No 3rd runway at Heathrow

In a witness statement, the then transport secretary, Chris Grayling, said the 2015 Paris agreement was “not relevant” to climate policy

Jesus fucking christ

wonder if he'll resurrect Boris Island. 

Or expand LGW.  

Surely any airport expansion is scuppered on this basis?

I find reading about this insanely boring, so could someone who pays attention explain why they don't just build the new runway at Gatwick? It superficially seems like a much more logical choice.

Grayling is, as always, very helpful in his astute observations and candor. 

Reminds me of the line in The News Quiz, before it went not funny, about the Conservative leadership candidates.

Chris Grayling also threw his hat into the ring but it bounced out, rolled away and destroyed half of Coventry. 

Gatwick was always the obvious choice. Good existing transport links and plenty of space to build another runway.

Of course the solution is to withdraw immediately from this Paris agreement.

Brave buccaneering sovereign Britain should not be dictated to by foreigners!

Of course, Chris Grayling wrote all that by himself with no input whatsoever form a qualified lawyer 

Surely any airport expansion is scuppered on this basis?

Have only read the article which suggests the decision was made on the basis that "ministers had failed to assess how a third runway could be consistent the Paris target of keeping global temperature rise well below 2C, and close to 1.5C if possible".

If that is the case, it doesn't stop any airport expansion outright, including a third runway at Heathrow. It just means the government are going to need to come up with some viable argument about how an additional runway will not contribute to any increase in temperatures. 

Of course, Chris Grayling wrote all that by himself with no input whatsoever form a qualified lawyer 

 

Not sure what you R trying to say m21.

 

That lawyers should not assist in the writing of witness statements?

Or that the people who sign them should not be held accountable for what they contain?

Or simply that Chris Grayling is incredibly stupid and probably needed help with even signing his own name?

 

If the latter then I agree entirely.

how many times do we have to make any fucking decision about infrastructure in this country?

The govt should just immediately say:

"OK we've thought about it and we think it will not impact the Paris commitments. Please proceed"

This is pure impudent little man in horsehair stuf

Manston Airport is ideal for development, with a bit of improvement to road links.

I think we should have a new runway at heathrow and Gatwick

 

likely , we're ahead of the game on whatever was agreed at paris. I was reading about Germany's fossil fule consumption the other day. off the chart

when the fvcking hell are people going to accept that AIR TRAFFIC GROWTH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE SO WE SHOULD NOT BE XPANDING AIRPORTS.

at least until electric planes are realistic and a way to generate sufficient electricity sustainably has been found.

we're driving ourselves into a brick wall and hardly anyone really takes it seriously..

I agree with decision as a matter of policy, but fear this is an example of over-reach by the court - balancing environmental concerns against business/transport needs should surely be a matter of policy and not for the judiciary.

I thing he agrees with me (from your link):

Matt Hancock said the solution was greener planes, such as those powered by electricity – although he admitted he did not know when they could be introduced.

From BBC news:

"Environmentalists see today as the day the reality of climate change finally dawned."

I doubt it - doing so requires a long term view and some short term economic pain and humans never willingly choose that route even when a car crash lies ahead so.....

tricky one guy - obviously I don't really know what i'm talking about - but isn't the 3rd runway so much in conflict with paris accord (policy) that it's wednesbury unreasonable? (oooo! cpe constitutional!)

Matt Hancock disagrees with you, Bullace, and he's the Transport Secretary so I think it's safe to assume he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Heh. 

He declined to appear on Today this morning (or poss yesterday) - true to form with all cabinet minsters these days.  Appalling. 

Fosco what I am saying is that if there is anything in that statement that is laughable on the grounds of cogency or probativity, that is on the professionals who drafted the evidence, not the person signing the statement.

Excellent point, diceman. All the cabinet have such impeccable credentials that I find it hard to remember who does what. They are all such polymaths that each of them would be equally effective in any of the roles, I'm sure.

Meanwhile China will build 216 new airports by 2035,  They currently have 234 (civil) and that will hit 450 as planned.

 

 

On this basis, hard to see how any significant transport infrastructure will be built in Britain again.  Yet another case of MPs completely failing to understand the consequences of what they voted for.

On this basis, hard to see how any significant transport infrastructure will be built in Britain again.  Yet another case of MPs completely failing to understand the consequences of what they voted for.

As with most judicial review decisions, the judgement is not that a third runway is not consistent with the Paris accord etc., just that not taking it into account as a factor in the decision was wrong.  The usual response is simply to review the decision again taking account of the relevant 'thing' and (quelle surprise) cone to the same decision anyway.

I was loose in my language

it's all smoke and mirrors but if - taking into account the relevant "thing" - the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have come to that decision (in the opinion of the court) then the decision would be overturned (as here) .

not having read anything about it of course - this is rof

 

The difference here is that Boris doesn't want the 3rd runway so isn't going to support the re-write of the planning justification to deal with the CoA decision.

China, India and the rest absolutely p1ss their pants at the UK, seriously.  Not building this runway doesn't mean the planes which would have flown there won't fly.  They'll just fly to CDG instead.  And we'll have to fly to CDG to catch the fucking things.  Utter madness.

Boris does want it.  But he cannot be seen to be too in favour of it.

 

Well if he wants it he was taking a novel approach by saying he would lie under the bulldozers which came to build it, and when asked in December 2019 whether that still stood being unequivocal that it did.

Wot jelly m said.

He was actually lying to the good people of uxbridge in order to get elected.

Shocking to hear about our beloved PM i know.

He made up a fucking excuse and flew to Affuckingghanistan at the last minute for an unscheduled 18 visit to avoid voting on the subject when he was foreign sec.

Nonsense. He will lie in front of them and let them run him over. Following this, his body will be transferred to the ditch that he promised he would be found in.