Discussion:
A model decision and one for every nation seriously to ponder...
(too old to reply)
James Christophers
2020-02-28 03:43:44 UTC
Permalink
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Rich80105
2020-02-28 03:53:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Fascinating!.
"The British judicial system remains incredibly influential globally,
with courts around the world modelled on our own, so this means any
high-carbon infrastructure project – from motorways to fracking wells
to coal-fired power plants – could potentially now be blocked as
unlawful in any of the 195 countries that are signatories to the Paris
Agreement."

It may perhaps be arguable that New Zealand does need to fix up
accident hotspots and severely congested parts of ur roading system,
but this could impact on any future decision to grant a permit to open
a coal mine, or to extend or grant a new permit to drill for oil
(whether on land or under the sea), etc, etc.

Thanks.
James Christophers
2020-02-28 04:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Fascinating!.
"The British judicial system remains incredibly influential globally,
with courts around the world modelled on our own, so this means any
high-carbon infrastructure project – from motorways to fracking wells
to coal-fired power plants – could potentially now be blocked as
unlawful in any of the 195 countries that are signatories to the Paris
Agreement."
It may perhaps be arguable that New Zealand does need to fix up
accident hotspots and severely congested parts of ur roading system,
but this could impact on any future decision to grant a permit to open
a coal mine, or to extend or grant a new permit to drill for oil
(whether on land or under the sea), etc, etc.
Thanks.
Have a care. The author of this **opinion piece** effectively declares his history of active participation in the climate controversy surrounding this landmark judgement.

Nevertheless, you can take the court as being strictly neutral, having justly weighed the merits and demerits of the case which, even if by no means worldwide, will have huge ramifications within the UK's borders particularly with Brexit still an unknown quantity.

The only thing that really happened on Jan 31 was the formal enactment of the UK/EU divorce per se. The hard stuff - the terms and conditions surrounding the UK's future engagement with the EU - have yet to be negotiated and I believe the brief time frame allowed for this is, at this moment, hopelessly unrealistic.
Rich80105
2020-02-28 05:33:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:57:07 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Fascinating!.
"The British judicial system remains incredibly influential globally,
with courts around the world modelled on our own, so this means any
high-carbon infrastructure project – from motorways to fracking wells
to coal-fired power plants – could potentially now be blocked as
unlawful in any of the 195 countries that are signatories to the Paris
Agreement."
It may perhaps be arguable that New Zealand does need to fix up
accident hotspots and severely congested parts of ur roading system,
but this could impact on any future decision to grant a permit to open
a coal mine, or to extend or grant a new permit to drill for oil
(whether on land or under the sea), etc, etc.
Thanks.
Have a care. The author of this **opinion piece** effectively declares his history of active participation in the climate controversy surrounding this landmark judgement.
Nevertheless, you can take the court as being strictly neutral, having justly weighed the merits and demerits of the case which, even if by no means worldwide, will have huge ramifications within the UK's borders particularly with Brexit still an unknown quantity.
It is this aspect that means the special interests of the writer are
partially irrelevant. It is holding politicians to account for
agreements that they make (usually without approval from Parliament)
that make this decision far reaching. National were in government when
the original agreement were signed, but I suspectt hey did not realise
that it may have an effect on other decisions. It is of course
possible for a government to withdraw from most such agreements, but
that could have other implications.
Post by James Christophers
The only thing that really happened on Jan 31 was the formal enactment of the UK/EU divorce per se. The hard stuff - the terms and conditions surrounding the UK's future engagement with the EU - have yet to be negotiated and I believe the brief time frame allowed for this is, at this moment, hopelessly unrealistic.
Brexit is a different (but possibly related) issue - see
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1
JohnO
2020-02-28 05:01:23 UTC
Permalink
This just means that they have legislation incompatible with the new runway. It doesn't say anything about climate change per se.
Rich80105
2020-02-28 05:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
This just means that they have legislation incompatible with the new runway. It doesn't say anything about climate change per se.
You may have missed reading the article -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26

"To be precise, the court did not quite say this. It ruled that
ministers’ failure to take the UK’s climate change commitments into
account rendered the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) – which
effectively gave the green light to a third runway – unlawful. In
order to be lawful, the ANPS would have to be rewritten to include a
credible plan for squaring expansion with our commitment under the
Paris Agreement to seek to limit global temperature rise to no more
than 1.5C. The court was careful to clarify that it has no opinion on
whether or not this is possible. "

You are correct that it doesn't specifically use the term climate
change, just the Paris Agreement to seek to limit global temperature
rise to no more than 1.5C, and other expressions of similar issues..

The article also links to other developments in Britain which indicate
that there is perhaps some serious effort going into meeting agreement
requirements - this one does use the term climate change . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/15/alok-sharma-cop26-success-climate-change
BR
2020-02-28 17:02:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Whay would anyone read such a tabloid propaganda outlet as the
Guardian? They've been plugging the climate fraud for decades.

If the owners of Heathrow airport deem it prudent to build another
runway, they should not have to factor in any of the climate nonsense
in their decision to build it.

Bill.
George
2020-02-28 19:18:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:02:06 +1300
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Whay would anyone read such a tabloid propaganda outlet as the
Guardian? They've been plugging the climate fraud for decades.
If the owners of Heathrow airport deem it prudent to build another
runway, they should not have to factor in any of the climate nonsense
in their decision to build it.
Bill.
One might ask as to how a third runway is going to do anything except
relieve the current overload of movements.
Greens should be more concerned with building ecoboats to sail off to
their protests
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-02-28 19:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:02:06 +1300
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Whay would anyone read such a tabloid propaganda outlet as the
Guardian? They've been plugging the climate fraud for decades.
If the owners of Heathrow airport deem it prudent to build another
runway, they should not have to factor in any of the climate nonsense
in their decision to build it.
Bill.
One might ask as to how a third runway is going to do anything except
relieve the current overload of movements.
Greens should be more concerned with building ecoboats to sail off to
their protests
Apparently they needed government permission to build the third
runway, and in considering granting permission the government had to
consider its own laws.

I suspect even in good old free market New Zealand the building of a
new runway would require some permissions from local or New Zealand
Government, but I am not awar eof any such plans at present.
John Bowes
2020-02-28 22:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:02:06 +1300
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Whay would anyone read such a tabloid propaganda outlet as the
Guardian? They've been plugging the climate fraud for decades.
If the owners of Heathrow airport deem it prudent to build another
runway, they should not have to factor in any of the climate nonsense
in their decision to build it.
Bill.
One might ask as to how a third runway is going to do anything except
relieve the current overload of movements.
Greens should be more concerned with building ecoboats to sail off to
their protests
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
You mean like the trip to Spitzbergen to display the lack of sea ice? You know the one that had to be rescued because it got trapped in an area that is normally ice free :)
George
2020-02-29 00:25:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by George
One might ask as to how a third runway is going to do anything
except relieve the current overload of movements.
Greens should be more concerned with building ecoboats to sail off
to their protests
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
You mean like the trip to Spitzbergen to display the lack of sea ice?
You know the one that had to be rescued because it got trapped in an
area that is normally ice free :)
Yup.
The kooks are very good at getting iced in.
Possibly its the best crews they can get for the money.
Or maybe its the IQ (somewhere near the heights of damp lettuce) that
agrees to crew such loser trips.. :)
John Bowes
2020-02-29 21:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by George
One might ask as to how a third runway is going to do anything
except relieve the current overload of movements.
Greens should be more concerned with building ecoboats to sail off
to their protests
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
You mean like the trip to Spitzbergen to display the lack of sea ice?
You know the one that had to be rescued because it got trapped in an
area that is normally ice free :)
Yup.
The kooks are very good at getting iced in.
Possibly its the best crews they can get for the money.
Or maybe its the IQ (somewhere near the heights of damp lettuce) that
agrees to crew such loser trips.. :)
I see it as a belief in their own superiority that hides their inability to keep p what is happening in the real world.
James Christophers
2020-02-28 21:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Whay would anyone read such a tabloid propaganda outlet as the
Guardian? They've been plugging the climate fraud for decades.
Then, as if pre-ordained for this very moment, here from the fair and balanced Guardian is a stone-faced, alt-right sock-puppet to warm the cockles of your cold, shrivelled heart:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/28/naomi-seibt-anti-greta-activist-white-nationalist-inspiration
Post by Rich80105
If the owners of Heathrow airport deem it prudent to build another
runway, they should not have to factor in any of the climate nonsense
in their decision to build it.
It's the UK government that's been knocked back (for its illegal non-compliance with the Paris accord). It isn't even appealing against the decision. In fact, the MP for Uxbridge - potentially directly under the flight path - your barefaced lying soulmate Johnson - has been drenching his dayglo undies over it. Heathrow Airport, however, may yet take take the matter further and good luck to them say I because every cent their already doomed appeal costs them will be clawed back in some bogus "levy" or other at every LHR check-in counter.

But here for the fair-and-balanced open-minded is the best and fullest coverage I can yet find on this story, plus some quality reader feedback from those closer to the controversy.

https://www.ft.com/content/b0f89152-594b-11ea-a528-dd0f971febbc
BR
2020-03-01 16:40:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:21:21 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Whay would anyone read such a tabloid propaganda outlet as the
Guardian? They've been plugging the climate fraud for decades.
Then, as if pre-ordained for this very moment, here from the fair and balanced Guardian is a stone-faced, alt-right sock-puppet
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/28/naomi-seibt-anti-greta-activist-white-nationalist-inspiration
The Guardian is a shameless promoter of leftism. The climate fraud is
about giving more control to power hungry politicians and their
surrogates. I pay very little attention to the opinions of teenagers
whatever their political stripe. By the way, I notice the Guardian is
presenting the begging bowl. No surprises there. Scrounging is what
socialists do best.
OK, so anybody that doesn't believe all the hype about the climate has
a "cold shrivelled heart". Have I got that about right?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
If the owners of Heathrow airport deem it prudent to build another
runway, they should not have to factor in any of the climate nonsense
in their decision to build it.
It's the UK government that's been knocked back (for its illegal non-compliance with the Paris accord).
It isn't even appealing against the decision. In fact, the MP for Uxbridge - potentially directly under the flight path - your barefaced lying soulmate Johnson - has been drenching his dayglo undies over it.
Why do you assume Johnson is my mate? The two things he had going for
him in the election was firstly that he wasn't Jeremy Corbyn, but that
is a very low bar to set. The other thing is that he ran on delivering
Brexit and for that he is to be congratulated. Unfortunately he's
since thrown in with the climate scam. Bad move Boris. If the UK
government had any sense they would pull out of the Paris deal and
encourage others to do the same.
Post by James Christophers
Heathrow Airport, however, may yet take take the matter further and good luck to them say I because every cent their already doomed appeal costs them will be clawed back in some bogus "levy" or other at every LHR check-in counte
And you approve of this? All that money going into the pockets of
lawyers?
Post by James Christophers
But here for the fair-and-balanced open-minded is the best and fullest coverage I can yet find on this story, plus some quality reader feedback from those closer to the controversy.
https://www.ft.com/content/b0f89152-594b-11ea-a528-dd0f971febbc
Thew Financial Times is a left leaning tabloid that purports to deal
with economics. I would never never let any of my money end up in the
coffers of the purveyors of such a publication.

Bill.
James Christophers
2020-03-01 22:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:21:21 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:43:44 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-cop26
Whay would anyone read such a tabloid propaganda outlet as the
Guardian? They've been plugging the climate fraud for decades.
Then, as if pre-ordained for this very moment, here from the fair and balanced Guardian is a stone-faced, alt-right sock-puppet
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/28/naomi-seibt-anti-greta-activist-white-nationalist-inspiration
The Guardian is a shameless promoter of leftism. The climate fraud is
about giving more control to power hungry politicians and their
surrogates.
The presiding puppet-master of world capitalism is Goldman-Sachs and its tentacles reach deep into the inner workings of virtually every government worldwide, subverting and distorting individual economies for its own ends. G-S - that paternalistic all-time darling of the global fossil fuel industry - has recently announced that it has ceased all funding of new searches for fossil fuel sources. Go figure.


I pay very little attention to the opinions of teenagers
Post by BR
whatever their political stripe.
Never forget, Bill: "Out of the mouths of babes..."
Post by BR
By the way, I notice the Guardian is
presenting the begging bowl.
And with extraordinary success, too. Compare this, then, to yer fellow-travelling Dirty Digger who set up his repellent FoxNews channel in the the UK but had to shut it down and pull out in within short order because its national viewership never numbered more than 9 in total.
Post by BR
No surprises there. Scrounging is what socialists do best.
The mainstay of the 200 year-old Guardian is a still-extant Trust established in 1936 by John Scott who was at that time the owner of the (then) Manchester Guardian. This "no-charge" online publication has resisted the increasing urge among its cash-starved peers to put up a paywall, and this resistance is consistently and increasingly sustained by **100% optional** donations from individual readers around the world. Furthermore, many of its opinion pieces are written by those who also contribute to distinctly right-wing papers. Sir Simon Jenkins is a regular, his many significant appointments having included that of Editor of the London Times.
Post by BR
OK, so anybody that doesn't believe all the hype about the climate has
a "cold shrivelled heart". Have I got that about right?
By no means Bill, but your bottomless self-opinionation certainly has!
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
If the owners of Heathrow airport deem it prudent to build another
runway, they should not have to factor in any of the climate nonsense
in their decision to build it.
It's the UK government that's been knocked back (for its illegal non-compliance with the Paris accord).
It isn't even appealing against the decision. In fact, the MP for Uxbridge - potentially directly under the flight path - your barefaced lying soulmate Johnson - has been drenching his dayglo undies over it.
Why do you assume Johnson is my mate? The two things he had going for
him in the election was firstly that he wasn't Jeremy Corbyn, but that
is a very low bar to set. The other thing is that he ran on delivering
Brexit and for that he is to be congratulated. Unfortunately he's
since thrown in with the climate scam. Bad move Boris. If the UK
government had any sense they would pull out of the Paris deal and
encourage others to do the same.
Even though the Heathrow verdict represents a personal victory at the minor local-electorate level, both nationally and internationally it has Johnson well and truly over a barrel. Oh, and by the way, as if to add to his troubles, his government is falling apart before your very eyes, with senior cabinet ministers, Downing Street staff and the civil service in chaos as his nothing-but-vacuous schoolkid lust for power has inevitably crumbled to dust - as it only ever could have - into a nightmare of indecisiveness, policy confusion and top-smell inter-personal recrimination. Am I as a Brit one bit surprised? Moi?
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
Heathrow Airport, however, may yet take take the matter further and good luck to them say I because every cent their already doomed appeal costs them will be clawed back in some bogus "levy" or other at every LHR check-in counte
And you approve of this? All that money going into the pockets of
lawyers?
What makes you think such a thing other than your misinterpretion of my sardonic "good luck to them"? Oh, and by the way, Heathrow Airport is owned by Spaniards whihc only adds further savour and piquancy to the entire shebang.
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
But here for the fair-and-balanced open-minded is the best and fullest coverage I can yet find on this story, plus some quality reader feedback from those closer to the controversy.
https://www.ft.com/content/b0f89152-594b-11ea-a528-dd0f971febbc
Thew Financial Times is a left leaning tabloid that purports to deal
with economics.
It complements in many ways that blatantly commie outfit known globally as Bloomberg News.


I would never never let any of my money end up in the
Post by BR
coffers of the purveyors of such a publication.
How very sensible of you, Bill. Presumably Mary Holm's fireside scribblings in your thinking man's London Times (i.e. the pay-walled NZ Herald) purveys way more analytical profundity and wisdom than a staunch, thrusting pillar of New Zealand finance of your stripe, could ever need!
Loading...