an activity as a collosal waste of time that puts forward false solutions that tell people you can stop climate change while keeping all those existing power structures, lifestyles and consumerist nonsenses going. But while we roll our eyes and try to ignore it, the organisers go and put out videos like the one above, which seem to be saying that taking direct action is less effective than sitting in the dark for an hour.

Earth Hour: The Huge Turn Off- Alanis Morissette PSA

Of course they don't stop there: how about the idea that you can keep flying everywhere so long as you use a freshly-bought green lightbulb? Popstrel Alanis Morrisette thinks that's the case, and no one at the Earth Hour HQ thought it a bit weird that she's giving her message of inaction from the inside of a plane.

Don't get me wrong: if the organisers of Earth Hour want to pretend we can solve climate change by getting "millions of people" to turn their lights off only to turn them back on again an hour later then fine. Just stop polluting the airwaves with your ill-thought out, partisan bullshit.

Plane Stupid Southampton: the movie

Tags:

Back in February PS Southampton went to their local airport and set up a climate refugee center.

Airport greenwash: the smiling face of the aviation industry

By Rose on 18/03/2009
Tags:

It seems it's actually rather easy being green: airports around the UK are improving their green credentials. Nottingham East Midlands is one of many airports incorporating wind power, adding four wind turbines which it claims will provide ten per cent of the airport’s electricity requirements. Liverpool Airport has installed two 15 meter high wind turbines. Sadly further use of wind power is only at the feasibility study stage as wind turbines can interfere with flightpaths and navigation systems.

Renewable energy is all well and good but in these cases it's just green garnishing. Aviation remains stubbornly dependent on oil and these green building initiatives do not tackle the airports’ core activity: flying. Elsewhere in the UK, Newcastle Airport is opposing the installation of seven wind turbines nearby on the Northumberland coast as this might necessitate the re-routing of flights. Plans for 85 wind turbines in Dumfries and Galloway and East Ayrshire in Scotland were rejected after opposition by Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

There are initiatives to use biofuels to meet airports’ energy requirements, even though there is widespread concern that greenhouse gas emissions can be higher than for fossil fuels, and that using land to grow crops for feeding vehicles competes with food supplies. Nevertheless, Bristol Airport’s programmes for using biomass from locally produced woodchip and conversion of used cooking oil into fuel for airport vehicles have made it all the way to the drawing board. There are no end of programmes to encourage staff and travellers to use public transport to and from the airport and Luton Airport is introducing some lightweight buses for transportation around the airfield.

Some airports then have the audacity to start educating and ‘raising awareness’ amongst the public on how we should be greening our lifestyles. Newquay Airport has announced in its development plan that there will be a Discovery Centre for children on the airports site, which will cover subjects including err… sustainable development. Some airports have allocated small pots of money for grants to cash strapped community projects. Robin Hood Airport near Doncaster gives tiny amounts of funding for community projects such as village halls and playing fields through its Community Investment Fund. Its website highlights such largesse as letting local groups use the airport chapel free of charge.

It's all under the banner of Corporate Social Responsibility, painting the airport as a concerned citizen with activities that are separate from, and detract attention from, their core business of waking up their neighbours with early morning take offs and landings. It just doesn't sound so nice when you put it like that though.

Government asked to make law breaking illegal

By Richard on 16/03/2009
Tags:

I don't normally indulge in e-democracy, because frankly it's a nonsense, but this is great: some bright spark has decided that the laws against breaking into airports aren't enough. They've asked the Government to ban "groups like Plane Stupid" from protesting within a mile of all airports. I don't fancy their chances much, but what the hell: if you agree with them, then add your name to the 15 people already on it.

Firstly let's be clear: unless you've cajoled two million people into signing up through a mixture of lying, lying and lying some more then your poxy petition will get about 300 people to sign it and Number 10 will just throw it away. The endless rush to get more signatures than the last petition has numbed our already bored-with-democracy leaders, who now have to see millions of people standing outside the House of Commons waving pitchforks and large banners with 'Behead the Bankers' before wondering if they should enact a law (unless its to restrict civil liberties, in which case it takes just one phone call from Scotland Yard to see us all locked up for the better part of a month).

So given that our protests tend to be accountable (we all get nicked) and easy to spot (we're the ones waving banners blocking your taxiway) I can't see this petition turning into a law anytime soon. But that's not what Number 10 petitions are all about. They're an easy way to persuade the population that they're doing something important while ensuring that their efforts come to nothing. E-democracy like this disenfranchises people as much as rigged consultations and rooms full of spin doctors. After all, if Gordon and his mates wanted to hear what we had to say, they'd ask us, not BAA PR gurus.

Aberdeen airport: BAA's claims ring hollow

By Anonymous on 16/03/2009
Tags:

On 3rd March we shut Aberdeen airport for 6 hours, cancelling 19 flights and disrupting a further 20. BAA claim that the disruption cost around £1 million, but strangely claim that it wasn't the airport operator who paid the cost, but the cash-strapped North East of Scotland.

This is clearly ludicrous. Aviation gets off very, very lightly: avoiding fuel tax, escaping without paying VAT on tickets and throwing some token APD about every now and then as tif to compensate. This all adds up: £9 billion annually across the UK. This revenue comes straight from other sectors in the economy and is incredibly regressive. We don't all fly equally; by giving the airlines an easy ride we are transferring cash from those who fly least to those who fly most, from the poorest to the richest.

In a year when schools and hospitals are struggling to keep afloat it makes no sense to let wealthy fliers off so easily. Britain has the most expensive walk-on train fares in Europe and inadequate north-south rail links; meanwhile the Government has reduced rail subsidies and wants to expand all the airports. If BAA really gave a toss about the North East it could always volunteer to be taxed like everyone else. Thought not.

Economics 101: when cheap flights aren't cheap

By Richard on 12/03/2009
Tags:

For a country so avowedly capitalist it amazes me that so many people have no idea how the system works. This week we saw another bunch of economic illiterates who seem unable to grasp that most basic tenet: if the service you offer is more expensive and less efficient than a rival, people won’t buy it. BMI scrapped flights from Durham Tees Valley to Heathrow, causing much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the North East. The local paper, the Northern Echo, even persuaded an MP to waste Parliamentary time banging on about it.

So imagine I wanted to travel tomorrow from Durham Tees Valley to London. I haven't booked in advance so need a walk-on fare. There's a flight that takes an hour and a quarter for £184 pounds but I still have to get into London, which takes an hour and costs a fiver. Now imagine I decide to go by train: bearing in mind that we have the highest walk-on fares in Europe. This takes three hours and brings me into Kings Cross. Crucially, it costs just £133 for an anytime single ticket - £50 cheaper than the cheap flight, and once centre-to-centre journey times are factored in, only takes about half an hour more.

So why on earth would anyone who isn’t connected to the aviation industry want to fly from Durham Tees Valley? And why would any business want to pay more so one of their employees can spend an hour squashed up against the bulkhead reading a Tom Clancy novel and another hour rattling along the Piccadilly line into central London? Have newspaper editors and MPs lost the ability to understand the economic system they so support – or are they so addicted to kerosene that they want flying promoted even when its more expensive than other, less polluting ways of getting about?