A artist's rendetion of the Cygnus M3, billed as one of the supersonic passengers jets of the future. (Photo: Cyngus/Promotional)
Aug 28, 2019
Over two dozen environmental advocates on Tuesday pushed back against a move by the Trump administration to facilitate the return of supersonic planes.
"The world is burning, and supersonic planes would pour jet fuel on the fire," said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a press statement. "It would be madness to sabotage our shot at preserving a livable climate so the ultra-rich can take faster flights."
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a notice of a proposed rule in June that stated that the agency "is proposing to modernize the procedure for requesting these special flight authorizations."
In remarks just ahead of that announcement, FAA administrator Daniel Elwell said the rule "will provide a streamlined, clear line of sight on how to gain approval to conduct flight testing. This is a necessary, key step for further research and development in an emerging segment--and ultimately bring their aircraft to market."
The proposal referenced "renewed interest in supersonic aircraft development," and an article published Wednesday in Conde Nast Traveler flushes out some of that interest.
Titled "The Competition to Bring Back Suerpsonic Flight Is Heating up," the article notes how Lockheed Martin and NASA are jointly developing supersonic aircraft to limit the deafening sonic boom such aircraft emit. Denver-based Boom Supersonic is also moving forward with the development of aircraft that would achieve supersonic speeds on transatlantic flights, and it's already got pre-orders from Japan Airlines.
But in their letter (pdf) to Elwell sent Tuesday--the last day for public comment on the proposal--the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups including Friends of the Earth and Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments said "there is no way to advance 'safe and efficient operation of supersonic aircraft.' Supersonic aircraft would fuel the global climate crisis and threaten Americans with lasting damages from extreme air and noise pollution."
Apart from concerns to people and wildlife from the noise of breaking the sound barrier along the entirety of supersonic flight route, the groups say that "allowing a new class of super-polluting aircraft to enter the sky would be madness" given the "climate emergency."
"New commercial supersonic planes are expected to burn 5 to 7 times as much fuel per passenger as comparable subsonic designs, and exceed international subsonic aircraft carbon dioxide (CO2) emission limits by 70 percent," they wrote.
"Analysis shows that supersonic aircraft under development," they added, "will likely exceed international nitrogen oxide (NOx) standards for subsonic aircraft by 40 percent."
The FAA, said the groups, must abide by its obligations to protect public health and welfare.
"In the heat of the climate crisis," said Marcie Keever, legal director at Friends of the Earth US, "resurrecting super-polluting supersonic passenger aircraft makes no sense."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Over two dozen environmental advocates on Tuesday pushed back against a move by the Trump administration to facilitate the return of supersonic planes.
"The world is burning, and supersonic planes would pour jet fuel on the fire," said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a press statement. "It would be madness to sabotage our shot at preserving a livable climate so the ultra-rich can take faster flights."
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a notice of a proposed rule in June that stated that the agency "is proposing to modernize the procedure for requesting these special flight authorizations."
In remarks just ahead of that announcement, FAA administrator Daniel Elwell said the rule "will provide a streamlined, clear line of sight on how to gain approval to conduct flight testing. This is a necessary, key step for further research and development in an emerging segment--and ultimately bring their aircraft to market."
The proposal referenced "renewed interest in supersonic aircraft development," and an article published Wednesday in Conde Nast Traveler flushes out some of that interest.
Titled "The Competition to Bring Back Suerpsonic Flight Is Heating up," the article notes how Lockheed Martin and NASA are jointly developing supersonic aircraft to limit the deafening sonic boom such aircraft emit. Denver-based Boom Supersonic is also moving forward with the development of aircraft that would achieve supersonic speeds on transatlantic flights, and it's already got pre-orders from Japan Airlines.
But in their letter (pdf) to Elwell sent Tuesday--the last day for public comment on the proposal--the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups including Friends of the Earth and Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments said "there is no way to advance 'safe and efficient operation of supersonic aircraft.' Supersonic aircraft would fuel the global climate crisis and threaten Americans with lasting damages from extreme air and noise pollution."
Apart from concerns to people and wildlife from the noise of breaking the sound barrier along the entirety of supersonic flight route, the groups say that "allowing a new class of super-polluting aircraft to enter the sky would be madness" given the "climate emergency."
"New commercial supersonic planes are expected to burn 5 to 7 times as much fuel per passenger as comparable subsonic designs, and exceed international subsonic aircraft carbon dioxide (CO2) emission limits by 70 percent," they wrote.
"Analysis shows that supersonic aircraft under development," they added, "will likely exceed international nitrogen oxide (NOx) standards for subsonic aircraft by 40 percent."
The FAA, said the groups, must abide by its obligations to protect public health and welfare.
"In the heat of the climate crisis," said Marcie Keever, legal director at Friends of the Earth US, "resurrecting super-polluting supersonic passenger aircraft makes no sense."
Over two dozen environmental advocates on Tuesday pushed back against a move by the Trump administration to facilitate the return of supersonic planes.
"The world is burning, and supersonic planes would pour jet fuel on the fire," said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a press statement. "It would be madness to sabotage our shot at preserving a livable climate so the ultra-rich can take faster flights."
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a notice of a proposed rule in June that stated that the agency "is proposing to modernize the procedure for requesting these special flight authorizations."
In remarks just ahead of that announcement, FAA administrator Daniel Elwell said the rule "will provide a streamlined, clear line of sight on how to gain approval to conduct flight testing. This is a necessary, key step for further research and development in an emerging segment--and ultimately bring their aircraft to market."
The proposal referenced "renewed interest in supersonic aircraft development," and an article published Wednesday in Conde Nast Traveler flushes out some of that interest.
Titled "The Competition to Bring Back Suerpsonic Flight Is Heating up," the article notes how Lockheed Martin and NASA are jointly developing supersonic aircraft to limit the deafening sonic boom such aircraft emit. Denver-based Boom Supersonic is also moving forward with the development of aircraft that would achieve supersonic speeds on transatlantic flights, and it's already got pre-orders from Japan Airlines.
But in their letter (pdf) to Elwell sent Tuesday--the last day for public comment on the proposal--the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups including Friends of the Earth and Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments said "there is no way to advance 'safe and efficient operation of supersonic aircraft.' Supersonic aircraft would fuel the global climate crisis and threaten Americans with lasting damages from extreme air and noise pollution."
Apart from concerns to people and wildlife from the noise of breaking the sound barrier along the entirety of supersonic flight route, the groups say that "allowing a new class of super-polluting aircraft to enter the sky would be madness" given the "climate emergency."
"New commercial supersonic planes are expected to burn 5 to 7 times as much fuel per passenger as comparable subsonic designs, and exceed international subsonic aircraft carbon dioxide (CO2) emission limits by 70 percent," they wrote.
"Analysis shows that supersonic aircraft under development," they added, "will likely exceed international nitrogen oxide (NOx) standards for subsonic aircraft by 40 percent."
The FAA, said the groups, must abide by its obligations to protect public health and welfare.
"In the heat of the climate crisis," said Marcie Keever, legal director at Friends of the Earth US, "resurrecting super-polluting supersonic passenger aircraft makes no sense."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.