How You Can Buy Part of Greenpeace's Heathrow Plot

We covered the exciting news earlier that Greenpeace has purchased a $30,000 plot of land in the middle of the area that had been earmarked to become a third runway for England’s Heathrow Airport. Since Greenpeace announced the plan yesterday, publish support has been astounding.


Over 5,000 people have already bought parcels of Greenpeace’s plot. The idea is that the more people who own the land, the harder it will be for the airport’s owners to buy the land later — which hopefully will never happen. The owner of the company has already called Greenpeace’s plan “clever.”

Well, I’m going to assume that most of our readers here on Planetsave wouldn’t mind getting in on the action. Greenpeace has made that quite easy:

First of all, the cost to buy your own piece of land is amazingly cheap: it’s free! So even in this economy, you can own your own piece of land. If you’d like, Greenpeace has invited anyone to visit the site and set up a protest camp. They’ve already started the action by writing “Our Climate, Our Land!” on the ground in big enough letters for people from the air to see.

Anyway, get on over to their site to sign up to be part-owner of the would-be Heathrow land. I hear there’s a great view.

>> Read more about the continued effort to block Heathrow’s third runway:

5 thoughts on “How You Can Buy Part of Greenpeace's Heathrow Plot”

  1. No, I do agree with you on some matters James. It’s true that the difference that one runway makes to overall climate change is different – I imagine for many people it’s simply a case of “every little helps”. And it’s certainly true that planes are getting greener all the time: hopefully in a decade or so this whole argument will no longer be necessary.

    I just feel that it is harsh to condemn these people so easily. You are definitely among the more eloquent and rational of those against them, and I understand that it could definitely be considered unfair for them to cause physical damage to the airport. But many of these people have tried other means of protest which have ended in failure, driving them to more desperate – and consequently foolish – methods. Of course you get the fanatics who always go too far, but many of these protesters are just people who could not progress in their fight against climate change through any other means. God knows politics isn’t exactly storming ahead.

    I’m glad we’ve reached a sort of compromised understanding, and I just hope the engineers at Boeing and Airbus can improve the efficiency of their planes (hopefully without using biofuels, as they’ve proved to be a decidedly double-edged alternative)!

  2. Cont’d from above.

    I do not however, deny that my initial comment above was a short sighted attack on people with an opposing view point to me, and hereby apologise. I stand corrected on a number of points, but I still fundamentally disagree with criminal damage such as at Stansted and that condoned by groups such as Plane Stupid ( and actions that put the lives of others at risk.

    However, I think there is a particularly crucial flaw in your argument above Allan. Numbers of flights globally is not going to change drastically when Heathrow is expanded. Numbers at Heathrow will, but not globally. Therefore arguments about Heathrow expansion becoming a major contender in global climate change are ridiculous. Flights that will operate at Heathrow would have just operated somewhere else. And it can not be overlooked that in the time it will take for this runway to become operational technology will improve. This is unavoidable, and will result in more efficient, quieter, ‘greener'(for want of a better word) aircraft, just as it has done previously. Indeed it has already begun with the advent of the A380 and the experimentation regarding biofuels.

  3. Personally Allan, I think you’ve missed the point about the danger some of these people’s actions causes to other people, let alone themselves. Climbing on the aircraft? Breaking into Stansted? Potentially putting other people’s lives at risk who do not necessarily hold the same point of view as you is never acceptable.

  4. The limitations of your understanding come across strongly in your comment, James. If you’d done some research, or even bothered to think beyond a reflex attack, you’d understand that many of these protesters DO make a conscious effort to reduce their emissions. They only eat local food, they only take local holidays, they cut down on as much waste as possible. I guess it’s easy to criticise when the only view you have of their situation is your own.

    Furthermore, have you ever felt strongly about something? If so, then you know it sometimes takes risks to get your view across to those who don’t want to listen. Yes, it might be dangerous. Yes, it could cause inconvenience. But if something wrong is happening – in this case the acceleration of climate change thanks to relentless flights to and from Heathrow – you can either lie down and watch your world plunge into ruin, or actually do something about it. Imagine if you had been with Martin Luther King: “Hey Martin, do you not think about the stupidity of some of your actions? Protesting in the face of racist cops? Just give up, your marches are trouble and expense!” What a different world it would be…

    But you DO feel strongly about something; at least, strongly enough to advocate the deliberate attack of people who feel differently. You criticise these people for being irrational, yet your ideas are far more so.

    Now who’s the hypocrite?

  5. Can I buy a plot of the land and then sell it to BAA?

    I’m wondering, do you protesters eat fruit out of season? How do you think that gets into the country? The vast majority, if not all will be that “monstrous demon” you’re trying to crush.

    Take holidays abroad? I’m assuming you’re not going to walk there.

    The list is endless. Hypocrites.

    Do you not think about the stupidity of some of your actions? For instance climbing on top of an aircraft to unfurl a banner over the tail plane. Not counting the risk of causing damage to the aircraft, the risk of injury or more likely death to yourselves is enormous. Which you would probably sue some poor bastard for. It’s not a small thing, and you’re walking on top of a smooth, slippery metal tube high above the ground. And the morons who decided to attach themselves to a fence on the taxiway at Stansted? Ludacris. I think they should have put a 747 in front of you, facing backwards, and revved the engines. Hmmm, 50 odd protesters being hurled across an airfield attached to fencing. Doesn’t sound too beneficial to your health to me, and given the trouble and expense you caused I doubt many people would be very sympathetic.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top