Can @ArchitectsCAN @archdeclare explain to me why aviation is worth their campaign's self-immolation (2.5% global carbon) in the face reducing the footprint of global construction and buildings (roughly 40% global carbon), especially when aviation is taking a hammering anyway.

Instead, for example, could you write angry letters to all the practices specifying coal-fired bricks, concrete and stainless steel in, like, every single house-extension and new house in the whole country?

Instead, you've got architects sitting back congratulating themselves for not designing airports they were never going to be asked to design, while most of the country (and the newspapers) now think designing airports is the problem

If someone can explain what's been gained by this, I am seriously all ears. But you didn't stop the airport. You've just divided the profession into good guys and bad guys. But as far as I can tell, you're still full of practices that work for FOSSIL FUEL MONEY