|
fu679s
 Board SOregistered since: 24.12.2007
Posts: 4
|
Here is an article I've found in a Scottish Newspaper about the oil price and the exptected growth of UK airports. At what price tag will the oil price start to have a serious effect on passenger numbers? Do you think airport expansion should be stopped because of the present and future situation or should we go ahead nevertheless? Your opinion please.
SCOTTISH Government plans to expand Edinburgh Airport run contrary to both environmental and commercial sense.
This commitment ignores both the overwhelming imperative to tackle climate change, and recent realistic projections of future passenger numbers. The aviation industry is currently the fastest-growing source of climate-wrecking pollution and the window of opportunity we have to tackle climate change is closing. We must look again at the need for airport expansion.
WWF recently commissioned independent experts to rework the UK Government's air passenger forecasts for 2030 in order to factor in a realistic price for oil and the impact of policies which encourage a switch to trains and the use of video-conferencing. The results were clear: there will not be enough passengers to justify expanding any of the country's airports.
The Government's forecast assumes oil prices today are only $60 a barrel and will fall to $53 by 2012, remaining at that level indefinitely. Today, oil costs close to $140 a barrel, with some analysts forecasting prices as high as $200 in the near future.
Doubling the Government's estimate to a conservative assumption of $106 a barrel in 2030 reduces air passenger growth by 15 per cent alone.
In recent weeks we've seen airline companies grounding flights and Scottish airports admitting to sharp slumps in passenger numbers, due in part to increased fuel prices.
It seems clear that if the Government remains committed to the intended airport expansion it will mean building and investing on the basis of ill-informed forecasts of future passengers.
The same study found that greater use of video-conferencing and alternative methods of travel combined could reduce passenger growth by a further 13 per cent. WWF's recent Travelling Light report revealed that 89 per cent of the FTSE 350 companies expect to fly less over the next ten years and use videoconferencing more.
Even with hikes in oil prices and shifts to sustainable alternatives, we will still need greater action to curb climate emissions from the aviation industry. It is therefore vital that the governments at both Westminster and Holyrood include aviation emissions in their forthcoming legislation on climate change.
The Climate Change Bill presents Scottish ministers with a valuable opportunity to show global leadership. Nearly 20,000 individuals, including 12,000 from 145 different countries, have called on the Scottish Government to include emissions from international aviation and shipping. Alongside this, greater investment in alternatives to flying, rather than the expansion of airports, will be critical if the Government is to put Scotland on track to a low-carbon future. The eyes of the world are on us.
Dr Sam Gardner, WWF Scotland
Source: news.scotsman.com
|
