On 26/11/2013 19:34, Bill Wright wrote:
chris French wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html
Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!


"The current lighting on the Terminal 5 concourse is being replaced
with environmentally friendly LED bulbs"
So all the people waiting to board the most environmentally damaging
form of transport known to man will be happy in the knowledge that
the airport's light bulbs that shine down on them are
'environmentally friendly'. What a load of arse. Anyone genuinely
bothered about CO2 etc wouldn't fly.


But given that the airport is going to be there I'd rather the
building used energy as efficiently as possible.

The point is though that people go on these flights just because they
can. Often there's no sensible reason.

There is always a sensible reason, even if it is not one you would
choose yourself.

The CO2 per mile thing is
misleading because most aeroplane journeys are very long, and needn't
be.

They are just as long as they need to be to get from one airport to
another. Passenger kilometres are about the only way to make a
meaningful comparison between different modes of passenger transport.

As the figures I posted show if I use my bus pass, I am generating far
more CO2 than if I take a flight and it is quite difficult to get to
somewhere like Madeira by bus.

I think aeroplane travel should be heavily taxed, and the money
given to those who live under the flightpath.

I doubt there are many people who have been living in places that are
under flight paths longer than the flight paths have been there. Why
should they get preferential treatment over any other people who take
advantage of the lower cost of housing that is blighted in some way?

Colin Bignell