An interesting insight into the mind of the would be planner here:
But at the core of this plan is a much more worrying assumption. It is that we can continue to justify building the aircraft themselves, and still meet climate change requirements. And it is also assumed that we can continue to consume as if the planet can forever sustain our every desire. Neither of those assumptions is in any way consistent with the demands that the planet is actually imposing on us to consume less.
Aviation’s about 2% of emissions. We can handle that continuing. Even if we want to get to net zero there are extraction methods available to balance that – forests, pasture, iron fertilisation, all sorts of things. There’s also the possibility of changing the fuel of course. If we ever get to green hydrogen – something we can already do at a price – then synthetic avgas is easy enough chemistry.
But the planner:
Climate change has not changed that. The plan is instead that flying will continue on the basis of new fuels or other hydrogen or electric-powered aircraft.
Do I think that is likely? Candidly, I do not. I see no chance of that change happening: if it was going to I think we would be seeing a lot more progress than the very limited number of experimental battery-powered aircraft of extraordinarily limited capacity now being trialled.
The planner can’t see it happening. Therefore:
And yes, whilst I mention it, this is a reason for sustainable cost accounting. That accounting system is deliberately designed to inject reality into business decision making. Gatwick seeks to be basing its thinking on fantasies. Something ash to bring it down to the ground.
The planner is going to estimate the costs of each individual business becoming carbon neutral including Scope 3 emissions. The planner can’t see how this can be done. Therefore the planner would declare this business to be carbon insolvent based upon the planner’s “I see no chance of that change happening”. For this is what sustainable cost accounting does. It puts the planner and his auditor, including their limited knowledge, in charge of what economic activity is allowed to continue.
Subjectivism based upon ignorance might not be the best way of running the world.