# FILE NAME: 00002068.soc
# TITLE: Should we have a no-fly zone over central London to reduce pollution? [c839c0b15282ef61ba5c73ae60fba395]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We do not think that a no-fly zone over central London would be effective in reducing pollution. We believe this is because London is a very densely populated city and introducing a no-fly zone would mean that pollution levels would remain high in that area and would only be reduced elsewhere. The benefit of reducing pollution levels in other areas would be counteracted by the fact that pollution levels would remain high in the densely populated areas of London.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a no fly zone over Central London should not be introduced as the long-term consequences will be greater than the short-term gains.  A no fly zone would likely produce more pollution and result in increased fuel consumption due to planes being forced to fly further and at higher altitudes.  It would also be costly to implement and has the potential to negatively impact the economy.  We believe that more work needs to be done to produce a viable and cost-effective alternative to reducing pollution in London.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A no-fly zone would be a good idea if it reduced pollution. It would need to be carefully considered and the impact on other areas would need to be evaluated. It would need to be a well thought out plan. It would be a good idea to try it and see how it goes.
4: 1,3,2,4
1: 1,2,3,4