Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Talk of 'sustainable' airport expansion is a load of hot air

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 May 2008
ON March 14 the West Edinburgh Planning Framework appeared, promising us "a framework to support increased sustainable economic growth in West Edinburgh".
The word sustainable has so many positive connotations – Greens use it all the time, meaning anything that can be continued indefinitely, activities that work with our environment rather than depleting our resources.

Yet all too often nowadays, i
t's used by un-Green politicians to mean something they wish to be sustained. During the Grangemouth dispute we even heard about making sure oil supplies were sustainable for the long term, which they're not – North Sea oil has been declining for nine years, and global supplies are at or near their peak.

And it's in this sense that council leader Jenny Dawe uses the word "sustainable", given that the framework "recognises the need for Edinburgh Airport's expansion". Greens aren't against flying, but we are the only party prepared to recognise that endless expansion of flying literally can't be sustained in terms of climate change or rising oil prices. It also goes against the long-term economic interests of the Capital, which would need these resources spent on fast and convenient public transport.

I was dismayed by this approach, but Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson MSP isn't. He believes that such airport expansion "is consistent with our ambitious climate change targets", meaning his government's unfounded, unexplained targets of 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. Maybe he doesn't know that Edinburgh already has several air quality "hot spots", where legal limits for nitrogen dioxide are being breached.

Councillor Dawe believes "it's essential the framework capitalises on West Edinburgh's success and provides for continued economic growth for the good of Scotland". Well, UK government figures show that aviation leads to a net £17 billion tourism deficit, as the amount of money spent by Brits flying abroad far exceeds the amount visitors spend here. And what about the environmental costs?

Aviation currently contributes 13 per cent of UK's climate change gases. This framework welcomes growth at Edinburgh Airport – from the current seven million passengers per annum to a staggering 24m by 2030. Where does this fit in with the Lib Dem pledge of zero carbon by 2050?

Agenda 21 states that public participation in decision making is a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable development. I wonder what people in Edinburgh would prefer? Perhaps they should be asked.

Do we really want a planning framework which eyes up the greenbelt, promises a future west Edinburgh with massively increased noise and air pollution, and marks the beginning of the process of joining Edinburgh to Glasgow in continuous urban sprawl?

&~149 Alison Johnstone is leader of the city council's Green group.




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 May 2008 8:55 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Capital Boy,

22/05/2008 12:16:44
scotland's busiest airport needs better access roads
2

Steven P,

edinburgh 22/05/2008 12:55:28
I bet that the growth forecasts for Edinburgh Airport –"from the current seven million passengers per annum to a staggering 24m by 2030" - werent based on oil prices at usd 132/bbl and rising. The cost of jet fuel (and the drop in disposable inmcomes, particularly in the pensionable population) is going to have an enormous effect on the numbers able to travel by air. 24m passengers by 2030 - not a chance. Airport expansion is being proposed on flawed assumptions.
3

Kirsty Boyd-Williamson,

New Town 22/05/2008 17:14:19
"...from the current seven million passengers per annum..."

The 'current 7m passengers per year is actually 9.1m p.p.y. or 30% greater than quoted.
4

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

22/05/2008 19:54:40
#2 Steven P.

The 2003 white paper on the future of aviation assumes oil at $23/bbl for the next 30 years. A 1% a year fall in ticket prices, and endless growth in the low cost carrier market. They also ignore market saturation and have assumed that everyone in Scotland will want to make 10 return flights a year or more by 2030.

The same projections were used to kill off high speed rail in the Eddington report. No point building such a rail link when flying will be so cheap by 2030?

Sadly, reality is going to be very different and Edinburgh Airport will probably be closed by then. Nor will we have a proper high speed rail link because construction costs after peak oil will be 10 times higher than they are now!

The lunatics are running the asylum, and they can't see beyond the next election! One bit of good news is dropping the EARL project. Who needs a £1billion rail project to an airport that will soon be in heavy decline. The saved money is electrifying and improving the existing railways. This is more sensible policy!

New Forth Road Bridge? Will it really be needed? It's doubtful as road traffic and road haulage give way to railways!
5

Liam,

23/05/2008 07:59:13
An airport soon in decline #4? The facts rather fly in the face of your rather tiresome spin. The only airport in decline at the moment is the one in the west which the Government has nodded through a £300m rail link for, despite all the studies and research proving there to be no appreciable demand for such a link. EARL on the other hand was reckoned to be commercially viable for Scotland's rapidly-expanding international hub in the east.
6

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 25/05/2008 02:09:55
#5 & #6

Not just decline, but rapid decline after peak oil.

GARL is a cheap 1 km railway spur and reinstatement of one extra track on a two track radial commuter route into Glasgow. (it used to have four tracks, now two, shortly to be three)
Hardly much to complain about.

EARL, on the other hand would have slowed down the entire railway timetable in the east of Scotland, costing the economy millions in lost time. Hardly a good return on £1 billion. The business case was built on the flawed 2003 white paper on the future of aviation and fantasy growth. Garbage in - garbage out!

Let's see how well the airport does when oil reaches $200/bbl, $400/bbl, $800/bbl and so on!
7

Roddy M,

Edinburgh 04/06/2008 19:51:52
#2 "I bet that the growth forecasts for Edinburgh Airport ... werent based on oil prices at usd 132/bbl and rising."

Stephen P - you are spot on: in fact the Department for Transport justifies its expansion plans using the assumption that oil only costs $65/barrel and will only rise to $70/barrel in 2020! Wrong by a factor of two AND twelve years!

Such fantasies would be funny it they didn't result in us building expensive white elephants which will sit idle because we have no affordable low-carbon transport. I despair.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.