PDA

View Full Version : The Green Menace


northern boy
11th Apr 2005, 12:10
With the general election approaching, many people, including friends and relatives of our members will be deciding how to cast their votes. There is widespread cynicism amongst the electorate about all the political parties, and some may be thinking of a protest vote, voting for a minority party like the Greens.

For over a year now I have been fighting a battle of words in my local paper with the Green party who, apart from their well known activism on issues such as recycling, energy conservation and the use of private cars, have a near pathological hatred of the aviation industry. The industry which keeps all of us in employment.

The Green party do not just intend to restrict the growth of aviation, which could find favour with some people who live in the vicinity of airports, they intend to destroy it. Starting in the UK with unilateral taxes which in their own words “will circumvent the international tax treatment of aviation” (Caroline Lucas, Green MEP), and then to campaign to overturn the Chicago convention which they describe as “unethical”.
The taxes and charges they propose, starting with rises of 30%, and with other charges and restrictions that a green government will impose “as they see fit”, the UK industry will be literally taxed out of business.

Here’s a sample of their views from their website;


"At the Green Party's annual conference in Lancaster next week (11-14 September), leading Greens will propose a new package of aviation charges including increased landing charges and emissions charges as well as an air traffic congestion charge, calculated to tackle the growth in demand for flights"




"TR500 Heavier-than-air craft are one of the most energy intensive and polluting forms of transport. The worst are supersonic aircraft. Aircraft burn more fossil fuel
per passenger or ton-mile than other modes of transport. This profligacy is heavily subsidised by the international agreement to impose zero taxes on aviation fuel."

Despite figures showing that the new generation of aircraft burn less fuel per passenger mile than a small turbo-diesel car. (A380)

"TR541 The Green Party supports the removal of the various direct and indirect subsidies for air travel, and the adoption instead of fuel taxation and/or charges or levies. We recognise that achieving enough international agreement to make this practicable is difficult, and would seek in the first instance to impose such taxes in the UK."

Quite how they plan to flout international law is not made clear. Airlines and especially foreign owned airlines could have a field day in court with this one. I have suggested that the Greens plan to remove the UK from international trade altogether and impose a North Korean style of isolationism on us. This is not me being a paranoid right wing loony as has been suggested by the local worthies,


"PD503 We oppose the existence of the Western European Union (WEU) and support its abolition."

"We would take the UK out of NATO unilaterally. We would also end the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US. "


The consequent loss of jobs is dismissed as follows,


"TR544 Air transport is an inefficient and capital intensive method of employment creation. Equivalent funds invested in other sectors will provide more jobs per pound spent and offer much more benefit to people and the environment."



And as for developments in technology such as alternative fuels,

"There is almost no possibility of reducing aircraft-induced global warming by replacing conventional fuels by hydrogen."

Why exactly? If cars and power plants are converted to zero emission technologies as seems likely with fuel cells and nuclear power, then surely even if aircraft continue to burn kerosene, there would still be a massive overall reduction in greenhouse gases.

"TR511 It is essential that the demand for air transport is managed in a way compatible with wider social and environmental objectives. The Green Party advocates a drastic reduction in the number of journeys made by air for whatever purpose. We must first discourage the growth of air transport."


"TR523 The Green Party would regulate more strictly the use of helicopters. These operate in more locations and at much lower heights than almost all other aircraft. Helicopters and heliports are extremely noisy to those nearby."

So if you are badly injured or ill and need a rapid trip to hospital, tough.

"The worst kinds of aircraft, such as Concorde and any further supersonic transport aircraft, would be banned, as would night flights over populated areas."

So much for the supersonic business jet then. I thought that Concorde went out of service a while ago. Maybe the one in the aviation park at Manchester is undergoing a lengthy check. However time is a capitalist plot on the planet green and they do things differently there.

Now so far, you might argue that we face an increase in global warming and possible climate change and that aviation needs to face up to its responsibilities. Fair enough, although the huge advances that have been made in cleaner and quieter engines and safer aircraft over the last twenty years are never mentioned by the environmentalists.
We as a professional body may have to face up to higher taxes on our industry and the loss of jobs, none of this is new. But, just as I was beginning to relax a bit, I read the following,





"PD423 The contribution of particular activities (such as air travel and nuclear power) to the general risk to society of massive attack should be adequately factored into public choice about their funding and future."

So if they can’t tax the industry to death, they can abolish it as a threat to public safety.

Does this mean the Greens intend to be tough on terrorism and the causes of terrorism? Not a bit of it, read on;


"PD418 Terrorism is an extremely loaded term, frequently used by those in power to justify excessive use of force or the weakening of controls on the exercise of their power. Sometimes governments justify their own terrorist acts by labelling any groups that resist their monopoly of violence "terrorist"."

Fairly standard la- la land politics you might think but,

"PD421 Those accused or found guilty of atrocities, or planning to commit, aid or abet in their execution, should be dealt with under the same principles as those accused of more conventional criminal activities. In particular, those accused of supporting terrorist acts should have normal rights against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts. "


So presumably, suicide bombers and mass murderers can expect to be treated the same as shoplifters or noisy neighbours and given either a telling off or an ASBO. Nuclear workers and airline staff will, no doubt be arrested immediately and sent to the Green equivilant of camp X Ray where they will undergo an extreme regime of reading the Guardian and Independant and listening to whale music through headphones whilst being force fed mung beans.

There is much more of this, including plans to limit the size of companies,

" Changes in Company Law, taxation, and in monopolies and mergers legislation, will reduce the size of inappropriately large companies,"

As decided by whom exactly? The head druid?



Increasing taxes,

"EC711 Personal tax-free allowances will be abolished,"

" EC750 The principal purpose of Inheritance Tax is to reverse and prevent the accumulation of wealth and power by a privileged class. With the taxing of unrealised Capital Gains at the point of death (see EC742), the size of inherited estates will already be reduced. Further taxes, in the form of Inheritance Tax, should be designed to re-distribute wealth"

They also plan to abolish or restrict horse racing, circuses, angling, golf courses for heaven’s sake , imposing a 55mph national speed limit… And my particular favorite;

"PB403 Secondly, individual freedom should not be exercised where that freedom depends on the exploitation or harm to any person or group in society, or to the environment. Where the exercise of such freedoms harms others the Green Party believes it is legitimate that those rights should be curtailed."

Again, as defined by whom and taking what form? Such wooly nonsense could conceivably lead to the jailing of a pilot for harming the environment as defined ad nauseam in the onslaught on the industry set out previously.

If anyone is considering voting for the Greens then I would urge them to first read their statement of aims on the Green Party website (just type Green Party into Google, you’ll soon wish you hadn’t). All the quotations included above are pasted directly from this source, I’m not making any of it up. For some light relief you may also like to check out the “Reclaim the streets” website, which I found invaluable in a recent exchange of insults with the anti car lobby.

The Greens like to present themselves as friendly people on bicycles, happy, scrubbed folk who are all fresh air and fluffy bunnies. Not so, they are a political party and a distinctly left wing authoritarian one at that. I also think it is time that our industry and BALPA started to fight back against these fringe fundamentalists who want to put us all out of work.


When is the case for aviation going to be voiced? If we do nothing, then we will only have ourselves to blame when we are legislated onto the dole queue.
The Greens as a party may be a minority with little or no chance of forming a Government but they are an effective pressure group who are winning a lot of support within governments and amongst the people who do make the law. If they continue to increase their influence and share of the vote, they may even get their hands on the levers of power, it happened in Germany (the red/green alliance) and that country is still reeling from the subsequent damage inflicted on their economy.
They could even gain power in the next 50 to 100 years, no doubt campaigning to ban space travel ( the fastest growing source of CO2 in the solar system), stopping expansion of moonbase 1, increasing taxation on personal fusion units and working themselves up into a frenzy over deuterium mining on the outer moons of Jupiter.( No blood for Hydrogen isotopes). I almost wish I could be there.

Lets wake up and start to fight our corner.

Ontariotech
11th Apr 2005, 12:16
Small Grren thing with a lump on the end......:ok:

The SSK
11th Apr 2005, 12:53
At tomorrow's EU ECOFIN Council, European Finance Ministers will discuss a proposal to charge a ticket tax of €10 for European flights and €30 for longhaul flights, plus a kerosene tax on EU flights of €330/1000 litres which would add about €30 to a 350km roundtrip and maybe €200 to a holiday flight like Scandinavia-Canaries.

Their own impact assessment for these measures is for European air traffic to decrease by up to 25% and longhaul into/out of Europe by up to 15%. (for 'air traffic' you can substitute 'aviation-sector jobs').

But fear not, the Greens have the solution (http://www.myclimate.org/EN/wis_eurometro.php) :

In the future, a subterranean magnetic train could provide a quick and comfortable connection between major European cities. Passengers could travel on the two transects Rome-Frankfurt-London and Madrid-Zurich-Vienna with speeds between 300 and 500 km/h. This "Eurometro" could provide a mid-term alternative to the noisy and energy-intensive short-haul flights.

eal401
11th Apr 2005, 13:52
One has to wonder how these "Green" people actually manage to get around to campaign. Do they walk everywhere?

Maxflyer
11th Apr 2005, 13:56
Northern Boy - Thank you for your interesting post. I thought I'd log onto their web site Green Party (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/) to see what they had to say, thought I'd give them a fair hearing. Unfortunately I couldn't get beyond the first page for laughing!

Please go look people - Mad Max would sh!t himself when faced with these road warriors. What's more frightening is that they are serious.

I don't think they'll ever get far in the UK, but northern boy is correct about the damage they've done in other countries. Perhaps the first past the post approach is the correct one for us?
MF

Cameronian
11th Apr 2005, 14:18
Very rationally and eloquently put, Northern Boy.

Your quote:-

"The Greens as a party may be a minority with little or no chance of forming a Government but they are an effective pressure group who are winning a lot of support within governments and amongst the people who do make the law. If they continue to increase their influence and share of the vote, they may even get their hands on the levers of power, it happened in Germany (the red/green alliance) and that country is still reeling from the subsequent damage inflicted on their economy."

Let's avoid Proportional Representation which clearly results in Disproportional Misrepresentation. Tony Bliar and his mob have already changed so much of the British constitutional establishment as if it were nothing and seek to set in place the means to change so much more - the world at large has long applauded our democratic and judicial sysems so perhaps we should, ourselves, take a longer view before accepting such nonsenses as a supreme court with the abolition of the most important function of the Law Lords.

Bo**ocks to them all on May 5th.

Send Clowns
11th Apr 2005, 14:40
So, the terrorist attack is the fault of the aviation industry, and that should be penalised, instead of being the fault of the supporters of terrorists, who therefore should not? These guys are in a little world of their own. There is an implied complaint that governments have a monopoly on violence. Does that means that these fools think everyone should be able to use violence for their own aims?

You can, by the way, point out that they are simply lying through their teeth about much of what they say. Per passenger mile most jet aircraft with average load factors are considerably more efficient than cars with their average number of occupants (little more than 1, as most long journeys are solo).

One presumes that they support other mass, long-distance transport systems like trains. On many routes these are actually less efficient than air travel, due to the low load factors they work on; this should be obvious to anyone who looks at the subsidies that these forms of transport receive. Aviation receives none, yet it is often cheaper to fly. That would just not be possible if they had to use more fuel, on top of the much stricter maintenance, higher staffing and higher initial cost of equipment.

Big Tudor
11th Apr 2005, 14:44
There are times when I really think that compulsary euthanasia wouldn't be such a bad thing!

Ok, the Greens reckon Mr Kennedys aircraft (ATR42) will chuck out 25 tonnes of CO2 per week over the 2,000 miles he is planned to travel. So, put him in a car then, something like a 7 seater Ford Galaxy TDi. A car that, even at optimum fuel efficiency, would chuck out about 3 tonnes of CO2 emmisions over the same distance. Now, the ATR holds about 48 people (plus the crew) so that equates to 0.49 tonnes per person (assuming total on board of 51). To transport that many people around the country would take 8 Galaxies which would equal 24 tonnes of CO2 emissions per week. Now, given that the cars would be travelling stuck in traffic on Britains magnificant motorway network, I would say it is fair to assume that te level of emissions is likely to go up, making the ATR the clear winner.

Of course, if Charlie boy was travelling on his own in his ATR then it would be a bit of a gas guzzling journey. I would assume though that he will have a sizeable entourage with him.

as would night flights over populated areas." What, a blanket ban on night flights over populated areas then. Of course, aircraft are so [email protected]@dy noise when they are passing 35,000ft over your head! I live near the 3 main forms of transport in this country, Airport, Railway & Motorway. Which one makes the most noise, the railway, which one is the most constant noise, the motorway. Which one bothers me the least. THE AIRPORT. Should the Green Party feel the need to push some of their manifesto bullsh1t through my door it will be recycled the next time I need to move my bowels. :mad: :mad:

Send Clowns
11th Apr 2005, 14:59
Just remembered an argument my father had at a council meeting with a green. He turned the table by commenting that many modern conveniences such as tumble driers and dishwashers were completely unnecessary and used energy or water inefficiently. She admitted she had both. Of course my parents have still never had either, and my father who had expected such hypocrisy said so, in mock shock that she had. Her excuse that she has a small child and so much work to do was met by the point that my mother had looked after 3 children under the age of 3, without disposable nappies and with no tumble drier.

Put her back in her box, and exposed the nature of many of the supporters of these unrealistic idealists.

The SSK
11th Apr 2005, 15:12
One has to wonder how these "Green" people actually manage to get around to campaign. Do they walk everywhere? There was a group of European environmentalists went to the Kyoto Conference by train, took 'em about three weeks each way.

airship
11th Apr 2005, 15:21
You're all on the wrong frequency. It's the thought that counts... :}

allan907
11th Apr 2005, 15:29
DO NOT GO DOWN THE ROAD OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. In Australia, both Federally and in the States, it has given the Green Party far too much clout for a party that actually represents very few peoples first choice. The result - they have been hanging us out to dry. Fortunately in the latest round of Federal and State elections they seem to have come a cropper! Oh happy day!!

The only true wilderness is between a Greenie's ears

bear11
11th Apr 2005, 17:46
Come on guys, whatever happened to democracy? Although I think their politics suck, the Greens should be represented in any parliament because they exist - and if enough people support their batty views.

Which brings me to PR - I wouldn't have it any other way, we have it here in Ireland and I genuinely think that countries who don't have it aren't fully democratic, they have a more limited number of parties in a parliament who have their heads up their arses in a different (if slightly more mainstream) fashion.

Dead_Heading
11th Apr 2005, 17:58
Proportional representation was, so i was told in me 'istory lectures, the reason the nazis were able to gain seats and thus support. It's a way for single-issue parties or ill-thought out, all word partys like the greens to get in. That said, I don't like any of 'em

eoincarey
11th Apr 2005, 19:00
Let them keep their potty policies.
But if they really think that the British public is going to choose a week long boat journey instead of a 7 hour flight next time they want to see the US, they need to think again!

How many hippies does it take to change a light bulb?
"Wow, is it, like, dark man??"

lexxity
11th Apr 2005, 19:43
But if they really think that the British public is going to choose a week long boat journey instead of a 7 hour flight next time they want to see the US

oh I don't know, 6days of booze and food sounds good to me:}


sorry....consider me out the door

goates
11th Apr 2005, 19:46
If you say with a parlimentary system though you get a benevolent dictatorship like we have over here. Anyone that's been paying attention to Canadian politics (you must be bored if you don't live here ;) ) can see how bad it can get. We basically have the mob running our government, without any really better option to replace them.

As for Green Parties, I hope they don't get more than a few seats anywhere. The Canadian one wants to restart Via Rail service to all major cities across the country. Now what would you choose. A 3-5 hour flight from Vancouver/Calgary to Toronto or a multi-day trip by train? The train would be a nice vacation in itself, but not if you actually want to spend time at your destination. There is a reason it needs government help to survive. They don't mention anything about air travel, or at least I haven't found it yet.

goates

Grandpa
11th Apr 2005, 21:22
.............please, don't break the thermometer!

Proportionnal electoral system is not the problem, Hitler had his way to power because of an alliance between Right and Nazis against Communists and Socialists.

Onan the Clumsy
11th Apr 2005, 23:17
Here’s a sample of their views from their website; I'm sorry I don't have a spare hour to read the cut and paste. Can you summarise it for me?



You can, by the way, point out that they are simply lying through their teeth about much of what they say. as oposed to all the other parties?

Howard Hughes
11th Apr 2005, 23:37
One has to wonder how these "Green" people actually manage to get around to campaign. Do they walk everywhere?

Wel if it's anything like Oz they get around in clapped out old combi-vans, spewing forth any amount of toxic gases!!

DO NOT GO DOWN THE ROAD OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. In Australia, both Federally and in the States, it has given the Green Party far too much clout for a party that actually represents very few peoples first choice. The result - they have been hanging us out to dry. Fortunately in the latest round of Federal and State elections they seem to have come a cropper! Oh happy day!!

On a more serious note, I second the motion. For a couple of years in Australia we had 1 Green Senator who basically held the deciding vote on all matters in Australian politics. Unfortunately for us, every bill was amended to include suggestions by this extremist, who actually represented the views of far less than 1% of the population.

My year nine politics teacher used to say " a vote for an independant or a minority party is a wasted vote"
Not in this case it seems.

Don't do it, Don't vote for the greens!!:yuk:

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

Written spoken and authorised by Howard Hughes, who has no affiliation with any political party either in Australia, nor in the EU.

Blacksheep
12th Apr 2005, 01:56
On a more serious note, its about time we challenged the Green people to either prove their global warming theories or shut up. Global warming is real enough, but as long as we go on believing that it can be eliminated simply by cutting out civilization, we'll never deal with the real problem. There's nothing we can do to prevent the eternal cycle of climate variations: What we really need to do is make plans to adjust to the inevitable.

Underground Mag-Lev trains running at 400 KPH? and just where, pray tell me, are we going to get the energy to do that? Windfarms perchance? Ho-ho-ho, don't do that! Ow! my ribs are hurting...

High Wing Drifter
12th Apr 2005, 09:30
The Greens are in the enviable position of knowing that they don't stand a chance, therefore they can spew forth whatever crackpot ideas transit their everso important minds.

The reality is that even if they did gain power, the good old British Civil Service will grind them into submission. Their policies will nothing but cannon fodder. I get the feeling Blair encountered similar problems with his Ethical Foriegn policy and other tid bits that went astray. Never underestimatre the power of the grey suit!

northern boy
12th Apr 2005, 11:47
Well gents, thanks for taking the time to read my rather long posting and keep it comming. The PR bit was particularly interesting, thanks to our Canadian and Aussie colleagues for sharing their experiences.

As many of you have pointed out, these people haven't a cat in hells chance of winning the May elections but to paraphrase someone or other all it takes for bad men to triumph is for good ones to do nothing.

I love the idea of a Maglev train running under the Atlantic. Its not a new idea, I first read it in an SF novel "The Reality Disfunction" by Peter E Hamilton. Quite apart from the cost involved, how would they power it? maybe they can use the Force, during the last census apparantly a large number of people gave their religion as "Jedi". I wonder who they were then?

I have sent a copy of my post to BALPA for hopeful inclusion in the LOG at some point and intend to keep winding up the local druids in the Stockport papers, at least until they put a brick through my front window or turn me into a frog or something.


Thanks again. Nice to know I' not toiling in the wilderness.