stop stansted expansion - some armchair activism, should you choose it...
from the stop stansted expansion campaign team, via a friend...
We thought you might like to see the short video posted on YouTube by The Woodland Trust highlighting the threat to five ancient woods around Stansted, including Philipland Wood, which would be devastated by BAA’s second runway if it were to be built.
To view, click on: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CrXnyd_tIEU.
If you haven’t already written to register your objections, please do so now, before the closing deadline of 26 September: email planning@uttlesford.gov.uk or write to UDC (Planning), London Road, Saffron Walden CB11 4ER with ‘second runway’ as your reference. Two lines or 200 - it doesn’t matter. Just make sure you let the local authority know you object while you still can.
See our website for further information on fighting the second runway plans which would make Stansted Airport bigger than Heathrow today: www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/second_runway.html
The Woodland Trust’s website also has more information on the threat - see: http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/
The Campaign Team
Stop Stansted Expansion
01279 870558
info@stopstanstedexpansion.com
www.stopstanstedexpansion.com
“Our Community - Our Responsibility”
said friend included their email letter of objection, with permission to use as much of it as want/need...
Dear sirs,
Please register my objection to the proposal to develop a second runway at Stansted airport.
My grounds for objection areas follows:
The development would cause catastrophic and permanent damage to the environment of the site in terms of
- destruction of established communities
- destruction of ancient woodland
- destruction of prime farmland
- destruction of historic buildings
- increase in noise pollution
- increase in light pollution
- disruption of local transport links
- degradation of air quality
- environmental degradation of the surrounding area, including Hatfield Forest, the town of Great Dunmow and local villages
The construction of the new runway and the vast infrastructure around it required to support it would disrupt the lives of most of the population in the area until about 2030.
The carbon footprint of the second runway has been calculated at an equivalent of 11 million tonnes of CO2 per year. This is very dangerous as not only does it accelerate global warming (it must be remembered that global warming is not a linear trend, it is exponential) but it sends a signal that it is acceptable to contribute to global warming on a large scale, thus multiplying the damage.
The case for the second runway rests on highly questionable assumptions, especially that global oil reserves will not be depleted to the extent that fuel will remain cheap enough to support the growth of air transport for the next hundred years. It is highly likely that this assumption will eventually prove to be false, even before the construction is scheduled for completion. Indeed, the recent spate of airlines going bust or getting into difficulties due to high fuel costs indicates that the growth of air travel may already be at an end.
Development of air travel diverts resources from the development of rail travel, which is significantly more economic and efficient and less polluting over short and medium haul distances.
Thank you for registering my objection.
Yours faithfully,
yes, i've noticed the irony/juxtapositon of 'i'm going to catch a plane' and 'stop airport expansion'...
We thought you might like to see the short video posted on YouTube by The Woodland Trust highlighting the threat to five ancient woods around Stansted, including Philipland Wood, which would be devastated by BAA’s second runway if it were to be built.
To view, click on: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CrXnyd_tIEU.
If you haven’t already written to register your objections, please do so now, before the closing deadline of 26 September: email planning@uttlesford.gov.uk or write to UDC (Planning), London Road, Saffron Walden CB11 4ER with ‘second runway’ as your reference. Two lines or 200 - it doesn’t matter. Just make sure you let the local authority know you object while you still can.
See our website for further information on fighting the second runway plans which would make Stansted Airport bigger than Heathrow today: www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/second_runway.html
The Woodland Trust’s website also has more information on the threat - see: http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/
The Campaign Team
Stop Stansted Expansion
01279 870558
info@stopstanstedexpansion.com
www.stopstanstedexpansion.com
“Our Community - Our Responsibility”
said friend included their email letter of objection, with permission to use as much of it as want/need...
Dear sirs,
Please register my objection to the proposal to develop a second runway at Stansted airport.
My grounds for objection areas follows:
The development would cause catastrophic and permanent damage to the environment of the site in terms of
- destruction of established communities
- destruction of ancient woodland
- destruction of prime farmland
- destruction of historic buildings
- increase in noise pollution
- increase in light pollution
- disruption of local transport links
- degradation of air quality
- environmental degradation of the surrounding area, including Hatfield Forest, the town of Great Dunmow and local villages
The construction of the new runway and the vast infrastructure around it required to support it would disrupt the lives of most of the population in the area until about 2030.
The carbon footprint of the second runway has been calculated at an equivalent of 11 million tonnes of CO2 per year. This is very dangerous as not only does it accelerate global warming (it must be remembered that global warming is not a linear trend, it is exponential) but it sends a signal that it is acceptable to contribute to global warming on a large scale, thus multiplying the damage.
The case for the second runway rests on highly questionable assumptions, especially that global oil reserves will not be depleted to the extent that fuel will remain cheap enough to support the growth of air transport for the next hundred years. It is highly likely that this assumption will eventually prove to be false, even before the construction is scheduled for completion. Indeed, the recent spate of airlines going bust or getting into difficulties due to high fuel costs indicates that the growth of air travel may already be at an end.
Development of air travel diverts resources from the development of rail travel, which is significantly more economic and efficient and less polluting over short and medium haul distances.
Thank you for registering my objection.
Yours faithfully,
yes, i've noticed the irony/juxtapositon of 'i'm going to catch a plane' and 'stop airport expansion'...