Tom Levitt, Geoff Hoon and the logic of capitalism

As you'll see in the above extract from the House of Commons debate on Heathrow this Wednesday, Tom Levitt did his duty and supported Geoff Who?, as he had done previously in the local press. We'll regurgitate Hansard below in case you'd prefer to see the words spoken:

Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most polluting and wasteful practice by Heathrow is stacking, in which aeroplanes have to wait to come into land? That is because the runways are used at 99 per cent. capacity, which causes problems with the reliability of services. Is it not the case that the first impact of a third runway would be to reduce carbon emissions through the reduction and even abolition of stacking?

Hoon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and one that was completely ignored by the hon. Lady. At any given time, there can be as many as four stacks of aircraft waiting to land. The average delay at Heathrow—caused by the capacity problems—is some 19 minutes, and some aircraft are delayed for far longer. Therefore it is necessary to address the question of capacity, in carbon terms as much as for any other reason.

The logic used is the same as used by the proponents of the Longdendale Bypass, which of course includes Levitt. That congestion - be it in the air or on the roads - causes pollution (in this case CO2 emissions) and the best way to treat this is by increasing capacity. The perverse and contradictory logic on display is their worldview turned on its head. They support capitalism, and support the infinite growth it seeks. But in this case, they seek to cloak that logic in the clothes of environmentalism. The truth is that expanding capacity will simply serve to increase demand - more planes in the air (or cars on the road) equals more pollution. 

Tom Levitt - Shite man speak with forked tongue

You may remember an article we published in July last year about how Tom Levitt was attaching himself to the Torrs Hydro Energy scheme in New Mills, hoping that some of it's apparent Green-ness would rub off onto him.

His first column in the Glossop Chronicle for 2009 is entitled 'Tackling Climate Change' - ahem - and with a completely straight face, goes on to say "reducing carbon emissions quite literally saves the planet"* and pays tribute again to the Torrs Hydro project. The irony that the Torrs Hydro project has cut a deal to provide energy for a local supermarket is completely lost on Levitt, as it probably will be on most people. 

But nonetheless, just re-read Levitt's words in the light of last week's announcement from Geoff Who?/Hoon about Heathrow - on the same day it appears in the local newspaper, Who? craps great blobs of Carbon all over Tom's lovely Greenwashed masterpiece.We wonder what went through Tom's mind? I wonder if he's forgotten that he also supports the Longdendale Bypass and the nigh on 15,500 extra tons of CO2 it will belch into the atmosphere? 

Levitt is perhaps one of the most perfectly formed examples of a walking contradiction we've come across. 

But it gets better. Just as we've been writing this, his column for this week's Chronicle has popped up on his website. And guess what it's about? Heathrow's third runway. 

Tom's keen to tell us he was so eager to support it that he signed a motion for it BEFORE Hoon declared war on the environment last week. We'll let you read this drivel yourself, but Levitt finishes it with a classic Orwellian doublespeak phrase "the greenest action is not always the obvious one" - he presumably thinks that the construction of a third runway at Heathrow and a proto-motorway here is somehow evened up by a Greenwash project that powers a supermarket.

Is that what he means by obvious? 

WILL SOMEONE TELL US EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS?

*We think Tom means 'humanity's future' here - the planet will sort itself out, whatever we throw at it, but we may not be able to dodge what it throws at us.

Cloth-eared 'Who?' declares war, again...

Is anyone actually surprised that Geoff Who? yesterday approved plans for a third runway at Heathrow? Particularly given that the Guardian reports that he regards climate change as "a load of tree-hugging hoolah" (a new slogan for our blog). And can anyone now doubt exactly what's in store for Longdendale, at least as long as this Government is in charge of Transport policy? 

Hoon wants a war: a war on the environment to match his ruthless decision to join in the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan. So let's give him one. We'll need old tactics, and also new ones. Let's have less of the ridiculous tactics of self-imposed imprisonment that were in evidence at Manchester Airport the other night. and may well be used at Heathrow tomorrow now that the details are public. Let's also drop the Liberal cant about non-violence - self-defence is always justifiable & in war there are always casualties. Individual tactics should not be adopted as wholesale strategy, unless we want to lose. Liberal hand-wringing about damage to property must be dismissed - this type of action is needed, and is a justifiable response when one considers the Government is going to demolish 700 homes and remove 10,000 people from Sipson and the surrounding area. Sipson is BAA's Lidice. We won't allow it.

Furthermore, every action in opposition to unnecessary infrastructure development now has a new reason to thrive. The government may have radicalised a whole section of society, allowing them to develop a more cogent and realistic analysis of the problems we face and develop suitable responses which do not echo the redundant reformist measures of old.