I felt cognitive dissonance studying A1 on Dec. 21. “Sea-Tac Airport’s answer to overcrowding? Construction” highlighted the Port of Seattle’s greater than 100 initiatives, noting that the variety of passengers grew from 31 million in 2007 to 52.6 million in 2024 and is barely anticipated to extend.
The Port is spending $5 billion to extend the circulate of passengers. Arif Ghouse, the airport’s chief working officer, “argues that elevated demand and air site visitors is coming whether or not or not the Port completes its undertaking guidelines” and that “the Port legally can’t restrict air site visitors … and airways will proceed to search out methods to succeed in extra passengers.”
The cities of Des Moines, SeaTac and Burien filed a petition for judicial overview of the Federal Aviation Administration’s environmental overview greenlighting the initiatives.
I haven’t flown since 2020. I do know the mathematics is obvious — that to stabilize the local weather, aviation should be decreased. The remainder of the Dec. 21 paper had a number of articles targeted on nationwide disasters, with some together with local weather change because of the burning of fossil fuels because the trigger.
It’s jarring to see promotion of aviation, a trigger (burning fossil fuels), not related to the impact (warming temperatures and more and more lethal pure disasters).
Andrea O’Ferrall, Seattle
