SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A artist's rendetion of the Cygnus M3, billed as one of the supersonic passengers jets of the future. (Photo: Cyngus/Promotional)
'Madness': Dozens of Groups Push Back Against Trump Proposal to Bring Back Supersonic Planes
"The world is burning, and supersonic planes would pour jet fuel on the fire."
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."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.