Re: https://lexobserver.org/2024/04/20/hanscom-extinction-rebe/
The recent article “Protesters block private jets at Hanscom Airfield”showed the deep concern of climate activists who oppose a proposal being considered by Massachusetts Port Authority to add 17 new hangars for private jets to Hanscom Air Force Base.
The concern runs so deep that 20 protesters, members of Extinction Rebellion Boston, were arrested on Saturday, April 20, for standing in the way of private jets at the airfield, preventing the luxury planes from taking off.
One of the protestor’s bright red signs read: “No new fossil fuel infrastructure.” It makes a great point. It is not innovative to invest in new infrastructure for fossil-fuel-burning transportation that only serves the ultra-rich while counteracting the entire state’s efforts to combat climate change.
Massachusetts has some of the most ambitious climate and clean energy goals in the country, including a goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Dozens of brilliant, new start-ups are launching all the time in the Bay State, with groundbreaking approaches to help Massachusetts reach its lofty climate goals.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the developer responsible for the proposed airbase expansion claimed that adding the hangars would be a “Net Zero project.” Of course, empty hangars may be, but once you account for a 300% increase in private jet flights taking off from Hanscom, net zero it is not. Plus, how much more noise pollution will the surrounding suburbs be forced to endure from Hanscom’s increased flight schedule?
Massachusetts residents and small businesses are reducing their own carbon footprints by purchasing home and community solar, heat pumps, and electric vehicles. If homeowners and business owners can prioritize investing in greener, more efficient solutions, why can’t Massport?
This argument is vaguely similar to the complaints being raised by Hanscom neighbors about noise a few years ago
Then the issue was too many flights = too much noise
Today its too many private jets = too much CO2 emissions
Then as now there are two salient points:
1) there is an airport with planes — it was there when you bought your house [unless you’ve owned for over 75 years]
2) There is big [these days 8+ lane] highway adjacent to the airport with hundreds of thousands of vehicles [mostly fossil fueled] traveling on the road emitting 24×7
Specific to the current dispute — the “Private Jets” are intrinsic to the kind of R&D and VC-centric businesses for which the region prides itself for being a major hub
@WestHighlander Private jets are an extreme way to accelerate extreme weather extremely quickly. Private vehicles are increasingly required to live with higher fuel efficiency standards or to be entirely electric. It’s a matter of choice and caring.
75 years ago Global Warming wasn’t an issue, today it is. I have met with dozens of VCs over the past year, 99% of their meetings can/do occur over Zoom now–they can fly commercial to the other 1% of meetings like everyone else. The highway enables commutes for hundreds of thousands, the private jets carry a handful of people.