It is very disappointing that the expansion of Heathrow airport was approved last night at the House of Commons.
Under the plan, Heathrow will double the number of flights (by over 350 a day) and singlehandedly boost the UK's aviation emissions by 40%, contrary to the Climate Change Bill. So, how can Britain pretend to set an example and tell the rest of the world to reduce emissions?
Given that under the Climate Change Bill overall emissions in all sectors must drop 80% (with respect to 1990 levels) by 2050, other aviation sectors will have to reduce their emissions by nearly 90% to offset Heathrow's growth. This obviously won't happen, in fact the contrary: we expect other airports will also grow and build additional runways. Therefore other transport sectors will have to compensate for this enormous increase, and it is not clear which. It is already very ambitious to aim for a 80% emissions cut. It is not realistic to achieve it allowing aviation to grow from the current levels unless we expect to have nearly full decarbonisation in our road and rail transport. But where are the plans for this?
The government's plans imply that the aircraft using the new runway will be greener within 10 years. This is almost comical. These aircraft do not exist and they are not even at the inception stage. No single large manufacturer of commercial aircraft has plans to carry out significant alterations of engine design to cut emissions dramatically. So where are these fabulous aircraft?
I am sure that they will come about in due course, but not as quickly as Heathrow's third runway, and the government should be transparent about this. It is not acceptable to approve the expansion of the airport with the condition that it is for use by greener aircraft, and then once the project is completed tell the public that regrettably it cannot be used by greener aircraft because they don't exist. We know this now, so the additional runway should not go ahead under this false pretence because we all know that it will be used by today's polluting and noisy 747's and the like.
Today we have selected an interesting item of news regarding electric airplanes ("Will Electric Planes Take Off?", 29 Jan 09). This is going to be a growth sector that is attracting some very clever investors, who in my opinion, can see where our future is. But you can see from the article that the state of the art with truly green aircraft is still at its infancy. These aircraft are very small and light and we might still be generations away from achieving the technological feat of flying commercial aircraft with electricity. Perhaps this will never be possible, unless nuclear energy is used, in which case it would be extremely expensive and not viable for commercial use.
Realistically we might be able to achieve light small commercial aircraft for short-haul routes. Perhaps hybrid models will come about for long-haul. Watch this space, as I feel this is the little corner for the truly visionary. Electric aircraft are an amazing challenge and it could be this century's big achievement.
Back to the present. The present of Rolls Royce engines, jet propulsion and air travel with dirty old fossil fuels. And that's where we are and that's where we will be in 10 years' time when Heathrow's third runway opens. And that means that the House of Commons has OK-ed Heathrow's carbon footprint to become positively astronomical.
Apart from the natural objection that this is going to cost the UK taxpayer £9bn for the benefit of a private company such as BAA, of course. I am a bit in the dark about distribution of stakeholding. Is the £9bn a grant to Spanish Ferrovial to increase their assets and recover a near monopoly position after the MCC has ordered them to sell two of the London airports to break their [badly-managed] monopoly?
Brunella Bell
press@carbonica.org
CARBONICA - PROTECTING THE WORLD'S RAINFORESTS
Click here to reduce your carbon footprint
Be the first to rate this post
- Currently 0/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5