Climate change officer presents Manston airport emissions report to councillors

Aviation Photo Sebastian Grochowicz

Thanet council’s climate change officer has presented a report to councillors examining predicted carbon emissions from Manston airport and says a woodland area equivalent to twice the size of Thanet would need to be planted to offset the new aircraft emissions by year 18 of operation.

Dr Hannah Scott says calculations are based on a response issued by airport owners RiverOak Strategic Partners in October 2022 to questions raised by Thanet Green Party. The response includes data from an Environmental Statement submitted as part of the airport Development Consent Order process.

RSP says the council report contains “several errors in overestimating the airport’s carbon emissions.”

Dr Hannah Scott,

The report to councillors says embodied carbon is the CO2 emissions released when creating materials and relevant structures needed in a project such as new concrete or metal used in parking facilities or a new hangar at the airport. Embodied emissions for the airport are estimated to be 636,000 tonnes of CO2.

It adds: “A majority of the construction work on the airport infrastructure is complete by Year 2 in time for opening”

The emissions released from the day to day running of the airport on the ground are estimated at a total 9,000 tonnes of CO2e per year. This is calculated from the buildings that will be in operation at the airport. Ground support equipment will release 400 tonnes of CO2e in year 2 and 1,800 tonnes of CO2e in year 20.

The report adds: “RSP has committed to become net zero in their on the ground operations within 5 years of opening (by 2030), which will address these operational emissions.”

Emission estimates from extra car and bus journeys and from the lorries delivering and collecting freight from the airport totals 13,900 tonnes per year. These could possibly increase to 36,000 tonnes of CO2 in year 20 due to increased business.

The report says: “The overwhelming majority of airport greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions arise from the combustion of fuel in the cruise and landing and take-off cycle of aircraft.”

The Manston airport site Photo Frank Leppard

These emissions are estimated in the report at 221,800 tonnes of CO2 per year from year 2 possibly rising to 730,000 tonnes of CO2 per year in the 20th year of operation – the report notes that figure is without the use of sustainable aviation fuel.

TDC’s climate advisory group was told: “According to the RSP report, in year 20 of operations, due to the predicted increase in flights, the aircraft will create significantly more emissions than the whole of Thanet from all sectors put together (730,100 tonnes of CO2 from the aircraft compared to 499,100 tonnes of CO2 from the whole of Thanet).

“Simply as an illustration of the volume of emissions created, the report set out an analysis of offsetting the aircraft emissions. It was noted that to offset new emissions from the aircraft in the second year, 1,109 hectares of woodland needed to be planted that year and every year after. This is the equivalent of 1,478 football pitches each year.

“19,962 hectares of woodland would need to be planted to fully offset emissions (1,109 hectares x 18 years). Thanet is 10,000 hectares in size, so a woodland area equivalent to twice the size of Thanet would be needed to offset these new aircraft emissions.”

Aviation offsetting would not be the responsibility of Thanet council as UK Government is responsible for the reduction of emissions from airports, ports and military transport

RSP says it will develop a Carbon Minimisation Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the airport.

TDC has resolved to keep a watching brief on the adherence to the low emission plan at Manston airport.

Members of the committee agreed to invite RSP to a future council meeting, pending correct procedural rules being followed.

Tony Freudmann of RSP

Tony Freudmann, from RSP, says the report to Thanet council contained “several errors.”

He said: “The report makes several errors in overestimating the airport’s carbon emissions and then assesses how to offset emissions most of which do not even apply.

“For example, the report acknowledges the commitment RSP has made that Manston ground operations will be net zero within five years of opening on page three, but then ignores that in calculating offsets on page six.

“Equally, the report acknowledges that aircraft emissions do not count towards Thanet’s carbon footprint on pages two and five, but then goes on to assess them as if they did in the following sections.

“On this basis, it is hard to see how its findings can offer any useful contribution to discussions.”

The RSP response to Thanet Green Party says: “As part of RSP’s Redetermination Submission as requested by the Secretary of State for the Manston Airport DCO, RSP reiterated the commitment made during the examination to be a net zero airport within five years of opening (by 2030).

“As a new airport, unburdened by old infrastructure and ground support equipment, Manston Airport is uniquely positioned to deliver a net zero carbon operation.

“The Jet Zero Strategy, published in July 2022, requires all airport operations in England to be zero emission by 2040, with the scope and implementation route to be defined following further consultation.”

Mitigation proposals submitted by RSP as part of the DCO process include:

  • A strict routeing agreement for incoming and outgoing HGVs, avoiding, where possible, peak traffic flow hours in order to reduce congestion and queuing.
  • Planning of aircraft arrival and departure scheduling to avoid, where possible, over-long idling, taxiing and hold times.
  • Airfield layout design to minimise times taxiing and holding.
  • Use of Fixed Electrical Ground Power (FEGP) to minimise engine/Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) use.
  • Bans on older, dirtier aircraft
  • Operation of a Ground Support Equipment fleet which will be fully electric (zero emission) by Year 20.
  • Design of Jet-A1 fuel tanks to minimise release of vapour to ambient air

Thanet Green Party councillor Kevin Pressland says tree planting is not the best solution for carbon offsetting, which he branded as “greenwash.”

Instead, he says the use of hemp blocks in new build developments should be considered.

He said: “If sadly the judicial review supports the Manston Airport proposed development it is clear some other way of absorbing that atmospheric carbon has to be immediately enacted.

“As Greens we would propose a percentage of Hemp Blocks into all the new builds underway/proposed in Thanet and beyond.

“These hemp blocks sequester atmospheric carbon into the building and would also support an important break crop in a farmer’s rotation, this would also help to sequester more carbon into the soil by building soil fertility and vitality.

“We would urge the government to support such initiatives. This will likely not address the full co2 emissions the airport would produce, so while carbon offsetting rules do not allow for funding methods that would long term reduce carbon emissions like renewable energy in the form of solar panels and air source heat pumps on all new builds, as Greens we would encourage the government to enable RSP to fund these on all new builds of houses and commercial enterprises in Thanet and beyond.

“Once these systems work they will reduce carbon emissions and reduce the fossil fuel requirement that most houses are still reliant on. We would also urge eco insulation on all new builds and the reduced emissions achieved factored in as a form of carbon sequestration.

“Just to be very clear the Greens have always opposed this proposed airport, but will be pragmatic if it becomes a reality.

“Whilst I cannot speak for the Labour party I hope they are in agreement with our thinking on this matter.”

UK climate targets

Internationally, the UK has committed to climate targets under the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement provides for the international community to keep the increase in global average temperature to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.

Domestically, the UK government has legal targets committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, along with a series of interim carbon budgets (each covering a 5-year period) paving the trajectory towards the net zero target.

Recently, the UK announced the Sixth Carbon Budget level (2033-37) , equivalent to reducing emissions by around 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels.

In 2022, emissions from international aviation fuel use from UK bunkers were estimated to be 26.0 MtCO2e. This was nearly double the 2021 figure, when it was 13.3 MtCO2e, but was still 29.3% lower than in 2019, when it was 36.7 MtCO2e, which was the highest annual figure since these estimates begin in 1990.

In 2019, domestic and international aviation accounted for around 8% of UK CO2 equivalent emissions. Globally aviation’s CO2 accounted for 2.4% of emissions.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the UK are provisionally estimated to have decreased by 2.4% in 2022 from 2021, to 331.5 million tonnes (Mt), and total greenhouse gas emissions by 2.2% to 417.1 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e).

Cars, buses, trains, trucks, ships and planes, (unless electric and charged with renewable energy), all produce emissions by burning fossil fuels. In the UK, transport is the biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for 27% of emissions in 2019, mostly from cars.

Net Zero strategy

The briefing followed an update on Thanet council’s Net Zero strategy.

Thanet District Council pledged to make the council net zero by 2030 in the core carbon footprint. This included emissions the council has direct control over, for example the estates and activities.

A net zero directors groups had been set up specifically to address the core emissions, and to aim to achieve net zero by 2030.

The greatest emissions from Thanet as a whole stood with transport and emissions from homes.

A decision from the Royal Courts of Justice over whether correct process was followed in issuing a development consent order for Manston airport is awaited following a hearing which took place at the High Court on July 4-5.


  1. It’s ok, RSP will have air powered aircraft that not only use no fuel but give free electricity into the grid !!

  2. I would like to add, what this would be equivalent to if this was to be turned into a housing development. I can assure you, the raw data would be shocking. Just the sheer plant used is too much. Not enough investment is going into construction or air fields for sustainability.

    Hardcore facts even just producing concrete and the basic ingredients for sand and cement will be higher than running an airport.

    How our society has become so naive to what’s even in front of us. Like magicians, we are a blindsided society with false integrations of actual facts. Just look at the COSHH data sheets, that would be enough to them dig a little further.

    • Darril once a construction site is finished thats it, it doesn’t continue to pollute, certainly not as much as an airport, but lets see what credentials Freudman has to be an environmental expert. I am going to quote from a national magazine as follows RSP’s frontman “is Tony Freudman who has been involved in failed attempts to run an airport at Manston . He was struck off as a solicitor in the 1990’s for dipping into clients accounts”. However, Dr Hannah Scott is a professional environmental expert, well qualified to prepare an Environmental Statement. So in my opinion Freudman as a struck off solicitor should keep his trap shut because he has no professional knowledge of environmental matters!

      Incidentally, RSP’s mother company is and I quote again from the same source “a subsidiary of US firm Riveroak Investment Corp, which aimed to build a freight airport. ….its website says its focus is on real estate investments”. So, RSP’s main investment interest is construction, it has no experience in running an airport, Duuurh!

    • You seem to be ignoring the fact that the houses are coming anyway, hence if Manston ever sees commercial aviation (HIGHLY unlikely) it’s will be houses PLUS a cargo airport 😉

      “Hardcore facts even just producing concrete and the basic ingredients for sand and cement will be higher than running an airport.”

      What do you think any development of Manston will be built from I wonder?

      “How our society has become so naive to what’s even in front of us” your post really does demonstrates that very nicely.

      Dumpton, you hit the nail right on the head!!

  3. Air moves. All around the planet.
    Whether or not Manston has an airport, the same amount of air freight will enter and leave the U.K.
    Not having the airport at Manston won’t make a ha’penth of difference.
    Other than to a carbon offset accountant.

    What’s the total carbon footprint of administering all the world’s carbon credit fraud?🙄

    • “Whether or not Manston has an airport, the same amount of air freight will enter and leave the U.K.”
      In other words, there’s no need for Manston.

      • Quite.
        Unfortunately, the Pentagon thinks otherwise about the airstrip.
        Whatever does go there needs must accommodate N.A.T.O.’s widest European emergency landing strip.

        • What are you smoking Harry ?

          You believe the yanks want little old manston as a emergency landing strip lol. Not sure where you are getting this from, have you any links ?

          If manston was that important the government wouldnt have allowed the RAF to move out !.

          Personally I hate the idea the yanks having a say in our country.

          Anyway independent reviews report no need for manston and it wont be economic.
          No a report saying their carbon footprint is rubbish.

          Yet the supporters of RSP keep blindly believe them !

          Are RSP still planning to use electric barges to take the cargo by sea once its landed at manston lol. I thought the idea of a cargo hub was to move goods around quickly and efficiently. How long will a barge take to get to the Midlands ? Will the canals be big enough ?
          Or like the thanet way and M2 being made 4 lane, I havent heard anything from the government about all this infrastructure that is needed for manston. Not even from our tory MP’s

  4. Dr Scott has laboured formidably with her slide rule extrapolations BUT, coincidentally, there is a feature in today’s Times “Up, up and away in an eco-friendly blended-wing jet” which emphasises breathtaking developments at a minnow called Jet Zero which has stolen a march (flight) on the Big Boys with their vested interests (Airbus/Boeing.) The USAAF has contracted a $235 millions deal – ‘If you think back to the 1990s, oil was cheaper and there was much less concern about climate change. Now both of those issues are front and centre, oil is expensive and the aviation industry has a pressing need to tackle its emissions. And for the big companies there is risk involved : if you are making money selling your existing designs, why endanger that ?’ The USAAF contract envisages a full-scale demonstrator in 2027 … what some people have missed about the air force deal is that they want us to produce a civilian design that will then have military applications, whether it is for transport or air to air refuelling’. ‘There is a real potential in this technology to help increase fuel-efficiency significantly. That’s going to lead to improvements in not just the efficiency and capability of our force, but also on our impact on the climate’ (says US Secretary of the Air Force.)
    Of course, Manston is envisaged as substantially a high-value freight operation which I always understood to be symbiotic with Thanet Parkway (which given the decline in commuting habits must welcome the advent of an airport client next door.) Offset from all parties would of course be most welcome as part of Corporate Social Responsibility.
    It would be interesting to see a similar Net Zero exercise conducted for Port Ramsgate which will be highly dependent on lorry traffic – and also on Thanet North Link Road where the apparent £60 millions ‘on offer’ would surely be better strategically spent on expressing the link to Dover rather than encouraging private car use (tyres emit as well as engines.) And in the same Net Zero vein a similar exercise comparing ‘greenfield’ estates lacking community infrastructure with concentration on existing ‘brownfields’ within walking distance of shops (e g Westwood Cross which needs a radical rethink for the Local Plan – depending on whether we have sufficient water security as we continue to deplete the aquifers apace.)
    It is surprising that probably the worst light polluter in the country has apparently never been risk assessed for biodiversity impact and adequacy of mitigation – a case for the newish Office for the Protection of the Environment.
    Finally, as I know Dr Scott is well aware, it’s not just ‘trees’ per se but what’s underfoot – I have a book for her (Tangled Web) which points out that fungi are major potential contributors to ‘carbon capture’. So, dear readers, start breeding your truffle hounds now.

    The alternative isn’t going to lie in leaving Manston to rot away over the next few centuries.

    • “Of course, Manston is envisaged as substantially a high-value freight operation which I always understood to be symbiotic with Thanet Parkway (which given the decline in commuting habits must welcome the advent of an airport client next door.) Offset from all parties would of course be most welcome as part of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Parkway was never envisaged as being compatible with a freight hub. It is a commuter train station to service all the new houses. Whoever sold you on that idea?

    • Interesting stuff with jet zero and a demonstrator in just 4 short years……

      I think you need to look at how accurate costs and timescales of US military aviation projects have been down the years, then you might not be quite so enthusiastic/naive about USAF (the USAAF ceased to exist in 1947), defence department and contractor projections for cost as timescales. Try looking at the pain involved in the C5, F111, B1a, B1b, F14, C141 projects to name just 6, and you might want to rethink your optimistic outlook for Jet Zero

  5. Well who would have thought it ?
    Their cargo airport is going to be a polluting beast and their claims of becoming net zero are something out of a fairy tale.
    The least surprising news ever. Well done to TDC for publicly calling them out on it.
    PS If anyone wants a real laugh, dig out the radio interview that Freudmann did when he was trying to justify their net zero claims. It’s so obvious he hasn’t got a clue what he is talking about I actually started to feel a bit sorry for him. Painful.

    • I don’t know why some people are so keen on a new airport near Ramsgate when there is no need for one.

      • It’s a shame they closed the airport they had back in the 30s, ditto the seafront train station, ditto the hoverport, ditto the ferry service. No wonder the place is looking like Newport in Gwent these days!

        • They all failed Ms Pink (aka Peter Checksfield) due to lack of demand, as did Manston at least 4 times! There are several existing airports with spare capacity, Southend is one, and West Midland I believe, all better located. The 2 chocolate tea pots MP’s for Thanet are trying to promote Manston because they think it will win them some votes, but once people know it will be no passenger use, they vote against it, see the last local election results!

  6. Dr Scott has failed to include most of everything on the ground will be powered by electricity or Hydrogen, neither emitting any carbon. so this huge hole in this report blows it out of the water created by the Hydrogen run lorries.

    • I rather think that Dr Scott’s interpretations are more reasonable than those of a struck-off solicitor, when it comes to environmental concerns.

      • Andrew


        I find it bizarre that pro manston believe a struck-off solicitor. Personally I wouldn’t trust him with 50p yet people think investors are going to trust him with 500 million !

    • conversely RSP have conveniently ignored all the aircraft, HGVs and passengers using said new airpit

    • Dr Scott was using RSP’s own data, submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
      Any shortcomings are entirely down to RSP.

  7. Net Zero, or any other climate strategy without China joining is meaningless and only puts the UK at an economic disadvantage. Additionally, I find it quite ironic that the Green Party backs this Net Zero nonsense since trees and plants breath CO2.

      • 🤣🤣🤣 China is the biggest polluter in the world if we don’t even contribute 1% of what they create create fakes lies again Andrew I would love to know your line of work I’m guessing b&b or building houses?

        this report was was created for JD as she managed to post about it before it was even released bet she was hoping for it to be created before her trial date labour are really doing Thanet in already such a shame there is also so many mistakes in it the report is not worth the paper it was written on I wonder how much we paid for it??

    • Assume you never buy anything that is manufactured in China then ?

      We’re all part of their problem.

      • It depends very much on how goods are moved from China to the UK. Plane, ship, or train.
        But yes, the UK should not have flogged off its industry to the East.

        • It is always both cheaper and more energy efficient to produce goods where the raw materials for them are to be found. Europe long ago used the majority of what it had. Ergo its people used what they had to conquer overseas empires.
          As Peter Francopan quite clearly indicates, Asia has always contained three fifths of both the World’s people and resources.

    • The problem with common sense is its not very common! Trees absorb CO’2 you idiot, they don’t produce it!

  8. As was said earlier Building old and new still produce more than the airport would especially when house’s being built now do not meet the new standards that come into force in 2025, that’s why so many are being now. It’s down to cost because come 2025 house prices will increase again to cover higher costs. To be frank the airport will be cleaner than Thanet. Transport is becoming cleaner than house building so house’s need updating now and older buildings need varst improvements. One reason landlords are selling up rather than invest in bring homes to new standards

  9. Wow, ANOTHER report showing RSP’s claims are total nonsense. When are the people of Thanet going to wake up. The only part coming from RSP which is correct is their assertions that the emissions will be lower because, in all honesty, who is going to sink £500 million (and rising) on an airport which experts agree won’t work. Follow the money, someone’s making money off this farce. By now something more beneficial could have been built but we’re stuck in this mindset of polluting cargo hub or houses.

  10. Sorry Andrew but concrete is the most polluting building material. To produce 1 ton of concrete does equal 1 ton of CO2. That’s why so much money has been invested in trying to reduce it pollution

          • It is absolutely certain that the current episode of global warming is caused by human activity. I’ll explain it to you if you like, or you could (as we are so often urged to) do your own research.
            Your opinion doesn’t matter, really. TDC, KCC, the UK government and 150 other world governments (including China) are taking it seriously.

  11. I have always hated ‘speculation’ based on, well not ‘fact’.
    Our Press is full of it… If you can’t find a good story, Invent one.
    How does anybody know (factually) what damage could be done? It’s all guess work!.
    It’s all speculation!
    I can speculate too – when Manston re-opens as an Airport, 90% of our local population will be happy that something positive has been accomplished in Thanet.

    • Which bits are “speculation”, and which bits “fact”?
      HGVs emit CO2 is a fact.
      Production of building materials produces CO2 is a fact.
      Aircraft emit CO2 – fact.
      Dr Scott’s analysis is based upon RSP’s own data, submitted to the PI. Are you suggesting that RSP’s projections are fantasy?

  12. I would love to fly from manston
    I want to go to Amsterdam. Last time I went I drove my car from thanet to Gatwick. Found my parking. Waited three hours for my delayed flight. Flew fourty five minutes to land in Amsterdam. Total journey time six hours. I wounder how much my carbon footprint would be for this journey ???

    • Far far more than if you travelled by Eurostar.
      I don’t think your personal travel requirements are any justification for opening a cargo airport.
      When Manston failed, it had been a passenger airport. But too few people flew from it to make it viable.

    • Kind Human – It is quicker to drive there than go to Gatwick in the opposite direction and wait for a flight first.

  13. If we listened to any/all jumped up predictions like these no one would do anything,
    Thanet progressing and thriving? Now we can’t have that – lets make up as much negativity as we can and stop everything and everyone.
    Just build more housing for the DFLs to buy – Oh and cut Policing, NHS/Doctors surgeries, fire etc and add more to the already struggling sewerage systems and other utilities – Get that Airport up & running ASAP for all our sakes!

    • I agree entirely. The woke, nimby DFL’s have come down here with their lottery winnings (from selling their council flat in Finchley for £3/4 million quid) and want to stop all and any progress that might benefit the local economy and real local people. As long as they can sit in all the new DFL-targetted cafes drinking their Kopi coffee, reading the Guardian with their metropolitan-elite, blinkered mindset they don’t care for anyone else and never will.

  14. SO much information on Carbon emissions yet ignoring the worst for residents who will be daily sprayed by low aircraft flying over our town on the same path every few minutes. There are hundreds of medical reports on this threat from the UK and the WHO, this is the greater threat to those in the vicinity of busy airfields (here is a short cutting).Every Breath We Take: the Lifelong Impact of Air Pollution by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), in which they state Each year, inhaling particulates causes around 29,000 deaths in the UK, which, on recent evidence, may rise to around 40,000 deaths when also considering nitrogen dioxide exposure This report, it turns out, combined 29,000 ‘attributable deaths’ from PM2.5 (particulates less than 2.5 micrometers) estimated in a report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) in 2009, and 23,500 attributable deaths from NO2 (nitrogen dioxide, from a report from the Pollution by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), in which they state Each year, inhaling particulates causes around 29,000 deaths in the UK, which, on recent evidence, may rise to around 40,000 deaths when also considering nitrogen dioxide exposure This report, it turns out, combined 29,000 ‘attributable deaths’ from PM2.5 (particulates less than 2.5 micrometers) estimated in a report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) in 2009, and 23,500 attributable deaths from NO2 (nitrogen dioxide, from a report from the RCP.

  15. TF “Equally, the report acknowledges that aircraft emissions do not count towards Thanet’s carbon footprint on pages two and five, but then goes on to assess them as if they did in the following sections.” So what happens to them do they magically disappear ??

  16. I do hope the learned researcher took into account that by year by year 18 most aircraft will run on alternative, non polluting fuels such as electric or hydrogen. And what a shame the current council is allowing all the massive house building developments in Thanet to go ahead, both increasing the amount of emissions as well as preventing the planting g of trees to offset the pollution!!!

    • The idea that in a few years’ time most aircraft will run on electricity or hydrogen is a nice one, but very wide of the mark.
      Currently, there are no such commercially viable options. Hydrogen is expensive to manufacture and difficult to store. Batteries are very heavy and not very efficient.
      Meanwhile, petroleum companies are spending 10 times as much on oil and gas extraction and exploration as they do on alternative fuels.

      • And you get your data from ,many aircraft manufacturers and aircraft engine makers,are working of other fuels, just because they don’t have a hotline to you!!!, Or do they ,does not mean ,research ,is not ,going on

        • Yes, research is going on.
          No, there are no commercially viable aircraft powered by anything other than fossil fuelled jet engines.

      • You are obviously not aware that hydrogen powered aircraft are already a thing as are electric powered ones. Within 15 years there will be a switch to these power systems which will be complete within 20 years. Advances in both battery storage and hydrogen generation will be astounding over the next ten years. And the added benefit of these new types of power systems is that the aircraft will be much quieter as well.

        • Jet engines can burn hydrogen. True.
          But where does the hydrogen come from?
          It doesn’t occur naturally on Earth.
          So, it’s either produced from a fossil fuel – which isn’t “green” at all; or it’s produced by electrolysis of water – which requires vast amounts of electricity. And just where will that come from? Currently there isn’t enough green electricity to meet existing domestic and industrial, never mind e-vehicles.
          And battery technology is too far away from providing the energy to weight ratio that aircraft need. And even if you did, you still have the problem of where to get all that electricity to charge all those batteries for all those aircraft.

          • Andrew showing your lack of knowledge again hydrogen is produced in the same way that your batter is charged so now are you finally admitting that charging electric cars are bad for the environment as hydrogen does not need anywhere near the amount of heavy metals even Elon musk has admitted that hydrogen is the way forward.

            Ow dear Andrew yet another lie you seem to be getting caught out a bit here don’t you

    • They won’t. Even the Government’s most optimistic target in their Jet Zero strategy is that emissions from flights will reduce by 50% by 2050 due to alternative fuels being used.

      • “Lord help ..” etc:
        I know how hydrogen is produced. If you read my posting you’ll see I referred to “electrolysis:. This is not quite the same as charging your batter (sic), but indeed each requires electricity.
        Where does that electricity come from? We only generate about 50% of our existing needs in a “green” sort of way. Where will the rest come from, sufficient to charge up e cars or electrolyte hydrogen?
        It would be appreciated if you could manage to keep a civil tongue in your head, should you choose to reply.

        • As normal Andrew you don’t like it when people point out that your wrong i simply answered your question “But where does the hydrogen come from?”

          I have spoke to you in a civil way I have seen you be far more aggressive especially if they are for the airport most now don’t comment for fear of being attacked it’s a shame as views can’t be heard unless they believe your line i ask how is that fare?

          • It’s the airport supporters who have been aggressive, ridiculously insulting and thoroughly unpleasant to those who don’t want an airport near Ramsgate. Not the other way round.

    • The housing targets are government figures, not the councils.

      There’s this strange notion that by planting a few trees it will be OK to carry on burning fossil fuels.

      It doesn’t add up.

      For example, an “average” tree will absorb 25kg CO2 a year.
      A flight from UK to USA will emit 900kg per person. In other words, 36 trees would have to be planted to soak up the CO2 of one passenger, on a one way trip.
      For 200 passengers making a return trip, that would require 14,000 trees to be planted. And replaced, when they died and decayed.
      That’s just for 1 flight.
      RSP anticipates 17,000 flights a year.
      You do the sums. It gets scary!

  17. TF “For example, the report acknowledges the commitment RSP has made that Manston ground operations will be net zero within five years of opening on page three, but then ignores that in calculating offsets on page six.” It’s a new airport so why not from day one ?? As usual with TF it’s all spin

    • How much is this person being paid? Surely the money could be spent on something more useful like road sweepers?

  18. As always from the Pink Checksfield, we get the banal. Why road sweepers, why not social housing, but even then it will require a sustainable climate for road sweepers to operate under?
    Thanet is not exactly short of pollution,as the urban sprawl created by the big 6 builders and TDC planning office is substantial enough for anyone, so why the mad rush to make it worse?
    We can forget all the fantasy stuff about novel forms of aviation, if this scheme ever gets the green light, it will be well used cargo planes, with older generation jet engines.
    Even if by some miracle,RSP can persuade any cargo airline to use Manston,it will be for consignments that E.Midlands, or other established cargo hubs, can’t or don’t want to handle at a rock bottom price.This means that secondary operators will be the only takers.
    All the Climate change officer is doing is estimating the likely outcome.I am sure the airport experts here, will second guess her estimates, but I would suggest that her knowledge and training might be slightly better than theirs.

  19. Climate change what a load of rubbish and to find out we employ a climate change officer buy him a shovel to remove the seaweed he has nothing else to do.
    If a cargo airport can make a profit WITHOUT council tax inducement what’s the problem.

    • What’s the problem?
      Where to begin.
      Manston, in its various civilian guises, has never made a profit. It has benefited directly from public funding to the tune of almost £1M, and goodness knows how much indirectly.
      If the DCO is granted, and contrary to almost every expert opinion actually is successful, then Ramsgate’s towns folk will endure 24×7 noise and pollution. The CEO of RSP acknowledged that this would have an effect on both the well being and economy of Ramsgate.

      • Do you know for certain what pronoun they use? All it says is “Dr”.

        (For some reason, people on here get my chosen gender wrong too!)

      • That’s half the problem with these things.
        People don’t read or don’t understand the piece. But that doesn’t stop them from writing some rather ill-informed opinion.

  20. More green rubbish to help the decline of Thanet – a technique that has been used for many decades to stop any signs of Thanet becoming prosperous.

    Yet another overpaid TDC employee for council tax payers to fund. How do we getTDC to understand taxpayers do not want to fund overpaid environmental idiots.

    • This “green rubbish” is an international movement, supported by scientists, universities, industry and over 150 nations.
      Ate you seriously suggesting that these institutions are conspiring together to scupper Thanet?
      Goodness! To imagine that our little local authority is such a big player on the world stage!

      • There are millions of muslims in the world (as indeed there are Christians), but that doesn’t mean whatever they are preaching is true either.

        As for industry, there is a lot of money to made by making out to be green. Ask Sadiq Khan, and the motoring industry that supports him for forcing people to buy new cars!

        Anyway, I’m off for a drive in my old Ford Zepher mk IV (lovely column gear change and bench seat).

        • There is a lovely pink Ford Zephyr mk 4 parked up in Sweyn Road, Cliftonville. Must be yours then ! Would be too coincidental not to be really. How many can there be in Thanet?

      • This green rubbish is the product of the rantings of an under-educated school girl (for under-educated read almost zero schooling) that has been used by the ‘green’ lobby to make themselves billionaires on the back of bad data and suspect science. ‘Green’ is the new name for grasping carpetbagging.

        • Alex Peters doesn’t seem to know much about climate change but even if he did, there is no need to be so rude about Greta Thunberg, who is rightly concerned, along with thousands of other young people, with the consequences of current human behaviour.

          • There’s absolutely nothing to be concerned about. I’m not, and hopefully neither are my daughters or grandchildren.

    • Everyone working for TDC is overpaid. Their collective productivity is zilch.
      If we want Thanet to prosper we need a complete change in the council chamber and to sack every single TDC employee and possibly “consider” their re-employment on the back of realistic performance-related salaries, no nore subsidised pension plans and working a 40 day week IN THE OFFICE.
      This would give us the opportunity to rid the island of what must be the most useless public services in the country.

  21. ANOTHER report showing Manston is destined never to operate as an airport in any meaningful way yet again.

    How many more reports will it take for the “coz airport” zealots wo finally wake up and smell the coffee?

  22. A few thousand homes when built will continue to pollute the sky and ground more the an airport will ever do. The traffic for a start , how many cars per family? Sewage waste, home waste to the tip, what tip,? electricity to all the homes with modern appliances made from plastic etc don’t forget the schools and the delivery services they require. Need I go on. Personally I would like to sit outside the Spitfire Cafe and watch the world go by.

    • Absolutely correct Fred.
      If T.D.C. is really serious about the Green agenda it should do a survey of the dite with a view to arboriculture. Grow trees. Encourage wildlife, etc.
      This could work with a freight hub, the cafe and “Green” the site/borough.

    • The houses we get, anyway, airport or no airport. Plus all the associated problems with stage, car pollution and so on.
      If there is an airport as well, then in addition to the problems caused by housing there will be the pollution caused by planes flying in and out, vehicles bringing the 1000s of staff too and fro, vehicles bringing in aviation fuel, and vehicles needed to truck the huge (allegedly) volume of freight flown in and out.

  23. The point about the USAAF cultivating new technology in the face of ‘vested interests’ is reminiscent of the foot dragging by the large motor manufacturers – until TESLA crept in and shook things up. Now they are all falling over themselves to go EV. The future is accelerating.
    Which isn’t to say that Dr Scott’s appreciation is without merit : we may only need to afforest Thanet 5 times over instead of 10.
    And we should not neglect the environmental cost of Port Ramsgate, Thanet North Link Road and opportunities for making better use of Westwood ((solar farms on car parks, more residentialisation). So plenty to keep Dr S happy as part of the (inter)national Net Zero drive.
    We also rather need to sort out water resources – can’t wait for SWater’s next 5 Year Plan (forget desal, reservoirs in 20 years, PLUTO – Pipe Line Under The Overground but from where? a nice Pont du Sturry aqueduct ?) We may be better off promoting cabbages rather than concrete in the interests of food security (and FX so forget kiwi fruit ?)
    Just maybe the days of mass overseas tourism and private cars are drawing to a close and we should be managing decline (at least in local population) to reflect new climate realities – a great future for more public transport and the annual charabanc outing to Margate lies not far ahead ?

  24. Lot of concrete to fill all the tunnel workings under Manston. A few low mileage American trucks going cheap.

Comments are closed.