Originally Posted by
Pain in the R's
While we are all here as we support aviation and Southampton maybe I am the only person here that has real concerns that the world has hit record temperatures last year while England floods this year, Yet Southampton Airport and everyone here wants to increase routes and more than double pollution by burying their collective heads in the sand.
Maybe if the airport had concerns about the environment, instead of trying to get trees cut down maybe they should only allow growth if aircraft pollution doesn’t increase above 2023 so supporting sustainable fuels to show the world they have green credentials. My understanding is that aircraft are the most polluting form of public transport.
I have no doubt the argument is that the difference Southampton could make is so negligible it isn’t worth making the effort. The trouble with that philosophy is that with that attitude nothing will ever change if every company has the same excuse.
The pro-environment argument that SOU should limit CO2 emissions to no more than 2023 is a valid one... but it assumes that SOU will not be significantly disadvantaged against its peers. For the time being, LHR, LGW and many other UK airports will happily go on allowing pollution (caused either by themselves or their airlines), spout greenwash and make money for shareholders. If one believes action should be taken, then one should push for something to be done via legislation / treaty over a wide geographical area so that all airports and all people living in different areas bear some of the economic pain or limitations on their actions. It's not reasonable for SOU to be expected to save the world voluntarily and ignore their investors while other airports carry on without giving a damn.