New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris is quoted in todays "Times" as saying that heathrow's directors only have a short term view and want to maximise profits for their (mainly foreign) shareholders
they only look at teh short term and have no duty, care or thought about the environmental impact on London & Londoners.... etc etc
Sounds like a lot of people on here had better hope he never makes it to No.10................
they only look at teh short term and have no duty, care or thought about the environmental impact on London & Londoners.... etc etc
Sounds like a lot of people on here had better hope he never makes it to No.10................
Heathrow's directors only have a short term view and want to maximise profits for their (mainly foreign) shareholders
If Boris is simply making the point that the commercial interests of an airport operator and those of UK plc don't necessarily coincide, notwithstanding attempts to conflate the two, I would have thought that was so obvious as to not need stating.
Heathrow's directors only have a short term view
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once more, Boris has thrown his weight behind a Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estruary. He now favours the Foster proposal for the Isle of Grain.
BBC News - Airport capacity: Boris Johnson announces three proposals
But if he does , I do hope they re-orientate this airport to the southwest. The last thing London needs, is aircraft on the easterly approach flying over central London. If Silver-Boris has a SW orientation, the approach would be over the reletively open lands of Western Kent.
Silver
BBC News - Airport capacity: Boris Johnson announces three proposals
But if he does , I do hope they re-orientate this airport to the southwest. The last thing London needs, is aircraft on the easterly approach flying over central London. If Silver-Boris has a SW orientation, the approach would be over the reletively open lands of Western Kent.
Silver
Last edited by silverstrata; 15th Jul 2013 at 19:45.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now we have a counter-proposal by Heathrow, for one or two new runways (to really blight the area).
BBC News - Heathrow plans 'frightening' reality as third runway proposed
We are approaching a stalemate here, where Heathrow submits increasingly absurd proposals, that will never pass planning consent, while simultaneously ignoring the only proposal that will end the hub-capacity problem for London and the UK (i.e.: a Thames airport).
BBC News - Heathrow plans 'frightening' reality as third runway proposed
We are approaching a stalemate here, where Heathrow submits increasingly absurd proposals, that will never pass planning consent, while simultaneously ignoring the only proposal that will end the hub-capacity problem for London and the UK (i.e.: a Thames airport).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Once more, Boris has thrown his weight behind a Silver-Boris airport in the Thames Estruary. He now favours the Foster proposal for the Isle of Grain.
BBC News - Airport capacity: Boris Johnson announces three proposals
But if he does , I do hope they re-orientate this airport to the southwest. The last thing London needs, is aircraft on the easterly approach flying over central London. If Silver-Boris has a SW orientation, the approach would be over the reletively open lands of Western Kent.
Silver"
Silver, you have mentioned this NE/SW orientation before, and doubtless you're not alone, but no one's taken it on board.
Maybe because they ain't going on the estuary...... Indeed, there's still a strong possibility of adopting plans A, B and C (do nothing),
Quote: "And now we have a counter-proposal by Heathrow, for one or two new runways (to really blight the area).
BBC News - Heathrow plans 'frightening' reality as third runway proposed
We are approaching a stalemate here, where Heathrow submits increasingly absurd proposals, that will never pass planning consent, while simultaneously ignoring the only proposal that will end the hub-capacity problem for London and the UK (i.e.: a Thames airport)."
Heathrow is hedging its bets, perfectly reasonable given the situation. They know that Silver Island will never be built.
Regretably, Heathrow Airport Limited have only made a case for a third rwy, not a case for a third and a fourth rwy.
A mistake in my opinion, they need to make the case now if they think a fourth rwy is needed in 2040. Get it built, be ahead of the game for once.
BBC News - Airport capacity: Boris Johnson announces three proposals
But if he does , I do hope they re-orientate this airport to the southwest. The last thing London needs, is aircraft on the easterly approach flying over central London. If Silver-Boris has a SW orientation, the approach would be over the reletively open lands of Western Kent.
Silver"
Silver, you have mentioned this NE/SW orientation before, and doubtless you're not alone, but no one's taken it on board.
Maybe because they ain't going on the estuary...... Indeed, there's still a strong possibility of adopting plans A, B and C (do nothing),
Quote: "And now we have a counter-proposal by Heathrow, for one or two new runways (to really blight the area).
BBC News - Heathrow plans 'frightening' reality as third runway proposed
We are approaching a stalemate here, where Heathrow submits increasingly absurd proposals, that will never pass planning consent, while simultaneously ignoring the only proposal that will end the hub-capacity problem for London and the UK (i.e.: a Thames airport)."
Heathrow is hedging its bets, perfectly reasonable given the situation. They know that Silver Island will never be built.
Regretably, Heathrow Airport Limited have only made a case for a third rwy, not a case for a third and a fourth rwy.
A mistake in my opinion, they need to make the case now if they think a fourth rwy is needed in 2040. Get it built, be ahead of the game for once.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Jul 2013 at 23:16.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who would want a new town on the Heathrow site when all the Jobs would have gone east or into Europe, RIP Reading and the M4/M40 Silicon Corridor?
And doesn't this media video show on option for runway 3 & 4?
http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.c...ocMediaId=6408
And doesn't this media video show on option for runway 3 & 4?
http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.c...ocMediaId=6408
Last edited by pabely; 17th Jul 2013 at 23:24.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok cat among the pigeons time. I have always considered that LHR should be the only gateway. However my thoughts are changing and maybe there should be a more pragmatic approach to this. Here goes and ready to duck.
In my mind this could be a three stage solution as outlined below.
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
Stage 2, A third runway is built North West of LHR with a life span of say 20 years.
Stage 3, Build Isle of Grain International to be completed before the expiry of stage 2.
This would allow expansion of our major hub in the short to medium term. Allow for the planning and building of Grain land and allow business and transport links to be integrated. Just think a loop off HS1 with international station that could be connected with HS2 by a sort tunnel between Euston and St Pancras. Crossrail also extended and a loop off the M25 and M2. Part of Heathrow would then close and be redeveloped say leaving one runway and terminal to just serve limited regional and international services for west London etc. You could also included a deepwater port a truly major transport hub.
Off to my bunker.
XT
In my mind this could be a three stage solution as outlined below.
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
Stage 2, A third runway is built North West of LHR with a life span of say 20 years.
Stage 3, Build Isle of Grain International to be completed before the expiry of stage 2.
This would allow expansion of our major hub in the short to medium term. Allow for the planning and building of Grain land and allow business and transport links to be integrated. Just think a loop off HS1 with international station that could be connected with HS2 by a sort tunnel between Euston and St Pancras. Crossrail also extended and a loop off the M25 and M2. Part of Heathrow would then close and be redeveloped say leaving one runway and terminal to just serve limited regional and international services for west London etc. You could also included a deepwater port a truly major transport hub.
Off to my bunker.
XT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pabely
And doesn't this media video show on option for runway 3 & 4?
And doesn't this media video show on option for runway 3 & 4?
The BBC briefing I saw had 4 runways at LHR too. One runway to the immediate north, or to the NW. And one a long way to the SW. Both of the westerly options require putting the M25 in a long tunnel, so there is an extra expense for a start.
But none of this minimises not only the noise nuisance of flying over London, but the dangers associated with this too. Especially as undershooting runways is becoming de-rigueur in aviation nowadays. Must be taking lessons from xxx airline, who pride themselves on touching down on the piano keys.
And none of this puts LHR on the surface transport map either. Try catching a train from LHR to Edinburgh. Not very easy, huh? You can catch a surface connection from CDG and you the same from AMS, but you sure cannot do this from LHR. A terrible airport, in a terrible location, with terrible connections, and nowhere to park.
Xtypeman
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
And expanding Northolt's runway and its usage would give the same problems as LHR. Extra noise, extra danger, local opposition, and a highly constrained airport with no easy runway extension options.
In addition, having to catch a coach is not interlining, which is what LHR should be all about. If I come in from the the Far East with umpteen bags, I want a seamless and simple connection to my local flight to Copenhagen, not an endurance test on a coach.
And if we do not provide that service, then people go elsewhere. On my last trip back from AMS, I met three different groups of UK residents, who were using KLM as their carrier and AMS as their hub. (i.e.: traveling Bristol-->AMS-->Americas, and return likewise.) That is business that the UK has lost, and lost for ever unless we have a decent interlining airport.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 18th Jul 2013 at 15:48.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “In my mind this could be a three stage solution as outlined below.
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
Stage 2, A third runway is built North West of LHR with a life span of say 20 years.
Stage 3, Build Isle of Grain International to be completed before the expiry of stage 2.”
Re. stage 1: NHT is not big enough to be an LHR overspill. It could be a successful small local airport like LCY and SEN, but that’s it.
Re. stage 2: with the expense involved, it needs to last longer than just 20 years, else it’s not a good business proposition (and it has to be in the current environment of airports and airlines in the private sector), and we still need 2 more rwys.
Re. stage 3: again this is not a good business proposition. LHR is not closing (the huge investment in it by the owners makes this patently obvious), and that makes any Silver-Boris-Vanity-Project site is unviable.
Quote: “Try catching a train from LHR to Edinburgh. Not very easy, huh?”
That’s why transport infrastrucure needs to offer choice: road rail and air.
Stage 1, Open Northolt asap for limited regional flights a percentage of which must be transferred from LHR. Provide a fast coach link with connections to mainline/underground. This would be a temporary situation for a short period whilst......
Stage 2, A third runway is built North West of LHR with a life span of say 20 years.
Stage 3, Build Isle of Grain International to be completed before the expiry of stage 2.”
Re. stage 1: NHT is not big enough to be an LHR overspill. It could be a successful small local airport like LCY and SEN, but that’s it.
Re. stage 2: with the expense involved, it needs to last longer than just 20 years, else it’s not a good business proposition (and it has to be in the current environment of airports and airlines in the private sector), and we still need 2 more rwys.
Re. stage 3: again this is not a good business proposition. LHR is not closing (the huge investment in it by the owners makes this patently obvious), and that makes any Silver-Boris-Vanity-Project site is unviable.
Quote: “Try catching a train from LHR to Edinburgh. Not very easy, huh?”
That’s why transport infrastrucure needs to offer choice: road rail and air.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdeal
That’s why transport infrastrucure needs to offer choice: road rail and air.
That’s why transport infrastrucure needs to offer choice: road rail and air.
Yes, but at present LHR is too small to get any commuter aircraft in - no room and the slots are too b..... expensive. Which makes LHR, as it is now, a complete white elephant.
So I think you will agree, the status quo cannot remain. Something has to be done, and done quickly - be it an expansion or a new Silver-Boris airport.
Silver
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdealfrank.
Yes agree with you on LHR.
They have spent big money on it ,and I don't think its likely to close.Even the current Govt are proposing to widen the M4 from Reading to Heathrow ,certainly wouldn't do that if they planned to close it, surely ?
LGW.. is probably out as a mega hub as business passengers have repeatedly shown they don't want to travel in large numbers even to LGW, its a top leisure route airport. If they did all the US Airlines would not have pulled out and moved to LHR.
STN, American Airlines have tried it twice and failed twice..not enough business passengers, as have SAS on one occasion and others. About 20 years ago the Govt in power tried to force full fare airlines into LGW from LHR.
They refused and remember the boss of Air Canada having a rant at the thought of it.
STN will most likely stay a low cost airport.
Isle of Grain or Boris Island. No chance Experts have already reported to the airport commission the greatly increased danger of bird strikes, and destruction of wetland habitats threatening tens of thousands of birds, at a time when such concerns are high on the agenda.
Then add on huge cost of starting from scratch, running new motorways and extending main rail lines and moving all the LHR workers to new housing estates.Then its also the extra distance into London city.
It will be a brave Govt who has to make a decision and in the short term you can see this topic running for some time.
However IMO its most likely that LHR will be expanded keeping everyone but the local residents happy .
Nigel
Yes agree with you on LHR.
They have spent big money on it ,and I don't think its likely to close.Even the current Govt are proposing to widen the M4 from Reading to Heathrow ,certainly wouldn't do that if they planned to close it, surely ?
LGW.. is probably out as a mega hub as business passengers have repeatedly shown they don't want to travel in large numbers even to LGW, its a top leisure route airport. If they did all the US Airlines would not have pulled out and moved to LHR.
STN, American Airlines have tried it twice and failed twice..not enough business passengers, as have SAS on one occasion and others. About 20 years ago the Govt in power tried to force full fare airlines into LGW from LHR.
They refused and remember the boss of Air Canada having a rant at the thought of it.
STN will most likely stay a low cost airport.
Isle of Grain or Boris Island. No chance Experts have already reported to the airport commission the greatly increased danger of bird strikes, and destruction of wetland habitats threatening tens of thousands of birds, at a time when such concerns are high on the agenda.
Then add on huge cost of starting from scratch, running new motorways and extending main rail lines and moving all the LHR workers to new housing estates.Then its also the extra distance into London city.
It will be a brave Govt who has to make a decision and in the short term you can see this topic running for some time.
However IMO its most likely that LHR will be expanded keeping everyone but the local residents happy .
Nigel
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Yes, but at present LHR is too small to get any commuter aircraft in - no room and the slots are too b..... expensive. Which makes LHR, as it is now, a complete white elephant."
Exactly, that's why LHR needs 2 more rwys. It's basic supply and demand: demand far outstrips supply with only 2 rwys, so a slot market develops and this scare resource becomes eye-wateringly expensive. With 4 rwys, the reverse is the case. As the airport would no longer be at 100% of capacity, delays would be cut.
Also there's an environmental improvement as aircraft are not wasting fuel while queueing to take off and land, it's win-win all round. It would also end the scandal that only two, yes, only two UK carriers have access to LHR because of the expense and the delays.
Quote: "So I think you will agree, the status quo cannot remain. Something has to be done, and done quickly - be it an expansion or a new Silver-Boris airport.
Silver"
Agree 100% (is this a first?) that "something has to be done, and done quickly", in fact done yesterday.
The difference between us is the remedy.
Quote: "Fairdealfrank.
Yes agree with you on LHR.
They have spent big money on it ,and I don't think its likely to close.Even the current Govt are proposing to widen the M4 from Reading to Heathrow ,certainly wouldn't do that if they planned to close it, surely ?
LGW.. is probably out as a mega hub as business passengers have repeatedly shown they don't want to travel in large numbers even to LGW, its a top leisure route airport. If they did all the US Airlines would not have pulled out and moved to LHR.
STN, American Airlines have tried it twice and failed twice..not enough business passengers, as have SAS on one occasion and others. About 20 years ago the Govt in power tried to force full fare airlines into LGW from LHR.
They refused and remember the boss of Air Canada having a rant at the thought of it.
STN will most likely stay a low cost airport.
Isle of Grain or Boris Island. No chance Experts have already reported to the airport commission the greatly increased danger of bird strikes, and destruction of wetland habitats threatening tens of thousands of birds, at a time when such concerns are high on the agenda.
Then add on huge cost of starting from scratch, running new motorways and extending main rail lines and moving all the LHR workers to new housing estates.Then its also the extra distance into London city.
It will be a brave Govt who has to make a decision and in the short term you can see this topic running for some time.
However IMO its most likely that LHR will be expanded keeping everyone but the local residents happy .
Nigel
Excellent analysis, Nigel!
Many local residents know on which side their bread is buttered and won't want their area turned into a ghost town, so will be happy or will at least accept that LHR expansion is neccessary. It's just a small vocal minority who actually live miles away from LHR that are scaring the bejesus out of the government.
Exactly, that's why LHR needs 2 more rwys. It's basic supply and demand: demand far outstrips supply with only 2 rwys, so a slot market develops and this scare resource becomes eye-wateringly expensive. With 4 rwys, the reverse is the case. As the airport would no longer be at 100% of capacity, delays would be cut.
Also there's an environmental improvement as aircraft are not wasting fuel while queueing to take off and land, it's win-win all round. It would also end the scandal that only two, yes, only two UK carriers have access to LHR because of the expense and the delays.
Quote: "So I think you will agree, the status quo cannot remain. Something has to be done, and done quickly - be it an expansion or a new Silver-Boris airport.
Silver"
Agree 100% (is this a first?) that "something has to be done, and done quickly", in fact done yesterday.
The difference between us is the remedy.
Quote: "Fairdealfrank.
Yes agree with you on LHR.
They have spent big money on it ,and I don't think its likely to close.Even the current Govt are proposing to widen the M4 from Reading to Heathrow ,certainly wouldn't do that if they planned to close it, surely ?
LGW.. is probably out as a mega hub as business passengers have repeatedly shown they don't want to travel in large numbers even to LGW, its a top leisure route airport. If they did all the US Airlines would not have pulled out and moved to LHR.
STN, American Airlines have tried it twice and failed twice..not enough business passengers, as have SAS on one occasion and others. About 20 years ago the Govt in power tried to force full fare airlines into LGW from LHR.
They refused and remember the boss of Air Canada having a rant at the thought of it.
STN will most likely stay a low cost airport.
Isle of Grain or Boris Island. No chance Experts have already reported to the airport commission the greatly increased danger of bird strikes, and destruction of wetland habitats threatening tens of thousands of birds, at a time when such concerns are high on the agenda.
Then add on huge cost of starting from scratch, running new motorways and extending main rail lines and moving all the LHR workers to new housing estates.Then its also the extra distance into London city.
It will be a brave Govt who has to make a decision and in the short term you can see this topic running for some time.
However IMO its most likely that LHR will be expanded keeping everyone but the local residents happy .
Nigel
Excellent analysis, Nigel!
Many local residents know on which side their bread is buttered and won't want their area turned into a ghost town, so will be happy or will at least accept that LHR expansion is neccessary. It's just a small vocal minority who actually live miles away from LHR that are scaring the bejesus out of the government.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 19th Jul 2013 at 17:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver:
Agree 100% (is this a first?) that "something has to be done, and done quickly", in fact done yesterday.
Hey, steady on their, Fairdeal - people will begin to talk......
Silver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now Stansted has thrown its hat into the ring, by outlining plans for a 4-runway airport.
BBC News - Stansted Airport expansion plans revealed
Nice idea Stansted, but if Silver-Boris is remote, then Stansted is even worse. It just as far from London as Silver-Boris, and it has no northwesterly surface transport, neither in rail or road links. (The A14 is a cr@p road, while there is no easy way of linking Stansted to London, BHX, MAN and the near continent in one easy system).
At least with Silver-Boris one could imaging a sweeping HS rail system passing through Dover and Ashford, gliding into Silver-Boris, onto the main stop at London, and then onwards and upwards to Birmingham and Manch.
Yes, I know that our esteemed planners will make such an imagined rail line pass 5km from Silver Boris, and never join them up. And I know that that same idealistic rail system will have the daftest ever 2km gap between King's Cross and Euston,** but that is UK joined up thinking for you.
** You know I think, just to get us into the mindset of post-modernist UK planning, they should close the M25 between junctions 20 and 21, and route all the traffic through Abbots Langley. Yup - that, is how stupid our rail planning really is.
Silver
BBC News - Stansted Airport expansion plans revealed
Nice idea Stansted, but if Silver-Boris is remote, then Stansted is even worse. It just as far from London as Silver-Boris, and it has no northwesterly surface transport, neither in rail or road links. (The A14 is a cr@p road, while there is no easy way of linking Stansted to London, BHX, MAN and the near continent in one easy system).
At least with Silver-Boris one could imaging a sweeping HS rail system passing through Dover and Ashford, gliding into Silver-Boris, onto the main stop at London, and then onwards and upwards to Birmingham and Manch.
Yes, I know that our esteemed planners will make such an imagined rail line pass 5km from Silver Boris, and never join them up. And I know that that same idealistic rail system will have the daftest ever 2km gap between King's Cross and Euston,** but that is UK joined up thinking for you.
** You know I think, just to get us into the mindset of post-modernist UK planning, they should close the M25 between junctions 20 and 21, and route all the traffic through Abbots Langley. Yup - that, is how stupid our rail planning really is.
Silver
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"no northwesterly surface transport, neither in rail or road links."
I could have sworn the M1 runs NW to the A1(M) and A14 ..................... dual carriage way all the way to Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham..........
and my mother-in-law gets a train from Nottingham to Stansted regularly - admittedly with a couple of changes
I could have sworn the M1 runs NW to the A1(M) and A14 ..................... dual carriage way all the way to Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham..........
and my mother-in-law gets a train from Nottingham to Stansted regularly - admittedly with a couple of changes
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 21st Jul 2013 at 08:33.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry
I could have sworn the M1 runs NW to the A1(M) and A14 ..................... dual carriage way all the way to Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham..........
I could have sworn the M1 runs NW to the A1(M) and A14 ..................... dual carriage way all the way to Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham..........
M1 and A1 from Stanstead? You must have your map upside down.
And if you are mentioning the A14, this simply means one thing - you have never used this goat-track.
Silver.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birds in saline areas
Not only Brent Geese like saltwater. Pink Footed Geese roost in the Wash and other estuaries, in the tens of thousands. Then add in the wading Birds, the Gulls etc. Also remember Birds migrate at night and are attracted to lights. An absolute non starter. By 2030, what price oil? I think we should forget any idea of airport expansion in the UK. In fact I suspect I shall live to see lots of runways and roads grubbed up to turn back into farmland. Have a look at population growth figures, and our future ability to pay for imported foodstuffs. This bubble we are living in will not last for ever. Google exponential growth. As a species the future may not be as good as the present.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, your vision of the future is certainly possible. However, I'm more optimistic. Humans are amazing creatures and we've encountered and overcome many resource crises in the past. Necessity is the mother of invention and I think we've a good chance of enduring as a species for many more millennia yet. I remember listening with great concern to the gloomy prognostications of the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth report (1972) which said that oil would run out in 1992 and most other resources before 2000. Well, over twenty years beyond 1992 we're still discovering more reserves of oil and developing new methods of extracting them. Known reserves should last over sixty years and there are thought to be vast additional reserves, especially in offshore Brazil. We'll be using those runways for many decades yet....
So, don't worry, be happy.
So, don't worry, be happy.