this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
42 points (82.8% liked)

United Kingdom

4065 readers
542 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.

That statement kind of contradicts their application to increase their emissions. They're basically saying "we're pretty low on emissions, we can get away with being worse".

Furthermore this Airport Carbon Accreditation seems to be about offsetting carbon emissions, primarily by planting trees. This is really a bit of a farce, as the trees being planted are almost always monoculture tree farms - they're setting up a profitable business to try and say that their polluting business isn't so bad overall. Meanwhile, monoculture tree farms are terrible for biodiversity.

The highest level of their accreditation, Level 5, only requires "a commitment" to reducing "non-controlled" emissions - ie those produced by aircraft - by 2050.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Farnborough Airport Ltd has submitted a planning application to Rushmoor borough council to increase the number of flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year.

The group set off pink smoke flares and waved banners as they called for a total ban on private jets, which they say are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners.

“The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said.

“There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.”

“Surely it’s a no-brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis?

Sarah Hart, an office assistant from Farnborough, said: “As a local resident and a mum of two, I am utterly appalled at the airport’s plan to expand when we should be banning private flying completely.


The original article contains 439 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!