Representation by Sarah Clayton
- Date submitted
- 22 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The expansion of the airport is entirely inappropriate now that anthropogenic climate change is happening, worsening every year. Anything that needlessly increases the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere should be opposed. The changed, unstable climate is starting to have impacts on people, and the natural world, everywhere. This will only get worse. We MUST NOT allow projects that are unnecessary, and could be avoided. There will be huge impacts on nature, biodiversity, from the increased CO2 emissions. This is not just local. There will be negative impacts on biodiversity from the increased air pollution, from planes and ground vehicles. There is increasing evidence of the negative impact of particulates, NOx, SO2, ozone and other gases, on a range of species. It is not only humans who are negatively affected by air pollution. There is concern about the decline in pollinating insects, vital for the production of human food. Some chemicals in air pollution can reduce the ability of insects to locate, and pollinate, plants. The noise from thousands more planes each year is also likely to negatively affect wildlife. Birds need to be able to hear each other, in order to feed, find mates, avoid predators. Some species will avoid living in areas with too much noise. The airport is already noisy - this will become far worse. The light from the airport is already a problem. That would only get worse. Many species are affected by unnatural light at night, with prey-predator interactions affected, with birds unable to get the necessary hours of rest they would get from proper darkness, and migrating birds being confused by lights at night. The amount of road traffic can only make things worse for any animal that wants to cross from one area to another. Though there are some small mitigations proposed for wildlife, and small improvements to the rivers, the overall impact will be negative. Conveniently the Gatwick documents routinely admit that there will be a slight negative impact, but it will - allegedly - be "not significant". Those blithe claims need to be challenged. The amount of water the airport wants to use is a problem. The water will either (if there is not enough rain - and with climate change, we may have worse droughts) come from aquifers underground, or from abstraction from rivers. Both have potential direct, and indirect, impacts on aquatic life. These must be properly investigated, and prevented if the impacts are severe. After all, the government is meant to be protecting nature, and reversing the decline in UK biodiversity, even by 2030. That is not going to happen, if developments like expanding Gatwick are allowed to go ahead, despite negative effects. There is also the problem of more sewage to be removed from an expanded Gatwick,and the growing chance of pollution entering water bodies. There are particulates from runway, such as brake dust, as well as chemical like de-icing fluid. Spills into rivers, already struggling, would be highly damaging. There are, of course, all the other impacts such as noise, road congestion, air pollution, housing demand and many more, that many people will be commenting on.