LEEDS LEADS CLIMATE BREAKDOWN

8 hours and 1000 flawed arguments and biased procedures later, Leeds City Plans Panel voted 9-5 for airport expansion and the false promises of economic growth.
For “what Leeds needs is a premier-league football club and a premier-league airport”
🧵
1/ There was a lot of "I do care about climate change, BUT" – followed by a lot of blah blah. Blah blah economic growth. Blah blah connectivity. Blah blah competitiveness. Blah blah Manchester. Blah blah Westminster. Blah blah offsetting. Blah blah electric planes. Blah blah blah
2/ Also a lot of "I do have sympathy for residents suffering from planes flying over their roofs at night, BUT” - followed by more blah blah.
One councillor kindly offered his advice: “the way to less noise is more planes”. Right, Sherlock. Want to try that in your backyard?🤦‍♂️
3/ The true sympathies were revealed at the end. The Panel's priority was not the well-being of those living under the flight path, nor the lives and livelihoods of threatened by climate breakdown. Their priority was a bigger, noisier airport, with a terminal in bronze-champagne.
4/ First declaring your sympathy for people’s suffering and then supporting a development that directly aggravates their suffering, is a proper kick in the face for those suffering the consequences. Like first declaring a climate emergency and then aggravating climate breakdown.
5/ When you see queues at food banks and homeless people at every corner. When you walk through neighbourhoods with >50% child poverty. When you cycle amidst 1000 cars on that “cycle path” at the confluence of two 4-lane highways. Dont you think "what Leeds needs is more planes"?
6/ Never mind that 2/3 of all comments refuted the application. Never mind that locals, community groups, NGOs, students, climate scientists, economists, public health experts and legal experts voiced their objections. No, it's the Panel members that knows what’s best for people.
7/ Most councillors did not listen to the people of Leeds, but to the voices of business. Like the chamber of commerce. Like Northern Powerhouse. Like AMP Capital. AMP Capital? Yes, that Australian investment management company that really, really cares about the people of Leeds.
8/ This Australian company just so happens to own this airport. And they only want to make it bigger, noisier and more polluting because they genuinely deeply care about the people of Leeds, their livelihoods and well-being. Please don't think this is anything to do with profits.
9/ Ok... There’s a lot to be done here. The dirty play must be stopped, and the dirty players must be held to account. But of course, it’s dirty play in a dirty game. So it’s also about challenging and changing the rules of the game.
10/ It’s about challenging subjugations to “the economy”, false promises of economic growth, myths of the technological saviour. It’s about policy, starting with a national moratorium on airport expansion, and equitable reductions in flying. It’s about building real alternatives.
11/ It’s about removing the dependence on “batshit jobs”, and providing decent, green, socially useful jobs for everyone. It’s about a serious and socially just approach to tackle the climate and ecological emergency. And so much more.
12/ While some names certainly entered the book of shame and the history books of climate breakdown on Thursday, and while some will have to answer difficult questions, I want to applaud those who tried to stop this madness, those who struggled for climate and social justice.
13/ It was inspiring and encouraging to present my objection amidst 23 brilliant, committed, caring locals, students, campaigners, legal experts, scientists and economists. Their speeches were passionate and well-informed. Those were heartwarming moments on a disheartening day.
14/ I applaud the 5 Cllrs who refused the expansion: @CllrWalshaw for holding the beacon of the climate emergency; @al_garthwaite & Cllr David Blackburn for powerful interventions; @petercarlill for a stellar summary statement; and @OYLibDems for coming down on the right side.
END/ Finally, a huge shout out to @GfAoLBA & all the others who have done incredible work in mobilising people, empowering communities & bringing different groups together around this struggle. You know who you are. It's not over yet.

Pls share & support tinyurl.com/4nnorazw

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with JefimVogel

JefimVogel Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JefimVogel

7 Feb
Despite COVID, emissions are still way too high.
To limit global warming to 1.5 C, we need to *rapidly*
(i) decarbonise energy use AND
(ii) reduce energy use AND
(iii) decarbonise land use AND
(iv) reduce land use
Yes, ALL of these things SIMULTANEOUSLY.
How are we doing?
THREAD
1/ To limit warming to 1.5 C, global energy use must be completely decarbonised.

But the opposite is happening! Emissions per unit of energy use (‘carbon intensity of energy’) have been INCREASING since 2000 (largely due to increases in the share of coal, primarily in China).
2/ Rapid decarbonisation of energy use requires both a rapid roll-out of renewables AND a rapid phase-out of fossils. Not either-or: both-and.
Read 12 tweets
18 Jan
✈️Can Leeds meet its climate targets if Leeds City Council allows expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA)?

No.

Is LBA’s own climate impact assessment accurate?

No.

Here’s the latest evidence. I urge Leeds City Plans Panel to
read this and act on it conscientiously.

THREAD
2/ Leeds City Council has adopted a CO2 target for Leeds based on a CO2 budget in line with 66% chance of staying below 1.5 C (black dotted curve) and committed to work towards net-zero CO2 by 2030, roughly met by @LeedsClimateCom's net-zero 2033 trajectory (grey dotted curve).
3/ Both trajectories exclude LBA emissions (~18% of Leeds emissions). I adjusted them to account for LBA emissions. Dark green dotted curve = budget-based CO2 target for Leeds incl. LBA; light green dotted curve = net-zero 2033 trajectory scaled by current share of LBA emissions.
Read 30 tweets
14 Nov 20
Great to hear @Matthuber78 on @jacobinmag arguing that environment + class must be thought and tackled together!

Fully agreed - and one of the key goals and principles of Degrowth.

But then, why does Matt so blatantly misportray Degrowth?

Let’s put the record straight.

THREAD
@Matthuber78 states that any environmental politics must secure people’s basic needs, strengthen the working class and tackle inequalities. Great, couldn't agree more!

But then why does Matt completely overlook the LONG list of Degrowth policies that do precisely that?

/2
A few examples of such Degrowth policies:

-Decommodify basic needs
-Universal Basic Services
-Universal Basic Income
-Cancel illegitimate debts
-job guarantee
-living wage
-reduce working time
-re-allocate productivity gains into work time reduction and job creation

/3
Read 14 tweets
11 Oct 20
@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED It's in the IPCC SR1.5C report, Fig. 2.5. Of the scenarios meeting 1.5C with no or little overshoot, only one doesn't heavily rely on negative emissions technologies: That one is the "Low Energy Demand" (LED) scenario, which indeed involves large reductions in energy demand. Image
@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED The Low Energy Demand scenario is based on Grubler et al., 2018. nature.com/articles/s4156…
@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED New research from @exergy_paul & co however suggests that the LED energy demand reduction rates are unlikely to be reconcilable with the simultaneously assumed high rates of GDP growth: this would require a step change in energy/GDP decoupling well beyond historical precedents.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!