A Carbon-Negative Airport?
Stewart International Airport, 60 miles north of New York City, wants to be the world's first carbon-negative airport.
Photo: Wikipedia.org
An airport that actually removes greenhouse gases from the environment? Is that really possible? That's the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's goal for Stewart International Airport, which may one day be the fourth major airport of the New York metropolitan area. But it's as unlikely a goal as it sounds (contrary to what you'll read over at The Daily Green).
I grew up 15 minutes from Stewart, where my father kept a plane for many years. I'm all for a careful, thoughtful expansion of the airport -- including local businesses in the process, maintaining a good deal of the buffer zone around the airport that's currently available to bikers and hikers -- but not with this slap of greenwashing over it.
First of all, the carbon-negative goal is a bit misleading, because it includes only the activities on the ground, not the fuel used in flights to or from the airport. Second, the Port Authority plans to install some energy-efficiency measures in the airport, but much of the greenhouse gas savings will come from carbon offsets -- credits the airport can purchase to allow for trees to be planted or renewable energy projects funded, for instance, while still using fossil fuels to run the airport's daily operations.
By using a catchphrase like "carbon-negative," the Port Authority has hidden the real story: that Stewart will become a testing ground for new emissions-reducing technologies to be developed by students and faculty from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. If you're listening, Richard Branson, I'm sure they'd be happy to spend some of the $3 billion you've pledged to renewable energy research over the next decade.
RSS Feeds
Brook Wilkinson's post almost sounds like he has a bone to pick. Why so cynical, Brook?
I've flown from Stewart many times and think it's a great airport. I also believe Stewart will increasingly relieve air traffic and airport overcrowding in the New York metropolitan area, and thus the country.
And while Brook claims, in sensational fashion, that the Port Authority "has hidden the real story," he ignores that the daily media covered this back in November 2007, when the announcement was made.
A Nov. 21 United Press International story quoted Port Authority Executive Director Anthony Shorris as telling a regional planning dinner, "We will begin to explore new technologies for things like zero emission, renewable on-site electricity generation, the use of renewable fuel in on-site vehicles and the adoption of highly efficient end-use lighting, space conditioning and refrigeration systems."
The story added, "Shorris said the Port Authority would partner with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a research university in Troy, N.Y., to identify and reduce Stewart's industrial emissions."
So I don't think the Port Authority has hidden the real story. It may just be that Brook didn't see it.
Posted by: gerryharrington | March 26, 2008 at 11:09 PM
I don't disagree that Stewart is a great airport (if you're willing to pay the premium it typically costs to fly out of there). What I disagree with is the Port Authority using the sensational phrase "carbon-negative airport" to get media attention for the project. (And it's Ms. Brook Wilkinson, not Mr.)
Posted by: BrookWilkinson | March 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM