http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/air...gn=climate

The attached is a link to the Greenpeace campaign to stop the 3rd runway. It would seem that they have managed to buy a plot of the land designated for same and are inviting as many other people as possible to become beneficial owners. Click on the link to discover more and please support this action in any way you can.

I am not keen on a third runway more for noise and disruption reasons rather than the environmental impact.

Given that the land in question in West London is fairly expensive would it not have been more environmentaly friendly to buy a very large tract of the Amazon to stop logging and therefore help with keeping the forests breathing?

Noise and disruption are very good reasons for opposing this - also comes under the definition of environmental impact BTW.

As to the opportunity cost , suggest you raise it with Greenpeace but I have to say I do like their approach.

According to the lawyers on TV the fact that the land is being broken up into thousands of segments will make the proceedure no more difficult.

I am against another runway anywhere. Too much air travel. Air Fuel should be taxed world wide

Depends on whose lawyers you speak to! BAA lawyers would say that, wouldn't they! It will make compulsory purchase more difficult as it will mean liaison with a range of owners instead of just one however I accept that they will just get on and deal with that. However this will undoubtedly mean greater public expenditure in trying to acquire it.

Better than doing nothing, n'est-ce pas?

I have to admit that I was intrigued by this idea - buying land which would be needed. And if there was any chance that the owners would be able to hold out in the face of a compulsory purchase, I'd say it's a good thing.

However, given that it's going to make no difference to the end result, and along the way it's just going to mean more money going to lawyers, at least part of which will be a direct payment from the public purse (and the rest indirect as travellers pay more to use BAA's facilities), I can't help but think that it's counterproductive.

In this case, I think that doing nothing - specifically not using Heathrow - is probably the best approach. I wonder whether the celebrities involved in this campaign are doing their bit - did Emma Thompson use a rowing boat or some other carbon-neutral and silent form of transport to get to the Golden Globes ceremony in LA this past weekend?

Anyone know where our dear MP stands on the matter of greatly increased noise and air pollution (Heathrow and City Airports) over his constituents? I only ask as I would like to know!

Mr Dowd seems to have been quiet recently. I wonder if he is going to stand in the new changed boundaries at the nex election

Understand we are losing Catesford and gaining Ponge. Not much changes then