Spring 2007 Newsletter
|
The following articles are reproduced from the Spring 2007 newsletter, and so any information on this page is correct only as of March 2007. For the latest up-to-date information, please visit the relevant campaign pages using the Campaigns menu on the left, or contact us. |
The Charge of the Car Brigade
Congestion charging has hit the headlines and might soon hit the roads. Our reporter finds out what it's all about...
At the end of January, to notable public concern, it was revealed that Manchester motorists might face a congestion charge from 2010 onwards. The congestion charging proposals are part of a £1 billion bid to the Government’s Transport Innovation Fund to improve public transport in Greater Manchester.
What is Congestion?
Congestion occurs when the number of vehicles on a road exceeds its capacity, i.e. when too many vehicles attempt to use it at the same time. This overuse, to which all vehicles are contributing, leads to longer travel times and delays and is damaging for the local economy (deliveries and employees arriving late, to name a couple of examples). In Manchester it is predicted that congestion will lead to an underachievement in employment growth by up to 30,000 jobs over the next 10 years.
Does it affect the environment?
Congestion is not good for the environment as journeys take longer creating more exhaust emissions. Over the past decade, the number of occasions when local concentrations of air pollutants exceeded air quality objectives has increased in Manchester.
Congestion also affects our bus services as they are also stuck in traffic when there is no bus lane. Less overcrowded roads would improve this. In London, punctuality and reliability immediately increased when the congestion charge was introduced.
How might congestion charging work?
It is proposed to introduce charges that vary according to route, time of day and distance travelled. This is considered by many to be the fairest congestion charging scheme possible as motorists have several options to influence their travel habits in order to avoid the charge. If possible they can travel at off-peak times, which are less expensive or might even be free of charge. They can also choose to travel shorter distances, e.g. by making use of park & ride schemes, or driving along less congested roads, which are likely to be cheaper according to current proposals. It was also suggested that all revenue made should stay in Greater Manchester and reinvested in transport improvements.
Why are some people against it?
 |
Many have rightly pointed out that public transport and park & ride facilities must improve before congestion charging is introduced in Manchester. However, the reason for Manchester's bid for TIF funding is to secure £1 billion to improve public transport. The Government has made it clear that it will only consider those bids that include smart charging proposals to ease congestion problems, i.e. congestion charging will only be introduced if government funding is won to improve public transport. This is Manchester's |
| bid to improve public transport and ease congestion and the burden it causes on the environment! | |
Another major concern is that the poorest are hit most by a congestion charge. There is no doubt that lower income drivers will pay a higher proportion of their income in charges than higher income motorists. However, car availability is strongly related to income and studies show that low income households drive less and make more use of public transport than high income households. As poorer people rely more on public transport they should benefit if the revenue from charging is spent on public transport improvements.
What Next?
The bid will be submitted in July and work is ongoing. It has neither been decided how the scheme would operate or how much motorists would pay, nor indeed if it will be introduced. Alongside some sort of bus re-regulation, which will hopefully be announced in the not too distant future, this is a real chance for Manchester to sort out its traffic problems, secure economic growth and jobs, but most importantly, to finally get public transport right.
The Village Without Land
Sam recently visited Indonesia to see for herself the impact palm oil production is having on the indigenous people of the Borneo rainforests. In this, the first of two articles about her trip, she describes a visit to the 'village without land'...
“It’s as if we were ghosts on our own land…we are almost dead, left haunting what was once our own land.” That was how Mesran, a man who looked older than his years, with hollowed cheeks, described what had happened to his land since the palm oil producers had moved into his village. The locals know it as “The village without land.”
To get there we drove through the oil palm plantation for many hours. In some areas, oil palm trees that were no longer productive had been injected with poison to make way for the next lot of plantation trees to be planted. Haunting graveyards of trees were being replanted by transmigrant workers, brought in from islands such as Java, to work on the land, often for less than the minimum wage.
The mill where the oil palm is processed could be identified from miles away by the huge plume of black smoke coming out of the top of it. As we got closer I could see the large pools of oily, effluent water waiting to be pumped back into the river, which is the lifeblood of the communities living along it.
Mesran explained to me that fifty years ago, they used to live in a longhouse and manage the forest around there so all their needs were met by the forest. There was much primary rainforest as well as some traditional farming such as rice paddy and some livestock kept free in the forest. Then in the late 1960s the government ordered them to destroy the longhouse because longhouse communities were too strong. That’s when their culture started to be lost.
In 1979 the government told the people about a “reforestation” project that was planned for their land. They were told that it was important for national development and were given no choice in the matter. They didn’t realise that it meant cutting down all the forest they lived in, totally clearing the undergrowth and replanting it all with oil palm. They were promised that they would get to keep two hectares of land per person but that they would have to pay for the oil palm trees to be planted on that land. They also got to keep a little land that they had rubber trees planted on and the land that their village was built on.
Soon after this the company came and started to clear the land. The villagers tried to fight but the military that accompanied the company were too strong. The company started planting oil palm in 1981-2 but only established company plantation. The land promised to the villagers never materialised; they were just left as a small village with a little land with rubber trees as an island in a sea of oil palm trees owned by the company. Even the sacred land they used as a cemetery was converted to oil palm plantation.
The company refused to employ any of the villagers and instead imported labour from outside that was easier to control because they had no land of their own to defend. Many people left the village to get jobs elsewhere or worked away from home for months at a time and sent money back to their families. They couldn’t travel to work each day because the village was stranded in the oil palm plantation and even if they had a car, which is unlikely, it took almost two hours just to get to the main road.
Eventually, in the early 80s, some of the villagers did manage to get hired as daily labourers with the company but were paid less than 50 US cents per day’s work with no guarantee of work from one day to the next! Even now they are still paid less than US$1 per day. Unlike when they lived in the forest, they now had to buy all their goods including rice, vegetables and fuel, which previously they grew for themselves. In real terms they were now much poorer than they had been before the company came.
After a decade of the people demanding that the company give them the plots of land to grow palm oil for themselves that they had been promised, the company finally agreed to plant oil palm for the villagers to harvest BUT they were not given new land at all; they were effectively forced to sell their rubber plantation land – the only land they had left. They were told they would be paid for the land (about enough money to buy one calf per three hectares of land converted) and the oil palm that was planted would be for their use.
What actually happened was that their rubber plantation was cleared, oil palm planted and they were charged for the saplings that were planted. This put them in huge debt to the company as the company never gave them the promised money for the land. They also could not start to earn money from the oil palm for three years because that’s how long it takes for the trees to mature and they no longer had any income from rubber.
Even once the trees did mature, they had to sell the fruits to that company as they couldn’t transport them to see if they could get a better price elsewhere. They therefore had to accept whatever price the company would give them for the fruit and even then, much of the money had to go to pay off the debts to the company for planting the trees.
They are still living like that now. It will take most of them about ten years to pay off the debts for the saplings to the company but palm oil trees only last for about 25 years and the companies often refuse to help them replant new trees at the end of that time. Mesran’s income, now he has two hectares of oil palm, is about US$44 a month, just over a dollar a day and he’s one of the lucky ones.
This village is typical of many villages in Indonesian Borneo. People living away from plantations and towns have no experience of what a company is and generally trust what they are told. They believe that the schools, improved roads and money will bring a better life for them but sadly, this rarely materialises. Once the land has been cleared, the people are totally stranded in the middle of the plantation and have no choice but to accept whatever the company decides because they no longer have access to any other source of income. This is not development for the people.
Church Takes On Climate Change
Sharing as I do, the growing concern about the threat from global warming to our planet, to its wildlife, to mankind, I welcomed Dr Cowhig's initiative in arranging a talk on climate change at Sale United Reformed Church.
A panel of speakers presented a range of views and possible steps we can each take to reduce our carbon footprint. Mike Koefman suggested that our present dependence on fossil fuels could be replaced by a hydrogen economy which, being carbon free, would remove the threat of global warming, while the Reverend David Cooker stressed the obligation especially of people of faith everywhere to safeguard God's creation.
Sharman Frost from Trafford Council spoke next, and it was inspiring to learn of measures undertaken by the council to reduce waste, encourage recycling and to raise awareness among school children of the need for action to save the planet.
Then Ali Abbas, our joint coordinator, explained how Friends of the Earth's Big Ask campaign, with strong support from kindred bodies, had secured a Climate Change Bill in the Queen's Speech and was set to ensure a powerful impact, while Ewa Barker, representing the Manchester Campaign Against Climate Change group urged everyone to watch Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" and to read George Monbiot's book "Heat".
The thoughtful questions from an appreciative audience reflected the interest the speakers had aroused. It was a very worthwhile meeting.
+++ STOP PRESS +++ GOVERNMENT PUBLISHES DRAFT CLIMATE CHANGE BILL +++
On 13th March, the Government published its draft Climate Change Bill. It's a good start, but needs toughening up with a bigger long-term cut, annual targets to make sure we stay on track, and the inclusion of international aviation and shipping. For more details, and to respond to the consultation on the draft Bill, visit http://tinyurl.com/2ksy9s.
Leave Only Footprints
Leave Only Footprints is a new web based ethical company specialising in all that you need for your baby...
The concept came about after owner Leigh and his wife Emma of Macclesfield had spent many, many hours sourcing ethical products in order to do their bit in reducing the negative impact non-ethical business practices can have on the environment.
Viable Alternatives
Leigh says, “Basically we set up Leave Only Footprints because we wanted to show that there is a viable ethical alternative to most purchasing decisions and we believe that the daily decisions we make can and do make a difference.”
The ethos for the company has become its name, ‘Take only memories…. Leave only footprints’. An integral part of the company is encouraging people to look into ethical, organic, and fairtrade options when it comes to their everyday lives.
Setting up the ethical business had it challenges. Suddenly there are many more questions other than “Where can I get the best deal?” Sourcing ethical goods can be tricky and so is convincing the public on the street that you don’t have to compromise to purchase ethical goods. These have been two challenges faced by Leave Only Footprints.
Leigh recognises “that there is still some stigma attached to the phrases ‘Organic’ ‘Ethical’ ‘Environmentally friendly’ ... I think there is still a belief that items carrying these tags are somehow inferior or for people that lead an ‘alternative lifestyle’ when really nothing could be further from the truth.”
Close to Home
Leave Only Footprints tries to source products from as close to home as possible but in order to offer as much choice as possible they have had to look further afield for some of their items. These products include clothing that is made in India for a UK company and in Turkey for a German company. They also sell some toys from Thailand made from exhausted rubber wood.
Real Nappies
Real Nappies Week was 11-18th March this year. Real nappies have come a long way from the days of origami and safety pins and form an important part of Leave Only Footprints' business. The company currently only stock one type which are made from bamboo and fasten with Velcro.
A recent Environment Agency report concluded that when taking into production costs reusable nappies are no more environmentally friendly than disposables. Leigh finds this hard to believe. “A reusable nappy is made just the once and used throughout a child’s nappy wearing time. This in itself, based on one child’s usage, avoids approximately 5,500 nappies being produced and then going to landfill and the associated problems this can cause.”
One of the biggest selling points of reusable nappies is that they have a very long life and can be used hundreds of times – and then passed on to the next child. But if reusable nappies still seem a bit too much to deal with there are also eco-friendly disposable options.
Beyond Babies
There is hope that Leave Only Footprints will expand into a more ranges beyond baby supplies, but the focus will always firstly be on the source of the product and making sure that it is ethical. “We believe that a business that benefits all involved, from the producers to the manufacturers, the retailer, the customer, and ultimately our environment can only be a positive thing.”
When asked what other ethical companies inspire him, Leigh says “I adore Howies. The organic t-shirts and trousers I’ve had from them have lasted better than any I’ve previously owned. I can’t sing their praises enough; they are really showing the way when it comes to ethical business.” He also mentions Cut4Cloth who supply Leave Only Footprints with some of their clothes.
Leave Only Footprints is a web-based company and all details can be found at www.lofootprints.co.uk.
£3 Billion Plans for Waste
Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) has confirmed that it has selected the consortium between Viridor Waste Management and John Laing Infrastructure as preferred bidder for the £3 billion PFI contract to deliver long-term waste management solutions in Greater Manchester.
Currently in Greater Manchester we are producing 1.4m tonnes of waste each year, which is then collected from over 950,000 households. Only a quarter of this waste is recycled. Members of the waste campaign were particularly concerned about the need to recycle much more and ensuring residual waste is disposed of in an appropriate manner.
Viridor/Laing state that they aim to radically reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill (since there is little space left to fill) and provide alternative services including waste reduction, recycling, composting, treatment, recovery and disposal.
GMWDA chair Neil Swannick said: “We are investing heavily in new equipment to ensure that Greater Manchester is ‘world class’ in its handling of municipal waste.”
This £330m of new equipment includes two materials recycling facilities (MRFs) that will handle dry recyclables such as plastics, glass and cans. These use sorting technology including screens and optical sorting so that recyclable waste can be collected together. Also, up to four in-vessel composting plants will process the area’s kitchen and garden waste, producing about 125,000 tonnes of compost each year.
These proposals are positive, but still leave residual waste. Residual waste that cannot be recycled or composted will go to five mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plants that will use anaerobic digestion (AD) technology.
The MBT process mechanically separates out any metals for recycling, paper, plastic and card as refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and an organic fraction. The organic fraction is then fermented in the AD process to produce methane, which is converted to electricity. Enough energy should be produced to power the plants with residual electricity exported to the National Grid.
These MBT plants have been in operation in several countries, including Italy, Germany and Belgium, and seem to be working well. This process seems to be one of the more positive options for waste disposal and hopefully will see a vast improvement in Greater Manchester’s waste disposal. We will be keeping an eye on further developments!
Getting Wasted in Chorlton
On a winter’s Thursday night in January when most people were probably warming their toes by a heater, the intrepid members of the waste subgroup and interested others, congregated on Chorlton's Beech Road to test the green credentials of local bars and pubs.
While many might view this as a thinly veiled excuse for a pub crawl, the group’s main objective was to survey these local Chorlton businesses on their current recycling habits and gather their attitudes towards greater participation in recycling in the future.
Businesses, while producers of huge amounts of waste, often have a very low recycling rate because there is little incentive and/or direction from local authorities regarding more sustainable practices.
Our dedicated ‘research’ showed that there was a wide variety of recycling activities currently going on down Beech Road. Most establishments indicated that, in principle, they would be keen to recycle more if the process were economically viable and simple.
Back at the more sober environs of the Mount Street FOE office, the group collated the data and felt that a meeting, planned for April, with interested parties would be an effective forum at which to provide these local businesses with ideas for a viable recycling.
It is hoped that a successful business recycling model based on our Chorlton experiences can be introduced across the city… But that is after another pub crawl or two… We will keep you posted!
Rain Doesn't Dampen Cycle of Passion
One year on, and the Love Your Bike website is still generating powerful information. It ain't just the rain that stops people cycling...
The Love Your Bike website was launched by Manchester Friends of the Earth in Spring 2006 with an innovative interactive facility for drawing the routes that real cyclists use on their daily journey to work, as well as pinpointing places which are particularly good or bad for cyclists.
To date we have received 130 routes from cyclists in Manchester, spanning the region from Wigan and Ramsbottom to Saddleworth, New Mills and Knutsford. But a massive 51% of them start or finish in the city centre and university areas, which also contains 2 of the the 3 most frequently mentioned blackspots. Topics that came up again and again as being seriously problematic for cyclists were:
• Rusholme's Curry Mile and University;
• Oxford Road from the BBC to St Peter's Square;
• the notorious "Stretford giratory" on Chester Road
and other stretches of this road through Trafford.
A non-cyclist from Didsbury said "The Fallowfield Loop is great but of limited use for commuters. What Manchester needs is a similar dedicated cycle track that goes in and out of Central Manchester."
And Tim from Manchester said: "The cycle lanes around the bus stops are a recipe for disaster due to bikes and buses having to cross paths every few metres or so. Also, this is one of the most dangerous parts of Manchester to cycle, due to the slow congested traffic meaning that: pedestrians nip between cars into cycle lanes; buses let passengers off into cycle lanes; cars let each other out of turnings, or into turnings with no regard for quicker moving cyclists; cars pull in and out of parking spaces, or park in the cycle lane, with no regard for cyclists ... I'd like to see the curry mile free of cars - buses, bikes and people only."
With so many cyclists wanting to commute on the Oxford Road corridor, Manchester City Council has a clear opportunity to make a strong statement about its commitment to become England's greenest city by introducing a radical scheme to eliminate or significantly reduce traffic on Manchester's most popular cycle route [1].
We also conducted a survey of non-cyclists about why they don't cycle to work. From the results analysed so far, 6 out of 10 respondents don't cycle to work because of the lack of safe routes for cycling, and half reckon that there's too much traffic on the roads, again leaving the ball squarely in the court of Greater Manchester's councils to make the necessary improvements. Employers can also do more to encourage cycling, as one in three complain about the lack of facilities for freshening up in the workplace, and 13% say there's no secure place to park their bike at work. If you thought that Manchester's weather had a lot to do with discouraging cycling, it's interesting to see that only 1 in 10 cited bad weather as the reason why they don't cycle.
References:
[1] Review of Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road Cycle Route, Rob Marshall,
Transport Initiatives LLP, March 2006
Love Your Bike Anniversary
On Friday 30th March, cyclists from all around Manchester will join us on the roads at the launch of our report 'Stepping Up a Gear'...
We plan to have rides from many areas of Manchester, all culminating on the morning of the 30th outside the Town Hall, Albert Square. The more the merrier, so if you want to join in, please contact Graeme on 07905 790426 or by email at graeme@manchesterfoe.org.uk.
The report will summarise what we've achieved over the last year, and report the findings of the research carried out through www.loveyourbike.org. In particular, we'll be able to say where people are cycling and where there are blackspots and examples of good practice. People who don't cycle, but would like to, have been telling us their reasons and these make powerful evidence to back up our argument that there is an untapped market for cycling and the Council should therefore step up a gear and make the roads of Manchester far more cycle-friendly. Please join us in making this powerful statement a reality.
Green Holidays
One of the most effective things we can do to reduce our carbon emissions is travel less by air. Jonathan provides just a few examples of the many possibilities...
With a typical short-haul flight producing over 1000 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent [note 1], and a return long-haul flight producing as much as a typical car does in a year, there is great potential for reducing our carbon footprint by having fewer holidays, choosing a holiday closer to home or by not flying.
Weardale (48kg CO2):
Train to Bishop Auckland, get to the campsite at Westgate using the hourly bus which will also get you around during your stay. Lovely walking in the Dales and other attractions.
Edinburgh (77kg CO2):
By train through beautiful countryside, from £5 return with MegaTrain. Go for the festival/fringe or just to enjoy the city. Everything is reachable on foot from Waverley station.
Isle of Man (134kg CO2):
Train to Liverpool, ferry to Douglas. Take your bicycle or a tent or both. Lovely coastal and hill walks, secluded glens and beaches. Excellent network of buses and heritage rail.
Ireland (222kg CO2):
Train to Liverpool or Holyhead, ferry to Dublin or Belfast. Take your bike and tour around using B&Bs. Try cycling the Antrim coast.
Spain (estimated 500kg CO2):
Eurostar London-Paris, spend the day in Paris, take the sleeper train to Barcelona or Madrid. Alternatively by ferry from Plymouth to Santander in 20 hours. Look out for one of the many eco-holidays.
 |
In January, Prince Charles cancelled a ski trip to Switzerland, out of concern for his carbon footprint. In February, it was reported that ski resorts could be a thing the past within 25 years due to warmer climes. (Source: BBC; Guardian) |
Notes:
1. From http://chooseclimate.org/flying/
2. From Mark Lynas's book Carbon Counter (bus 0.09 kg/km;
train 0.11 kg/km; ferry 0.47 kg/km)
Climate Injustice
Mike considers the human cost of climate change and fossil fuel dependence and asks 'What shall we tell our children?'...
The stress which we are all imposing on the Earth's climate has not yet been sharply felt in temperate old Britain. We have been lucky (so far) in the levelling effect which the Atlantic Ocean has on our well-watered and adequately warm little island. Not so lucky, however, are many other citizens of the world, and even less lucky will be their descendants (and ours).
It is both in the primal cause of present day warming, and in the resulting harm, that poorer people in very different parts of the world are so severely afflicted. Without insurance, and often without robust parliamentary representation, those people responsible for the least harm to the climate will suffer most from the associated damage.
The primal cause? The mining of the earth for coal, oil and gas. Such physically direct activity has already entailed the death of millions over the centuries. For example, until very recently, the mortality rate in China's under-regulated coal mines was at least six thousand per year. Every coal-rich territory - Wales, Virginia, the Ruhr and much further afield - has a history of human suffering, in which the miners, their families and their communities bore the pain, whilst the land owners, investors, exploiters and users benefitted from the concentrated energy of the hard-won black rock.
With the discovery of oil in the nineteenth century, and natural gas in the twentieth, further pain has been inflicted on communities which have little need of the liquid carbon and high-pressure methane gushing from their ancestral terrain, but which have to suffer the consequences of such industrial intrusion. Every continent has its tale of carbon atrocity to tell. In Africa, the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta suffer vast petroleum contamination of their wetlands. In South America the forest dwellers of Peru suffer the deeply wounding insult of pipelines, tree clearing and the debilitating pressures and coercive culture of imported contracted labour. In Russia beyond the Arctic Circle the superbly adapted Nenets people feel the wounds to environment and culture inflicted by the mighty Gazprom. All this, and much much more, for the benefit of us, the First World consumers.
The worldwide harm, of course, is now well known to all environmentally aware citizens. Temperatures, rainfall patterns, ocean acidity will all change – are already changing – and will have severe impacts on our cities, our water supplies, our agriculture, our political arrangements, and so on. The next report of the IPCC, due in May 2007, will outline the suite of impacts which we can all expect: on poor and rich, near and far, carbon user and carbon producer.
However, there is an even deeper level of injustice embodied in our fossil carbon culture: the threat to our descendants. The ultimate climate injustice is to hand down to our children, and to their own descendants, a planet whose atmosphere, seas and terrestrial biology are so damaged that only a privileged few can hope to survive, albeit in a precarious kind of comfort and security. Most (according to James Lovelock, who does not seem to be totally horrified by this human destination) will die. We, the rich of the West, and the up-and-coming of the East, often forget the effort put into the general amelioration of life's difficulties by our ancestors – water supplies, sewage systems, health services. Shouldn't this example of the far-sighted work of previous generations lead us equally to provide for the comfort, security and indeed the survival of the generatons which will inherit our planet? We certainly cannot achieve such a desirable outcome whilst living and working within a culture based on fossil carbon. Hence the attention given to hydrogen by the Campaign for a Hydrogen Economy, of which the writer is the secretary. Carbon, which in spite of all the harm it has inflicted has contributed to our modern "success", must surely be renounced as our fuel of choice, and the effort and money which presently goes into its exploitation should be steered into the field of hydrogen, derived from water by the power of the sun.
Become a Climate Champion
www.foe.co.uk/campaignchampions
FoE is looking for volunteers with time and enthusiam who can respond quickly and effectively to help make the climate change Bill strong enough to really make a difference.
As Campaign Champion we will ask for your help at crucial moment over the next twelve months. For example, we might ask you to send a personalised letter to your MP, write a letter to your local newspaper, or send a short response to a Government consultation. Guidance, information and advice will be provided.
Time to Save the Planet
Stop The Bypass
Take some time to write a letter in protest at the planned Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass. More information at www.saveswallowswood.org.uk
Love Your Bike
If you haven't already, take the opportunity of Spring to get to know your bike with a bit of help from www.loveyourbike.org
Say No To Palm Oil
Write to the Indonesian embassy to urge that they respect the land rights of indigenous peoples and don’t convert national parks for oil palm plantation. www.manchesterfoe.org.uk/corporates/action.htm
Exclamation!
Manchester FOE in the media...
“Tesco is growing unchecked by the competition authorities and aided by a planning system not robust enough to stop it building new stores and extensions even where there is strong local opposition. We are determined not to let history repeat itself and will continue working with Trafford residents to make sure the council is not allowed to forget that the people in the community do not want it.”
Paul D'Ambra, 'Battle as retail giant raises stress levels' (The North West Enquirer, 22 June 2006)
"They dump 10million tonnes into landfill site, we dump 25 million and their population's 25 per cent greater than ours... We're quite often referred to as the dustbin of Europe."
Paul Waring comparing recycling in the UK and Germany (BBC Radio Manchester, 8 January 2007)
"It's not the job of the government to favour any one industry above others, but to see the big picture and make responsible policies that do what is best for the UK... I'm sure we'd all like to fly cheaply as often as we like, but as responsible citizens we have to accept that it is now necessary for the taxation and planning systems to be curbing the growth of airports, including Manchester."
Graeme Sherriff on airport expansion (Manchester Evening News Postbag, 26 January 2007)