Thursday, February 28, 2008

Re:Why Heathrow is a terminal case

Reading some coverage of the Plane Stupid action at parliament i came accross this. Some may say that the article is misleading, what do you think?

I sent the email bellow as a response...updates here if and when recieved.

-->

Dear Anatole,

I have just been reading your article in the Times and one section in perticular stuck out:
"The arguments for running down Heathrow have nothing to do with the contribution of aircraft to global warming, which is so small as to be completely irrelevant."
That is an interesting statement. The Tyndall Centre for Global Climate Change have a different take:
"If the aviation industry is allowed to grow at rates even lower than those being experienced today, the EU could see aviation accounting for between 39% and 79% of its total carbon budget by 2050, depending on the stabilisation level chosen. For the UK, the respective figures are between 50% and 100%."
This is the pre-eminent climate change research centre in the UK and possibly the world, giving a briefing suitable for journalists and the general public (Briefing Paper 84. PDF). I wonder if you would be so good as to clarify these facts in writing?

Regards,
Calvin Jones

Climate Change Action

Labels:

Climate Change Action

Home furl google deliciousdel.icio.usnetvouz newsvine diggDigg This!reddit spurl Technorati

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

1 Comments:

At 2:44 PM, Anonymous Ben said...

That article from the Times is pathetic. I just read through the comments, I'm surprised nobody else is questioning that statement. At the very least they should cite the sources they get their information from.. Why is it that journalists these days aren't required to cite their sources?

In fact, I'm going to ask Anatole that question.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home