Hi Leo,

I'm very much like Graham, I sincerely believe we are facing major issues from an environmental point of view, therefore my heart veers towards your point, however, logically I feel Stuart’s comment make for a sensible balance. From an air travel (in fact all carbon consumption) point of view, we are like someone who needs to go on a diet (me?)– we want a way of discouraging eating, however have to accept that eating needs to happen for a huge number of reasons, so it cannot disappear.

If I’m honest, my main issue is not with the cause, but with the delivery from the website, through to your comments above:
“Plane Stupid stands with the scientists.” Which scientists? Where? What are they saying?
“Our campaign is science based. Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions both globally and in the UK, and boarding a plane is the single most damaging thing an individual can do in terms of climate change – bar setting fire to a rainforest.” – why should I believe this any more than the lip-service given to the environment by airlines? Perhaps you are trying to appeal to the same “gullible public”?

In all honesty I’m certain your cause is valid and your intentions good, however - from my point of view anyway - you are diluting an important message with distracting nonsense.

DB

P.S. The interesting thing I would add, is that the feeling within the Scottish travel industry is that the 3rd runway at Heathrow will not go ahead, mainly due to politics rather than scientific reasoning. The Conservatives have pledged they “will stop this environmental disaster from going ahead” http://bit.ly/4GvZPx and presently this would seem the most likely outcome of any General Election – that is one piece which may sort itself, for good or bad.

Hi there,

Just to say, I man the press email address at Plane Stupid. The reason I was unable to reply to Graham's message was because at the time we were receiving hundreds of emails from right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe global warming is a hoax. Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck both talked about our ad and as a consequence we were swamped with dozens of death threats from fundamentalist Republicans.

In answer to the question about advertising: airport expansion is driven by rising demand. Demand does not rise on its own, but is generated - in part through advertising. It is terribly naive to pretend this is not the case; also difficult to explain the many millions of dollars airlines spend promoting their services to the public. Airlines spend money on advertising because it works. If the big reason for expanding airports is to cater for demand then clearly demand needs to be addressed. One way to do this is to increase the cost of flying; an immensely unpopular policy choice, which is why no politician has yet to make it happen. Adverts on the other hand are of no sentimental value to anyone and could be scrapped tomorrow. Nobody would miss them except the airlines who profit from them. It's not a complete solution but it's an effective and highly plausible component of one.

The woman in the video, Tracey, is not concerned about noise. Her home will be bulldozed to make way for a third runway goes ahead at Heathrow, as will the rest of her village. Their community will be wiped from the map. That's why she's pissed enough to link up with the likes of us in protest.

Graham's assertion that we don't know what our cause is specious in the extreme. We oppose further expansion of the aviation industry in the UK because the current expansion plans cannot be reconciled with the need to urgently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This has nothing to do with any ideology - indeed there are a broad range of political views within our organisation.

Our campaign is science based. Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions both globally and in the UK, and boarding a plane is the single most damaging thing an individual can do in terms of climate change - bar setting fire to a rainforest. UK citizens already fly more than any other nation - twice as much as Americans - and Heathrow is already the busiest airport in the world. Most of the rise in traffic has been and continues to be in short haul flights to destinations easily reachable by some other means that is much less damaging to the environment. Due to an international treaty now over 50 years old, aviation fuel remains completely untaxed; it is the only hydrocarbon fuel that enjoys this status. The tax-free nature of air travel distorts the transport market in favour of flying and this is why aviation is growing so much more quickly than other sectors.

We campaign against aviation expansion because it can no longer be accommodated in the context of a shrinking overall carbon budget. This is true of all inherently high-carbon economic development at this late stage in the game. People don't like our message because they feel attacked by it. Unfortunately it happens to be factually accurate. I regret the fact that air travel needs to be curtailed in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, but it does.

We campaign in the way we do - following on from a long and noble history of civil disobedience in struggles for social justice through the ages - because it is the best way to get our voices heard. We are just ordinary people who volunteer our time and have very little money (the polar bear ad was a gift which we did not pay for). The special interests on the other side of this argument are vastly wealthy and influential by comparison, hence we are forced to resort to disrupting their fancy gala events and so on. The threat of runaway global warming is very real and the response of the aviation industry to it so far is demonstrably inadequate.

You criticise us for having no solutions for the aviation industry; but it is their job to come up with solutions to the problems they cause, not anyone else's. At Kyoto, the International Civil Aviation Organisation were given the task of devising an appropriate way to control rising greenhouse gas emissions from the sector; twelve years later they can still be found sitting on then hands and staring out of the window, having produced nothing whatsoever of use.

It may be instructive to check who can be found on each side of this argument. Plane Stupid stands with the scientists. The other side is made up of vested interests such as airlines and aircraft manufacturers, supported by a gullible public who are only too eager to believe industry spin that efficiency gains, biofuels and emissions trading will mean they can carry on flying as far and as often as they like without having to worry about the consequences for the climate.

Apologies again for the slow response, although your piece is predictably one-sided. Incidentally, we have no "CEO", only occasional spokespeople such as myself.

Leo Murray
Plane Stupid

Hi Leo,

As I mentioned, really would have rather had a talk with you guys and been able to do an interview style post. I feel for you having to deal with people that don't believe in global warming, must be a bit of an uphill battle.

My issue with your comments on airline advertising is, mainly, how the subject is approached. Airlines are an essential part of the overall tourism ecosystem. As with any ecosystem, removing just one part has a detrimental knock on effect on the rest of the system. I find it hard to believe that you have an issue with an industry that supports millions in the UK alone? Maybe we look at this from different perspectives, but I see the air sector as just one part of the puzzle.

The woman in the video did not provide any backstory, simply yelled about noise pollution. If this was one part of a bigger issue, might have been a good idea to present the whole story. Would love to hear the rest of what she has to say, but I find it hard to take people seriously when they resort to pranks screaming like children.

Although you have defined your position and mission statement, "We oppose further expansion of the aviation industry in the UK", I again have to wonder where you see this expansion coming from? I think we need to consider all factors.

The part I find interesting about this debate is that I actually agree with you. I don't own a car, I don't plan too either. I enjoy using train travel within Australia (A lot more scenic) and I very much understand the science behind climate change. When I first started in this industry I used to attend presentations from different organizations and was completely disturbed by their wasteful mindsets and the boastful way they went about business (Not going to name names). Over the last few years I have seen some big changes, its no longer impressive to be able to waste as much as possible and thats a huge win.

For the record, I'm a huge fan of Stuarts solution. Airlines make ABOUT the same amount of money and big business is held accountable. You can see from some of my other posts, I'm not really a fan of the Low cost carriers anyway. Hope we can get together at some point and do something more formal, I will email you later with some details. Thanks for the great comment.

Graham

Great post Leo -- and a very powerful vid (which I'd not seen before).

Advertising by an airline is a substantial source of income for our site, and while I'd be a bit shattered to see that disappear, I do agree in general that having an industry like the airline industry that not being required to "price in" their environmental impact is very problematic.

Given my vested interest, I see the solution not being no advertising -- after all we don't want to stop flying altogether (unlike say, smoking), the solution instead is reducng demand via fares that better reflect both the service provided and the environmental vandalism that comes along with it.

Higher fares would see a fall in demand as people would use alternative more affordable -- and less polluting -- means of transport. A fall in demand should equate to less planes and less need for more airports.

Bring it on.

Hi Graham - I have just discovered your blog and am enjoying the read. I too posted on the PLane Stupid ad here:
http://desticorp.typepad.com/desticorp/2009/12/...
I work with and for tourism and believe the issues to be far too complex to warrant the emotional judgement and blaming evident in the ad. But I do wish we could get some honest debate and that the tourism industry would get engaged in a discussion as to what a sustainable, low carbon tourism industry might look like.

Hi Anna, I'm glad you liked the site, I had a read through your blog as well- good stuff! I would have replied sooner but I've been quite sick (Hence the lack of posts). Thanks for the follow on twitter as well, already read some of the links you've tweeted.

Graham

@Grayum_ian Good write up on the plane stupid video.

You know, I like it when organisations make it clear from the start just how seriously to take them - Plane Stupid – excellent, no thought required!
However, at the risk of raising their profile by continuing to mention them, here are a few thoughts:
The fact that the average European flight does or doesn't (I can't find the science behind this anywhere, and Plane Stupid decide not to tell us where they got this "fact") create 400kg of greenhouse gases, bares (ho, ho) no relation to the weight of a polar bear – this is just a useful non-sequitur to draw on your emotions. Poor bears.
My main issue with this type of campaigning is that it draws away from the genuine work that could be done (and indeed in some cases is!) Heathrow’s third runway is an interesting point. Emotion would automatically tell you a new runway would be a bad environmentally speaking due to increased traffic, however if you take a step back and cast a logical eye across the current situation; due to being over capacity (as Graham mentions) there is a lot of stacking of planes above Heathrow, how much environmental damage is being caused by that? That’s just one piece of the whole puzzle to be looked at.
I’m not giving answers, but I feel strongly that we need to fully investigate things before running away on emotion only. From their website and videos at least Plane Stupid seem to be following their name and want us to do the same, i.e. blindly follow an ideology rather than make up our own minds using facts and figures.
Again repeating Graham, their “demands” seem very confusing, and indeed offer no alternatives of what they want rid of.
My last comment would be around a quote from their site:
We came together in 2005 to oppose an aviation industry conference and have been taking action ever since. So far we’ve occupied Stansted, East Midlands, and Aberdeen airports; shut down easyJet and BAA’s headquarters; stopped private jets at Biggin Hill, London City and Edinburgh airports; sat atop the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament; supported the Camp for Climate Action at Heathrow; worked with local residents to defend their homes from the bulldozers; exposed a corporate spy and chucked green custard over Peter Mandelson.
These are actions, not achievements, no? What has been the outcome of these actions – aside from being at worst destructive and at best annoying?
Just my sceptical view of this,
DB
P.S. Yeah, I work in the airline industry, but I am also a father who is hugely concerned with the future of the planet I’m leaving for my son.

David, you made a really good point! I totally forgot about the plane stacking issue, blocking the construction of a new terminal contradicts their protect the environment angle, but it doesn't actually surprise me.

I think most people can see through things like this. I saw their CEO on CNN and it all seemed pretty flimsy- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JBaI34YJXw .

Thanks again for the great comment