I've been reading the Thames Estuary Airport Feasibility Review on proposals for an airport in the Thames Estuary - the so-called Boris-island airport. Actually there are a range of proposals that are milling around - some on artificial islands and some on the existing north Kent coast.
This is an interesting analysis of the document, but my own reading of it is that it is pretty thin stuff! The author, Doug Oakervee, states clearly and honestly that some of the report is based on anecdotal evidence and limited research - and that the more expert reader might find parts of the report superficial. I think he's right - but I'm no expert. Even so he concludes that 'we are not yet in a position to decide when or how or exactly where it [an airport in the Thames Estuary] should be built.'. If you add 'whether' to how, when and where then you've probably got the right answer!
The environment and climate change are mentioned a few times, as is the RSPB itself, but the assumption behind this report is that we are going to be flying an awful lot more in 2030 than now. Are we? In reducing our overall greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 how does that fit in? No, seriously - how do more airports and more flying fit in with reducing our impact on the climate?
And the wildlife impacts of such a proposal are hardly touched upon - there isn't even a map of the areas designated for their nature conservation value in the report (although such maps aren't hard to find - here are some: SPAs, inshore SACs).
On the other hand, the impact of wildlife on airplanes is mentioned as a bit of an issue! Birdstrike in an area noted for its high bird populations will be an issue. So once again it's 'let's worry about what damage wildlife might do to us (if we build an airport in a daft place) rather than worry about what damage we might do to wildlife.'.
I see Boris Johnson has appointed Professor Sir David King to chair a panel looking further at this whole idea. Interesting! Sir David pushed climate change firmly up the political agenda when he said that it was a greater threat to the world than terrorism.
One of the EU nature designations that covers parts of the Thames Estuary comes from the Habitats Directive - Boris's Dad, Stanley, was one of the authors and architects of this Directive. Stanley - have a word with Boris please!
Boris would be bonkers to do this!
The World and all of us seem between a rock and a hard place,seems to me we are getting absolutely nowhere.As someone who has never flown I don't want to sound pompous but surely flights could be cut down,there are lots of lovely places for holidays for instance and surely the age of computer allows all manner of things without flying.Put the cost of flying to really high levels and there would soon be lot less flights.No Mark Boris needs to talk to a psychiatrist and someone to teach him how to stop putting his foot in it.
Even though I am interested in aviation, I do not see the figures for airline growth that keep being trotted out everytime a subject like this comes up. It is clear from the figures after the first Gulf War and 9/11 that airline business is vulnerable to world events, not to mention the current economic situation. Even state/national airlines are not immune and Alitalia only survived after some extreme intervention but quite a few charter airlines have gone and there may be more to come.
Interestingly, the idea of another 'London' airport is actually to capture the feeder market within the EU territories, especially if BA continue to open up European skies to American carriers. If this is the case, then there is absolutely no need to build a new airport anywhere* because slight upgrades at various BAA airports should be able to cater for the increased traffic should (or SHOULD) it happen.
One thing I would take issue with is the greenhouse gas emissions question because there are plenty of submissions that suggest aviation accounts for only around 5% of the total whereas road vehicles account for considerably more. I am not sure the answers are easy but the building of a new airport is not the solution for anything.
* There is a proposal to replace East Midlands but it should be noted this is not necessarily to generate a great increase in capacity but to replace an airport that had a built-in use-by-date.
YDFS - you might say that....
Sooty - so you are one of those increasingly rare people who has never flown. I can't say the same - but I agree that one of my main reasons for flying in the past (I don't now, for leisure, and very rarely for work) has been to see wildlife. And you are absolutely right that there are lots of wonderful wildlife sites (and sights and sounds and smells) to be found here on our doorstep.
IanP - very interesting post. Ghg aviation emissions are just about the only ones which are scheduled to increase in the future. If they do, then we will need more windfarms in awkward places, fewer cars on the roads etc to reach our 80% reduction goal. It's difficult to see how this makes sense - or adds up.
I think one of the basic issues goes back to the arrival of the DH Comet, Boeing 707 and Sud Aviation Caravelle on the airline scene. Despite there being a potentially useful design trend already available (see in a moment) all the airlines went for the prestigious jets. This has left General Electric, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney and others trying to keep abreast of environmental considerations when it has been clear for some time that the jet engine has reached the limit of its development in this area even allowing for the generally cleaner RR Trents etc that are powering the new Boeing 787 (claimed by Boeing to be the most environmentally-friendly airliner around).
Sadly, the arrival of the Boeing 707 and the Comet ended the chances of some very good aircraft that had much more potential for sensible development (there is a penalty of course). The Bristol Britannia, Vickers, Vanguard, Illyushin Il-18 and Lockheed Electra II were all designerd for the long distance routes and to replace the much less efficient piston powered DC-7s, Constellations and Stratocruisers. At the time, turbo-prop engines were barely less thirsty than jets and considerably more so than pistons but that was then. Unfortunately, the emphasis became on speed and I wonder if we will ever relinquish this area of travel but hang on a minute. The Caravelle, Tu-134 and BAC 1-11 (and to some extents, the Boeing 737) have been replaced on short haul routes by low powered jets or turbo-props that are slower than the aircraft they replaced. In other words, we could sacrifice speed and look at long range turbo-props with better green credentials than jets that ply the medium haul routes. I am not sure we could ever replace the long range Airbus A330s, A340s, A380s, Illyushin 96s, Boeing 747s and 777s so easily but is it really just about speed? After all we took a step backwards in 2004 when Concorde was withdrawn from service. I suspect it can be done but would people accept 3-4 hours to Malaga instead of 2.5 (Princess Air used to fly to Spanish destinations using the BAe 146 but they folded after less than one year but that may have been because the 146 was inefficient in terms of capacity).
As a footnote and re: my first post, it is interesting that BAA announced they were lookingf at the sale of Gatwick this week. It is notable that this airport is the one that offers less scope for development despite the legal block on expansion nearing expiry. It was clear during the No-Airport-At-Cliffe campaign that Gatwick residents were going to seek an extension and I am guessing this is now very likely to happen.
Incidentally, I do not see easy solutions here but I am happy to play Devil's Advocate on this subject.
Just for completeness, I found the following figures for World GHG:
Transportation accounts for 13.5% of the total of this -
Aviation 1.6%
Road 9.9%
Rail and sea 2.3%
This would mean an 80% growth in aviation would increase the component to around 2.2% of the total assuming the rates are roughly the same for the UK. I am not sure how the figures compare for UK emissions because I have not yet found the equivalent figures.
Spot the (un)deliberate mistake. My maths was wrong in the previous post 80% of 1.6 is approximately 1.4 so the figure would rise to 3%. This is a component of the total so it would be slightly lower and all other figures would fall in proportion but effectively aviation emissions would still be less than one-third of those produced by road transport.
I also worked out that the world figures would take into account undeveloped parts of the world and the current rising industrial output of China, southeast Asia and India. This means that for the UK, transportation proportions are probably higher but reduced industry means the equivalent proportion is much lower than for the world in general. I would like to see some definitive figures for the UK but it does seem that there is much we can do to reduce transport emissions to hit our proposed targets. Much as I see the aviation industry getting more attention than they perhaps deserve, I am not completely sympathetic because some very good and 'greener' options have been passed over in the past.
Totally agree Mark, no place for an airport! The SPA map should greatly help Boris's steering group and with more SPA proposed they will soon get used to looking at them. Thank goodness for the EU Habitats Directive and thank you too to Stanley, I just wish Boris would talk to him
Ian - thanks for those detailed and knowledgeable comments
Gill - thanks!