Proposed new London airport: Boris’s idea will never fly
@planestupid | 20.01.2012 14:45 | Climate Chaos | Ecology | Energy Crisis
Wednesdays announcement that the government will hold a consultation in the spring on a new airport in the Thames Estuary, dubbed 'Boris Island' sparked a long day of media hysteria.
Boris Johnson's voice echoed out over our TVs, Radios and newspapers the next day and Plane Stupid came under pressure to get a representative to appear on Sky News and Newsnight in response. Unfortunately we couldn't find someone to go on but to be honest we are totally baffled by it all.
'Boris Island' airport is to be built on an artificial island and would result in 150 million more passengers a year which is serious bad news for the climate. We can't allow airport expansion on this scale and meet our climate change reduction targets at the same time – the two government policies are mutually incompatible and cannot both succeed.
The other little problem is the fact that the Thames Estuary is basically a bird sanctuary. Birds and planes don't match – simple as that.
Here are some other useful facts that need to be included in the debate:
1. The UK fly on average twice as much than any other country in the world already.
2. The most popular destination out of Heathrow is Paris and 3rd is Manchester. If we reduced these unnecessary flights there would be plenty of capacity at Heathrow Airport
3. Aviation is the fasting growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.
4. If aviation grows at its projected annual rates then aviation will take up 100% or more of our national carbon budget some time between 2030 and 2050.
5. Between Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City and Luton; London already has 6 runways and 10 terminals.
Only Boris could come up with an idea as daft as this, building an airport in a tidal estuary when we are facing a future of rising sea levels due in part to emissions from aviation.
For now we will just be keeping a close eye on it but if given the go ahead the Thames Estuary Airport could represent an activists dream. Building an airport on an artificial island is such an enormous logistical project that it would be child's play to disrupt it!
'Boris Island' airport is to be built on an artificial island and would result in 150 million more passengers a year which is serious bad news for the climate. We can't allow airport expansion on this scale and meet our climate change reduction targets at the same time – the two government policies are mutually incompatible and cannot both succeed.
The other little problem is the fact that the Thames Estuary is basically a bird sanctuary. Birds and planes don't match – simple as that.
Here are some other useful facts that need to be included in the debate:
1. The UK fly on average twice as much than any other country in the world already.
2. The most popular destination out of Heathrow is Paris and 3rd is Manchester. If we reduced these unnecessary flights there would be plenty of capacity at Heathrow Airport
3. Aviation is the fasting growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.
4. If aviation grows at its projected annual rates then aviation will take up 100% or more of our national carbon budget some time between 2030 and 2050.
5. Between Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City and Luton; London already has 6 runways and 10 terminals.
Only Boris could come up with an idea as daft as this, building an airport in a tidal estuary when we are facing a future of rising sea levels due in part to emissions from aviation.
For now we will just be keeping a close eye on it but if given the go ahead the Thames Estuary Airport could represent an activists dream. Building an airport on an artificial island is such an enormous logistical project that it would be child's play to disrupt it!
@planestupid
Homepage:
http://planestupid.com/blogs/2012/01/20/boris%E2%80%99s-idea-will-never-fly
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
It's a real proposition
21.01.2012 17:43
It would in fact be relatively quick and cheep to construct an island in a shallow sandy gravely estuary like the Thames. You'd just dredge out shipping channels where ever you want them and dump the ballast where you want it, by split barge or slurry pump. No blasting. No road transport. Everything comes by sea. Piece of piss. Then you'd have a major international interchange with plenty of space to expand. Just the ticket for a global society going nowhere fast!
anarchist
Citations needed...
25.01.2012 10:19
2. I have read multiple sources that state New York is the most popular destination from Heathrow. Personally, I can't be bothered to count them, but you would seem to be wrong. Furthermore, you will likely find that most of these passenger are connecting through to other destinations. Expecting them to travel by train from Manchester to Paddington or London to Parsis to transfer to Heathrow or Charles de Gaulles is unrealistic.
3. Really? How can this be when we are at capacity? You can't have it both ways. It's also a convenient way of saying that the emissions are currently negligible.
4. This seems irrelevant. Why would it continue to grow at the same rate?
5. For a city the size of London, not to mention international connections through Heathrow and Gatwick, this is a ludicrously small number of runways and terminals.
AH