Representation by Martin Lindsay Wood
- Date submitted
- 14 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The major issue is the impact of these proposals on climate change. We have known for many years now that climate change is occurring, largely because of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere caused by man, and that the detrimental consequences of this climate change for humanity will be dire. Accordingly, it has long been recognised that to hope to limit the increase in global temperatures we must reduce emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. The urgency and gravity of the situation has increased to the extent that it is now critical. Climate change poses an existential threat to humanity, and at an accelerating pace, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report issued in February 2022 makes clear. This report said that many of the impacts of global warming are now irreversible and that humans and nature are being pushed beyond their abilities to adapt. The report goes on to say that there is a small window of opportunity to act to keep the rise in temperatures below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Professor Debra Roberts, co-chair of the IPCC, is reported by the BBC as saying this. "Our report clearly indicates that places where people live and work may cease to exist, that ecosystems and species that we've all grown up with and that are central to our cultures and inform our languages may disappear…So this is really a key moment. Our report points out very clearly, this is the decade of action, if we are going to turn things around." We know that climate change is caused by man spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. The UN has said that if we are to have any chance of limiting global heating to 1.5C emissions must be cut by 7.6% a year this decade. If we do not do this the consequences for humanity will be disastrous. In April last year the UN issued a further warning that we are headed for a climate catastrophe and that to avert it we must make immediate and deep cuts in emissions. I emphasise - immediate and deep cuts. As an example, we have seen only this week the devastating wildfires in Canada which, in addition to the destruction of forests, have caused heavy pollution over an extensive area of North America. In that context, the proposal for an expansion that Luton Rising admit will increase emissions of CO2 is manifestly unacceptable. They cannot be unaware that aviation is a significant contributor to the rise in CO2. We need to fly less - much less - to reduce emissions. It should be noted that France is setting an example by banning domestic flights. And what do Luton Rising want? More flying with more emissions. Their attempt to address this issue and justify the expansion boils down, as I understand it, to this. They will take steps to “avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse impacts” and “minimise the carbon footprint” of the airport operation itself. I note that this carefully chosen wording tacitly admits that the airport does and will contribute to the increase in CO2 emissions. And of course such steps as they offer to control the airport’s impact are trivial compared with the big issue of how much flying there should be, on which their position is, that’s a matter for government and none of their business. This is a cynical avoidance of responsibility. They have the choice of expanding or not. They have chosen expansion, with the detrimental effect it will inevitably have on climate change. If they had any sense of responsibility - indeed, even if they actually recognised their own personal self interest in preventing the catastrophic consequences of run away global heating - they would drop this expansion proposal. Sadly they have plainly failed to grasp the gravity of the situation. They need to do so, and fast, and abandon their misguided expansion plans. As it is, their attitude seems to be Carry on Regardless. That is the overarching reason why this expansion should not go ahead. But there are other grounds of objection relating to the detrimental effect the expansion would have on the local area. In particular, the infrastructure for travelling to and from the airport, road and rail, is already congested. The plan envisages a substantial increase in access by rail. The trains are already congested at peak times. It is difficult to see how the trains could accommodate the extra airport customers with their luggage. Likewise, the road infrastructure in the area is already stressed. It is noted that the plan envisages the A1081 from the south as one of the approaches to the airport. It is also noted that the effect of this on Harpenden, through which it passes, is not addressed. The A1081 through Harpenden is heavily congested at peak times, with often long queues on the approaches to the town. There is also currently a planning application for 550 houses on a site on the north edge of the town which, if developed, would itself add a considerable number of vehicles using the A1081. There is no prospect of widening the road through Harpenden. As to the M1, it is already often heavily congested, with slow moving or stationary queues, both north and south of junction 10. The Emerging Transport Strategy, whilst discussing the challenges with access to the airport, is short on solutions. Indeed, the very use of the term “Emerging” is a tacit acknowledgement that proposed solutions to the challenges have not been firmed up, and that these issues are at the discussion stage. However, in so far as there are any ideas for solutions for road access, it should be noted that their thinking concerning the M1 relies on hard shoulder running being introduced between junctions nine and ten. With the recent abandonment by the government of the expansion of the Smart Motorways programme, this is now a non-starter.