Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Bristol Airport submits expansion plans

The local paper today reports that plans for the expansion of Bristol International Airport have just been submitted. Included in the report is this statement,

Robert Sinclair, chief executive officer of Bristol International Airport, said:
“The application has been modified to address the key concerns raised.

"It now strikes the right balance between allowing the sustainable development of the airport to meet the long-term demand for air travel to and from this region, while also reducing and mitigating the environmental effects.”
...The airport said it will also commit to maintaining CO2 emissions at or below 2007 levels...
This shows a complete (and deliberate??) misunderstanding of what sustainable development means. Maintaining carbon emssions at 2007 levels is the committment - but the new Climate Change Act states that we need to make deep cuts!! Cuts in emissions of 80% by 2050...are completely inconsistent with plans for airport expansion here and in many other parts of the UK.
Mind you, like several of the commenters on the Evening Post website, I do think the plans look 'wonderful/very good/fantastic' - I'd happily sell off the stabilty, security and sustainability of future generations in order to get what I want today - NOT.


  1. I do think the plans look 'wonderful/very good/fantastic' - I'd happily sell off the stabilty, security and sustainability of future generations in order to get what I want today - NOT

    I'd definately prevent poor people from getting jobs and seeing the rest of the world, as I have done my backpacking already, and want to prevent people in the future from doing so. I don't give a flying hoot about the unemployed in Bristol, as this means they consume less resources, and therefore that's good for us greenfolk, who are generally well off already or get paid from state funding, or from private enterprise manipulated to do so from the state. I'd happily put those plastic bag quaffing swine on the dole que to protect my political/economic interests" ha ha!

  2. But Anon, even if you put climate change impacts aside airport expansion is bad for the economy. More money is taken out of our economy and spent abroad than is spent by people flying here. Air travel is heavily subsidised and highly undertaxed - income lost to govt in billions could be invested in jobs and services. Its mostly rich people in this world and in our country that fly and its the poorest who bear the biggest climate change impacts.

    You dont know me at all but show prejudice based on [incorrect assumptions]. I've never been backpacking and have only ever flown a handful of times. Our housegold income is at about the national average per person and my roots are working class. As for unemployment in Bristol I've been arguing for mass investment via a Green New Deal - this would create a million jobs over the UK and thousands in Bristol.

  3. What is the point of being able to see the world if 1)You are helping to condemn the world to internecine warfare over water and food shortages,or 2)If you don't care about that,,then what is the point of being able to fly off and see the world and coming back to find your own home flooded out.Climate change will affect you and expanding the airport will have a direct effect on making those changes more deadly.Fly today fry tomorrow. Or a little restaint now and a decent life for yout kids.Your decision

  4. How can Green jobs create any wealth. They are non-jobs my friend. Paid for from the high tax you seek to impose on air passengers.

    You can get flights for about £40, so you are wrong in the assumption that flying is for the rich. The rish have nice tidy houses in the country. For your plummer or builder, 2 weeks in Spain is the best they can hope for.

    So, to get this straight, tax people more, and spend on things that you agree with, right?

    Green jobs can only be paid from taxpayers money, therefore cannot create wealth, as we can only trade this with other western countries, who are developing their own green infrastructure too, therefore not needed. The other world of BRIC will not buy less productive equiptment.

    PS Flying is not all about tourism - business etc. Also tourism is undoubtably good for our OWN tourism industry - it's not all one way traffic - and the quickest way to build relationships internationaly is through trade - nothing else.

  5. What on earth is wrong with 'green jobs' eg insulating homes, developing, building and maintaining wind turbines, designing for reuse and recycling, getting more from less through increased resource efficiency...? Its not all about taxpayers money being spent, its about helping the small and medium sized businesses to flourish and be entrepreneurial too - they need the right frameworks to be set in place.

    You can get cheap flights but the stats show that many more UK people in the high income groups are flying regularly than in the lower income groups (see other posts on flying on this blog where I quote the stats)...And dont forget that most people in the world have never flown at all - take a global perspective on this!!

    Expanding flying is not good for our own tourism industry because vastly more people fly off abroad than come here on holiday. Its not all one way traffic but those going out are several times the number coming in!!

  6. This can only be good news for passengers and airlines, more destinations, more space


Genuine, open, reasonable debate is most welcome. Comments that meet this test will always be published.