Airports and Pollution

RESEARCH PAPER 9

Environmental Consequences of an Airport on the Pickering Federal Lands

August 2019 Contents

Airports and Pollution: Executive Summary / 2

1 Aviation’s Pollution Trail / 3

2 Types of Aviation-Caused Pollution / 4

3 Are Things Changing for the Better? Growth Forecasts, Emissions Reduction, Alternative Fuels / 11

4 Environmental Consequences of an Airport on the Pickering Federal Lands / 16

5 Airports and National Parks / 25

6 The Greenwashing of Airports / 26

Sources / 29

1 Airports and Pollution: Executive Summary

Section 1 of this paper gives a very brief overview of aviation’s history and growth. Deemed today an essential contributor to the global economy and to planet-wide connectivity, aviation is also a source of health risks and significant environmental damage. Every commercial flight in history has caused pollution. The global fleet burns through more than 5.4 million barrels of fossil jet-fuel daily and more than 1.5 billion barrels annually, all contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Airports, for their part, not only make those emissions possible but also create pollution of their own.

Section 2 describes airport-caused light pollution, noise pollution, water and soil pollution, air pollution, and heat pollution, explaining what the pollutants are and how they can harm the environment and human health. The information has largely come from government sources and from studies carried out over the past two decades in North America, Europe, and Asia.

Section 3 looks at aviation’s passenger growth expectations, its emissions-reduction plans, and its efforts to switch to alternative (non-fossil) fuels. The aim to accommodate predicted customer demand (doubling passenger numbe rs by 2029 or 2035) wil l clearly keep the sector from meeting or even coming close to meeting, its emissions-reduction targets. Electric planes are in their infancy and without major and unexpected advances in battery development will be limited in range and carrying capacity for the fore - seeable future. Carbon offsetting schemes to limit emissions have proven unreliable at best and do not lower emissions (they just shift responsibility elsewhere). Scaling up the sourcing and processing of alternative fuels to meet commercial demand presents multiple hurdles. Taking fields out of food produc - tion in order to grow alternative-fuel crops raises ethical issues at a time when human population numbers are unprecedented and still rising. Alternative fuels, themselves not emissions-free, are more expensive to produce than fossil jet-fuel. There is no clear pathway to a future in which aviation is fully powered by clean and sustainable alternative fuels.

Section 4 looks at the environmental consequences of putting an airport on the Pickering Federal Lands. It assumes an airport layout along the lines of the preferred version in the 2004 Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report . A similar layout was used in 2015 by Transport Canada when drafting new zoning regulations to reflect the transfer of several thousand acres of the site to Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP). This section describes how light, noise, water, soil, and air pollution caused by a Pickering airport would or could afflict (sometimes considerably or even disastrously) the national park and the residents of surround - ing communities, where everyday life would be noticeably altered. A map shows the proposed runways and their approaches, out to 20 nautical miles. A table shows a sampling of public facilities in surrounding communities that would be most affected by the noise of arriving and departing planes.

Section 5 shows that an airport and a national park do not mix. In Pickering’s case, all that would separate them physically would be the airport fence. RNUP’s mandate would be fatally undermined.

Section 6 looks at airport proponents’ oft-touted idea of a “green airport” for Pickering, and shows why any airport, even if designed to be environmentally friendly, cannot, by its very nature, be green. The other idea that is being promoted, that greenhouses and indoor agriculture on an airport site would provide it with green credentials, is shown to be a misconception. Such facilities are electricity hogs. On the Pickering site, the cost to heat and light them would render their produce uncompetitive. Unless powered by renewable energy, greenhouses and “indoor farms” aren’t green. And even if powered by renewable energy, they don’t make an airport green. Nothing does.

2 1 Aviation’s Pollution Trail

Aviation is a fast-growing sector of the economy. It is associated with a number of social and economic beneﬁts and a range of environmentally damaging consequences. It is also associated with a signiﬁcant and growing contribution to the global inventory of greenhouse gases.. . [1]

Despite the many positives emerging from the rapid expansion of the air transport sector, all activities relating to airport operations lead to environmental contamination . [2]

The first airplanes were environmentally friendly gliders. But environmental friendliness lasted just a moment in time. In 1903 , when the Wright Flyer 1 took to the air , it was powered by a purpose-built , 12-hp gasoline engine. Piston and radial engines were joined in the late 1930s by jet engines, followed by all their subsequent permutations and technological advances. It wasn’t until after WWII that air travel became widely available to the general public. Civil aviation – that is, scheduled air transport (both passenger and cargo) and general aviation (everything else, except for military) – has never looked back .

Today, our planet is dotted with tens of thousands of airports, large and small. Existing facilities are constantly being expanded and new airports are being built every year, responding to and deepening a worldwide reliance on national and international air service . In January 2017, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) released preliminary global figures indicating that a total of 3.7 billion passengers had used scheduled services during 2016, translating into some 35 million aircraft departures worldwide. As for cargo that year, the ICAO claimed that over 90% of cross-border business-to-consumer e-commerce was carried by air transport . [3]

Aviation is now deemed essential both to the global economy and to planet-wide connectivity. But the increased connectivity has come with drawbacks, not least health risks and significant industry-caused environmental damage. Every powered commercial aircraft since 1903 has relied on fossil fuel to lift it into the skies. Every flight has been a source of pollution. By 2012, world jet fuel consumption was 5.4 million barrels daily . [4] The International Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) has reported (italics added) that “the aviation industry consumes around 1.5 billion barrels of Jet A-1 fuel annually. ” [5] And the ICAO admitted almost a decade ago that the industry was already responsible for “at least 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions ” [6] – a reckoning that didn’t take into account other types of pollution (call it collateral damage) generated by aircraft and airports.

That wider picture is covered in the following pages.

3 2 Types of Aviation-Caused Pollution

Airport operations are an important factor in our economy, for tourism, imports, exports and business. However, these beneﬁts must be weighed against the impact air travel is having on the quality of life of increasing numbers of people and on the local and global environment. Noise and air pollution – both from aircraft and from airport ground operations – are a problem for those who live, work and study around airports . [7]

The excerpt above comes from a UK report that focussed on two types of aviation pollution – noise and air. But there are other types and we describe all of them in this section.

Light Pollution

Airports are big users of artificial light, brightening the nights in their locale and usually relying on electricity generated by fossil fuels , thus contributing to climate change as well as to light pollution. According to one UK news report:

Light pollution from Gatwick makes parts of Sussex skies some of the brightest in the country. Outside London, Crawley is the sixth-brightest district based on average light levels, largely caused by the nearby airport . [8]

Lost in the glare is the fact that artificial night light isn’t benign. It has negative, often serious, effects on the behaviour of wildlife and plants, and is so disruptive to many species that it can prove fatal . [9]

Noise Pollution

In 2008, Deutches Ärtzeblatt International published the article “Health Consequences of Aircraft Noise. ” [10] It reported on a number of investigations, and found that “the most informative new studies relate to hypertension, annoyance, and learning difficulties.” One study concluded that “the development of noise-related hypertension is regarded as the consequence of impaired recovery processes. Noise- related stress persisting over long periods can lead to the exhaustion of compensatory mechanisms [...] In many cases, therefore, health effects of chronic noise-related stress only begin to appear after 5 to 15 years.”

Another study found that, over a 10-year period, “exposure to aircraft noise above 50 dB was associated with a significant 20% increase in the risk of hypertension ” in men aged 40 to 60.

A Dutch study found increased medication use associated with aircraft noise exposure . The largest study of this type, carried out near Germany’s Cologne/Bonn airport, revealed statistically significant links “between the intensity of aircraft noise and the number of antihypertensive medications prescribed per patient .” The greater the noise, the greater the number of medications prescribed .

Noise was also found to impair humans’ mental performance without actually causing detectable organic damage. A 2005 study showed that children aged 9 to 10, in 89 schools subject to aircraft noise, demonstrated “a significant relationship between the deterioration in silent reading comprehension and

4 certain memory performances, and increasing aircraft noise exposure at schools .” Similar results had surfaced in an earlier study of slightly older children.

A 2016 study for the European Commission, which looked into household-level aviation impacts, reported that “living within a daytime aircraft noise path” (where noise levels were at or above 55 dB) “was negatively associated with all measures of subjective wellbeing: lower life satisfaction, lower sense of worthwhile, lower happiness, lower positive affect balance, and increased anxiety.” [1 1]

In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) published “Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. ”[12] They are far tougher than their 1999 precursors. The peer-reviewed British Medical Journal writes that the findings of earlier studies on the harmful effects of chronic exposure to aircraft noise, especially on children, the ill, and the elderly, were not just confirmed but that the effects were dis - covered to be far more serious than originally thought. Government policies and noise targets were flagged as outdated and inadequate. “[C]ommunities potentially affected by any change in aviation noise exposure should be informed and involved in plans. ”[13] The report also recommended far lower thresholds for air - craft noise levels for daytime and night-time hours. Despite new-generation aircraft that the industry claims are, or will be, “50% quieter,” the sector is expected to find the new noise targets a challenge to meet.

Studies have emphasized that, while homes can be soundproofed to a degree, back yards cannot. And if quiet is necessary for healthy sleep, then windows cannot be left open at night in areas under or near an approach flight path where there is no night-flight curfew. For some people, moving is the only option.

Water and Soil Pollution

In 2011, a study on Gda n´sk airport, in Poland , showed that “i ncreases in aviation developments have serious consequences on the surrounding air, soil and water bodies like lakes, rivers and ground water. The management of local water and air quality is a significant environmental issue for many airports. ” [14]

The researchers found that “runoff waters ... together with various toxic compounds, get into the soil, surface waters and groundwaters, which can be the source of drinking water,” and stressed that

a particularly important problem in airports management is the contamination caused by airport runoff waters. Much of the land surface in urban areas is impervious, and does not allow rain and snowmelt to soak into the ground, thus contributing to the increase of runoff volume. Airport runoff waters are formed when rain or melting snow washes off the airport apron the chemicals used for deicing and anti-icing, refuelling, vehicle cleaning and maintenance, as well as the products of fuel combustion and spilt fuel. Both precipitation and runoff waters get into the surface waters and even ground waters.

A U.S. study, also in 2011, found that

the main impacts occur as a result of fuel storage, stormwater runoff and drainage systems, fuel hydrant systems, fuel transport and refuelling, atmospheric deposition, rescue and fire-fighting training areas, winter operations, electrical substations, storage of chemical products by airport owners or tenants, and maintenance of green areas. [15]

So stormwater run-off is a big issue at airports, and not just at Gdańsk, spreading toxic chemicals that didn’t come from the rain clouds. Greases and oils are part of the mix, as are cleaning fluids. The

5 “atmospheric deposition” referred to would include the chemicals from aircraft and ground vehicle exhaust that have settled on airport surfaces.

As for de-icing, NBC News reporte d in 200 9 that “every winter, airports across [the U.S] spray millions of gallons of deicing chemicals onto airliners and allow the runoff to trickle away. When the chemicals end up in nearby waterways, the deicing fluid can turn streams bright orange and create dead zones for aquatic life. The practice is legal, but environmental officials want it to stop .” [1 6]

The main types of deicing fluids are propylene glycol, a food and medication additive, and ethylene glycol, a constituent of anti-freeze, and toxic if ingested. Some airports use deicing pads to help contain the fluid that runs off planes but others have no such protection in place .

Airports in the U.S. are expected to “minimize contamination of stormwater run-off ” – but in documented cases it was the complaints of nearby residents that first alerted authorities to the seriousness of airports’ run-off problems .

In Canada, the federal government has a deicing protocol in place. At a Pickering airport, the deicing runoff would presumably be kept to the barest minimum by the design of state-of-the-art facilities and because of the airport’s proximity to the ecologically sensitive RNUP, Moraine aquifers, and Duffins Creek watershed. But even state-of-the-art facilities designed to capture all deicing fluid that drips to the ground within the containment area could be overwhelmed by snowmelt and the volumes of water delivered by the increasingly heavy and more-frequent rainfalls expected in the future. And there will be fugitive releases (potentially high enough to cause harm) from aircraft dripping deicing fluid on the tarmac as they leave the containment area.

Transport Canada openly acknowledge s that “a portion of the deicing fluid applied to the aircraft surfaces during deicing operations drains onto the apron surface and subsequently enters drainage runoff or percolates into subsurface soils. ” [17] The department goes on to say:

Although some glycol has been found in the air and groundwater, the most significant environmental concern is associated with storm water discharges to surface waters. As glycol has a high biochemical oxygen demand, the discharge of untreated runoff containing aircraft deicing fluids into receiving waters creates an unacceptable pollution problem and a potential hazard to aquatic life.

The “potential hazard” is the one described earlier: the chemicals lower oxygen levels in waterways, leaving sections of those waterways dead zones that do not support fish or aquatic plant life.

“Federal, provincial, and municipal laws do specify water quality standards and guidelines to be followed by industry,” says Transport Canada, and “a number” of Canadian airports do sample and analyse stormwater. The water quality guidelines of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment set limits for three types of glycol: 3 mg/L of ethylene glycol, 31 mg/L of diethylene glycol, and 74 mg/L of propylene glycol. And under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA),

a total glycol discharge limit of 100 mg/L has been established. This is the accepted level of glycol at the discharge point into any receiving waters or surface water resulting from air - craft deicing at airports. The guidelines are applicable to all airports that are owned or oper - ated by the federal government or located on land that is owned by the federal government.

6 The purpose of these guidelines is to protect human health and the environment by providing a guide for containment and treatment of storm water runoff before it enters the ecosystems . [18]

So , according to the guidelines, glycol is actually allowed into our freshwater streams, and only airports that are federally owned and operated or are on federal land are subject to the CEPA limits. Canada has many hundreds of airports, large and small, paved and unpaved . Of that number, Transport Canada owns and operates 18 small ones and, under the National Airports System, owns but does not operate 23 larger ones . [19] This means that 41 of our country’s airports can leak glycol within certain strict limits, while the others aren’t covered by the federal guidelines at all. No one knows what type of facility a Pickering airport would turn out to be – assuming an airport ever got built on this ecologically sensitive site – but it could be one not covered by CEPA.

Some protection is afforded by Ontario’s water quality guidelines, [20] which apply to all forms of surface water (ponds, creeks, lakes) as well as to ground water that emerges at the surface (springs), and which are intended to protect all aquatic life. Such waters anywhere, including those outside an airport fence line, must meet the following glycol contamination limits, which, overall, are stricter than CEPA’s: 11 mg/L of diethylene glycol, 2 mg/L of ethylene glycol, 44 mg/L of 1,2-propylene glycol, and 10 mg/L of 1,3-propylene glycol, for a total glycol limit of 67 mg/L.

If an airport’s discharge into receiving/surface waters outside its fence line does fall within CEPA limits but exceeds Ontario’s, the airport could be charged by the Ministry of the Environment for violating the province’s water pollution limits, with charges/convictions correlating to the degree of harm done to aquatic life. Still, it’s akin to shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.

As we’ve seen, glycol run-off isn’t the only water-contamination danger, and none of this legislation is assurance against contamination. Section 13.3 of the federal “Guidelines for Aircraft – Ground Icing Operations” states that Transport Canada’s “Airport Water Quality Manual, TP12233, January 1995 ” gives “information concerning the variety of chemicals used for airport operations on a daily basis.” Transport Canada acknowledges that “many of the common chemicals used at an airport can find their way into drainage systems and in particular storm water runoff can pick up deicing/anti-icing fluids applied to aircraft. ” Unfortunately, of the great many publications listed on Transport Canada’s website and available to the public, TP12233 is not among them.

Air Pollution

In a 2010 study, Jumfeng Liu, an atmospheric chemist at Princeton University, found that “airplane- pollution deaths account for about a tenth of all air-pollution deaths with cross-border causes [... ]. So airplane pollution could be an important focus for environmental regulations in the future. ” [21]

What does the aviation industry have to say on the matter ? In chapter 1 of its Airport Air Quality Manual, 2011 , [22] the International Civil Aviation Organization states that it “recognizes that airport-related sources of emissions have the ability to emit pollutants that can contribute to the degradation of air quality of their nearby communities ” and goes on to say that

significant improvements have been made over the past two decades regarding aircraft fuel efficiency and other technical improvements to reduce emissions. However, these advancements may be offset in the future by the forecasted growth of airport operations and other aviation activities. Because aircraft are only one of several sources of emissions

7 at an airport, it is also considered essential to effectively manage emissions from terminal, maintenance and heating facilities; airport ground service equipment; and various ground transport travelling around, to and from airports.

In short, the planes are only part of the problem. Emissions from equipment and the many vehicles in use around terminals and other airport buildings , including various types of road vehicles (passenger vehicles, shipping /delivery trucks and vans, etc.), all contribute to elevated air pollution levels at and around airports and can, in particular, affect airport workers, the critical factors being the concentration and duration of exposure. Nonetheless, aircraft exhaust (the product of burnt fuels) remains the chief source of the pollution .

Aircraft exhaust has many constituents. The most harmful are the aerosols (particulate matter) and the volatile organic compounds. There is no way to entirely eliminate their health risks to the wider public, however carefully runways are planned to avoid populated areas. Their cloud drifts in the wind.

Those pollutants presenting the greatest dangers to health and the environment are:

Carbon Monoxide (CO ): Inhaling CO in high concentrations prevents sufficient oxygen from entering the blood stream and reaching critical organs, such as the heart and brain. Outdoors, sufficiently high lev - els can cause angina in people with heart disease. Because it is odourless, it is called “the silent killer.” [2 3]

A 2015 study of California’s twelve largest airports found that aircraft idling for long periods on the tarmac as the result of delays elsewhere in the flight network (a common occurrence), subjected the airport and surrounding area to increased CO pollution levels that significantly affected the health of area residents within a 10 km range. Asthma, respiratory problems, and heart problems were exacerbated and hospitalization increased. Infants and the elderly were found to be most sensitive to the effects. [24]

Lead : Lead is found in the blood, accumulates in the bones, and , depending on exposure levels, can attack the kidneys or the main physiological systems – reproductive, immune, nervous, cardiovascular, and so on. It can also affect the behaviour and learning capacity of infants and young children. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns: “When lead is released to the air from industrial sources or spark-ignition engine aircraft, it may travel long distances before settling to the ground, where it usually sticks to soil particles. Lead may move from soil into ground water depending on the type of lead compound and the characteristics of the soil.” [25] Propeller-powered piston-engine aircraft (used as taxis, personal and recreational planes, or training planes, and known collectively as general aviation) often run on a type of gasoline in which lead is used as an octane booster. [2 6] Although the aim has been to phase out this leaded “avgas,” the initiative seems to have stalled. [2 7]

Nitrogen Oxides (NO x): These are a combination of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2). Exposure to nitrogen dioxide can aggravate respiratory diseases, particularly asthma. N O2 and other nitrogen oxides react with a range of air-borne chemicals to form particulate matter and ozone, both harmful to the respiratory system. [28] Environmentally, these pollutants react with water and other chemicals to form acid rain. [29] In April, 2019, scientists at the University of Aberdeen reported, at the end of a worldwide study, that exposure to nitrogen dioxide during the third trimester of pregnancy results in reduced fetal growth. [30]

Ozone : Inhaling ozone can cause chest pain, coughing, and airway inflammation, and can worsen asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Environmentally, it “affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. ”[31]

8 Particulate Matter (PM) : Especially, ultrafine particular matter. When breathed in, it can lodge deep in the lungs or even enter the bloodstream, with the potential to cause coughing, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks, and even premature death. PM can be carried great distances by the wind before it settles, harming forests and farm crops, acidifying water - ways, and causing many other environmental problems .[32]

Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2): Of the group of sulphur oxides, SO 2 is the most concerning. Short-term exposure can harm the human respiratory system, making breathing difficult. S O2 can react with other air-borne compounds to help form particulate matter. Environmentally, high concentrations of sulphur oxides “can harm trees and plants by damaging foliage and decreasing growth, and contribute to acid rain, ” which in turn can harm sensitive ecosystems. [33]

A 2012 report for the Danish Ecocounci l [34] included in the list another dangerous constituent :

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) : These are unburned or partly combusted hydrocarbons in the exhaust. Some (e.g., benzene) are carcinogenic, some (e.g., various aldehydes) can be irritants , and some bind to particulate matter. Aviation-related VOCs also include , for example, 1,3-butadiene , acrolein , naphthalene , toluene, and xylene .[35] Occupational exposure to 1,3-butadiene has been linked to an increased risk of leukemia .[36]

Taken together, these pollutants form a noxious brew. And if we widen our focus just a little, we find other bad news. A 2014 study on particulate matter in and around Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) showed particulate matter to be more dangerous and more widely distributed than previously thought. The excerpt below comes from an article in Chemical & Engineering News , May 30, 2014 : [37 ]

Los Angeles Airport Pollutes City Air For Miles Downwind As planes take off and land at busy airports, their exhaust pollutes surrounding areas with contaminants, including ultrafine particles that may contribute to heart and lung disease. A new study shows that at […] the sixth busiest airport in the world, this pollution affects a larger area than previously predicted. A team of researchers found elevated concentrations of ultra fine particles up to 10 miles east of the airport. The data raises alarms about the health impacts of airport pollution on those who work and live nearby, the researchers say. Particulate matter is one of the major pollutants […] For example, the Environmental Protection Agency sets standards for concentrations of fine particulate matter, or particles less than 2.5 μm in diameter. […] But recently scientists have grown especially concerned about ultrafine particles, less than 0.1 μm in diameter, which are neither regulated nor routinely measured. They can deposit deep in the lungs, where the particles can move into the bloodstream. Since these ultrafine particles are abundant in jet exhaust, researchers have previously studied their concentrations at fixed locations up to about three miles from airports. But to study a larger area in real time, [this study’s researchers] outfitted a car with air monitoring equipment and drove around the Los Angeles area. […] Over an area of about 60 km 2 downwind of LAX, where hundreds of thousands of people live or work, the particle number concentration was at least twice that of nearby urban areas. […] the team expected to reach a point where the particle number concentrations were not elevated, but they never did. “We just ran out of drive time.”

9 Finally, there is the critical issue of C O2. From the EPA again:

Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ): Jet fuel, when burnt, releases carbon that bonds with oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide. This C O2 enters the atmosphere along with all the C O2 produced by the burning of other fossil fuels (coal, natural gas), solid waste, and trees and wood products. It is also the result of certain chemical reactions and natural processes, such as respiration. [38 ]

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas . Unlike the other air pollutants in the list, its growing presence in the atmosphere doesn’t directly and immediately affect those living in the vicinity of airports or downwind from them ; instead, its effects are broad and cumulative. When emitted by aircraft at higher altitudes, CO 2 and nitrogen oxides help to form ozone, which, together with the water vapour left by aircraft engine exhaust at higher altitudes, contributes to the warming of our planet. The Centre for Biodiversity reports that “high-altitude emissions have a greater global warming impact than they would if the emissions were released at ground level.” [39] Today, the effects are increasingly felt by everyone the world over in the form of soaring temperatures, more-violent storms, melting permafrost, droughts that are leading to famines and mass migrations, or rising sea levels that are engulfing low-lying islands and causing havoc in coastal areas. The result is planet-wide damage to the environment and to the creatures that depend on a healthy environment for their survival.

Heat Pollution

Hotter days and concentrated areas of manufactured surfaces that give off heat add up to something called urban-heat-island effect, where temperatures are higher than in surrounding areas. [40] Airports of any significant size produce heat pollution, and idling aircraft are only one source of it.

Within an airport’s footprint, vegetation is kept to a minimum (because it attracts wildlife) and grassy areas are mostly close-cropped. Runways, terminuses, hangars, taxiways, parking and loading/unloading areas, and access roads all create hotspots that absorb and radiate heat. Furthermore, an airport of any size generates urban sprawl. Partly industrial, partly commercial, partly residential, sprawl intensifies the urban heat-island effect, contributing to climate pollution and weakening climate resilience. Built-up areas are warmer – sometimes substantially warmer – than rural ones, and this increase in temperature can have a negative effect on humans, animals, and plant life.

10 3 Are Things Changing for the Better? Growth Forecasts, Emissions Reduction, Alternative Fuels

Geneva, 18 October 2016 – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects 7.2 billion passengers to travel in 2035, a near doubling of the 3.8 billion air travelers in 2016. The prediction is based on a 3.7% annual Compound Average Growth Rate (CAGR) noted in the release of the latest update to the association’s 20-Year Air Passenger Forecast . [41]

Growth Forecasts

We can’t study or quote from the 2016 “20 Year Air Passenger Forecast” referred to by IATA in its press release because our budget doesn’t run to the sale price of USD $15,000. But a synopsis is available and provides some useful information in terms of numbers. Based on those numbers and other IATA pronouncements, it seems safe to say that climate-change considerations were not factored into the “20-Year Air Passenger Forecast” calculations.

Airports Council International (ACI) released its own world airport traffic forecasts for 2016–2040 and estimated a global compound annual growth rate of passenger traffic even higher than IATA’s prediction: 4.9%, with passenger traffic expected to double to “over 14 billion by 2029. ” [42] Although ACI World’s director general noted “several impediments” that might “hamper growth prospects,” including protec - tionist policies and geopolitical unrest in parts of the world, nowhere is there mention of the possible need to apply the brakes to air transport activities to help protect the planet’s climate from catastrophic breakdown.

And for the record, ACI’s “Guide to World Airport Traffic Forecasts 2016 ” [43 ] explains how the forecasts were determined but is silent on climate change.

At IATA’s 2019 AGM, the Association’s director general did acknowledge the challenges that lie ahead for the industry as it attempts to meet its emissions targets – i.e., by 2050, net emissions reduced to half of 2005 levels, “irrespective of growth.” [44 ] But the target falls woefully short of what climate scientists warn is necessary to avoid a catastrophic future. And industry watchers argue that any emissions reductions will be dwarfed by the increased emissions caused by aviation growth. The director general was unfazed. “Looking to the future,” he said, “the outlook is optimistic. Demand is forecast to double over the next two decades.” [45]

Clearly, aviation won’t shrink of its own accord. The sector seems to feel that meeting customer demand is more important than reducing emissions for the good of the planet. Its strategic plan is to go on conducting business pretty much as usual while pursuing a lot more of it.

Is exponential aviation growth unavoidable? Absolutely not. While the char t[46] on the next pag e refers only to UK passengers’ reasons for flying abroad, its details are likely indicative of the reasons in other parts of the world. The effects of the global financial meltdown of 2008–2009 can be clearly seen, and it is telling that during, and in the wake of, the financial crisis, the number of elective flights – those for holidays – saw the greatest drop, while more-essential flying, which accounts for a much smaller percentage of overall passenger numbers, fell far less.

11 UK passengers travelling abroad by air, 1980–2015. Source: Carbon Brief, based on data from the Oﬃce of National Statistics, UK.

And one more thing: when total scheduled airline passenger numbers are quoted (e.g., “airlines carried almost 4.6 billion passengers in 2018”), this does not mean that 4.6 billion members of the population travelled somewhere that year by plane. [47] The flying public is a small percentage of the overall population: total-passenger numbers include a lot of frequent (and many very frequent) fliers. No definitive data set (if one even exists) is accessible regarding the broader flying population, but educated guesses range from as low as 6% to a high of somewhere in the mid-to-high teens. Market-based measures targetting elective frequent flying could help to lower demand (and lower emissions). But is the sector willing to place emissions-reduction ahead of industry growth?

Emissions Reduction

Incredibly, only some countries today have aviation emissions targets, and not a single country counts emissions from international flights .[48] During negotiations leading up to the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement, language on international emissions targets was removed before the agreement was signed .[49 ]

In Montreal, in 2016, a global emissions-reduction scheme was hammered out by 161 nations in what was touted as a landmark United Nations accord .[50] But a closer look shows the back-patting to have been premature and self-serving. The scheme doesn’t kick in until 2020, it will be voluntary in the years prior to 2027 , and it will rely heavily on carbon offsetting, which doesn’t do a thing to lower a global carbon tally that’s already dangerously high. The aviation director of Europe’s leading NGO campaigning for cleaner transport, Transport & Environment, reacted this way [italics added]:

“Airline claims that flying will now be green are a myth [...] this deal won’t reduce demand for jet fuel one drop. Instead offsetting aims to cut emissions in other industries .” [51]

The sector’s goal of carbon-neutrality is, today, aspirational at best. There is no evidence that the goal will be realized, since aviation’s fossil fuel consumption and its growth forecasts continue to surge, with no regulatory teeth in place to slow or stop the momentum. While new planes are more fuel-efficient, international and domestic fleets will continue to run older planes for many years. Boeing deems an

12 aircraft’s lifespan to be 30+ years . [52] There have been other technological advances: Bombardier’s CSeries jetliner (recently acquired by Airbus and renamed the Airbus A220) has made some remarkable strides. It is lighter, boasts 20-25% lower fuel consumption with lower carbon emissions, and is far quieter than other jetliners. [53] But it is a smaller, medium-range plane and its potential fuel savings impact, even if all orders for it are fulfilled, will always be minor in a global airline fleet of more than 23,000 aircraft. [54] Furthermore, in May, 2019, Airbus CTO Grazia Vittadini said, during a presentation at Airbus Innovation Days, that electric-powered long-haul aircraft are not part of the foreseeable future because of the prohibitive weight of the battery systems. [55] Developing hybrids is a more realistic objective – but even then, the battery size and weight will limit practical use. For a long-haul airliner, analysis suggests that the best bet might be a minimal battery for starting the gas turbine and acting as a backup in the event of an engine or generator malfunction. In the coming decades, we won’t be able to count on electricity to reduce aviation’s overall emissions in any substantial way.

This conclusion applies even though battery-powered short-haul aircraft are coming online. They are small miracles. But they are slow-flying, limited in range, and can as yet carry very few passengers. Eviation’s Alice will carry 9 passengers plus 2 crew members, cruising at 300 mph (vs 500 mph for a jet) over a maximum distance of 650 miles. [56] There will undoubtedly be improvements in the technology, but such electric aircraft will do nothing to decrease the huge carbon footprint created by the ever-growing number of long-haul international flights that aviation is planning for.

Back in 2015, in its report Up in the Air: How Airplane Carbon Pollution Jeopardizes Global Climate Goals ,[57] the Centre for Biological Diversity strongly criticized the industry’s inadequate response to climate change and its plans to rely on offsetting and emissions standards, which, the Centre said, “barely bend the industry’s steeply rising emission trend.” Offsetting drew particular criticism:

Despite the projected tripling of aviation emissions and the lack of any regulations, the aviation industry proclaims that it can attain its professed goal of carbon-neutral growth by 2020 by means of carbon offsets. But offsets are difficult to verify and monitor and should not displace readily available, cost-effective technical measures that can prevent and avoid – rather than merely offset – carbon pollution from new and existing airplanes.

The Centre also reported that, while “in 2013, ICAO finalized a CO 2 certification requirement, or metric, to serve as the basis for a global CO 2 standard for new aircraft,” that metric was seriously flawed, “failing to take into account the fuel used in ‘landing and takeoff, taxi, climb and descent’ and instead considering only cruise fuel burn ” [58] – thus misrepresenting typical flight operations and the emissions they collec - tively produce. In fact, the metric “omits approximately 8 to 10 percent of fuel used for medium- to long- haul flights and 20 to 25 percent of fuel consumed during short-haul flights.”

The ICAO’s omissions, intentional or otherwise, were serious (or worse) and served only to bolster the argument that the industry is incapable of self-regulation and will, at some point soon, have to face legislative curtailment for the greater good.

It is now 2019 and the sector continues to pitch carbon offsetting as a pillar of its climate-change response. The “Media Briefing: Environment” presentatio n[59 ] for IATA’s 2019 AGM did cover climate- related topics such as carbon offsetting, sustainable fuels, technological advances in low-carbon aircraft design, and new public trends (e.g., the “Flight Shame” and “Flight Free” movements). Overall, though, the message it delivered was upbeat, reassuring the audience that real progress had already been made by the sector and that everything was in hand.

13 Two or three sessions of the AGM’s three-day program touched on the environment and sustainability but, again, efforts to address the seriousness of the situation were minimal. The sector was urged to do more to publicize its green successes, such as the “no waste” flight from Sydney to Adelaide and how some 10% of Quantas passengers had bought carbon offsets. [60]

What about carbon offsets? Does offsetting really make a difference? A recent in-depth investigation [61] has uncovered some unsettling facts:

carbon credits hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with. Ultimately, the polluters got a guilt-free pass to keep emitting CO₂, but the forest preservation that was supposed to balance the ledger either never came or didn’t last.

In short, carbon offsetting programs don’t “and won’t deliver the climate benefit they promise.” As one of the researchers put it, “While we’re sitting here counting carbon and moving it around, more CO 2 keeps accumulating in the atmosphere.” The take-away: carbon-offsetting programs make aviation’s customers feel good and make the sector look good, but in the end it’s all greenwash, while pollution levels continue to mount.

The rapidity of the overall CO 2 increase, especially in recent years, is vividly demonstrated by the “Time Series: 2002-2016” time-lapse map on NASA’s global climate change website .[62] Watching the increase occur, especially in the later years, is a heart-stopping experience. We are already past the point at which climate scientists calculated that climate change would be unavoidable and irreversible. It is upon us. We are at the stage where we must work not just to stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions but to massively reduce them before the accumulated effects reach a level that will prove catastrophic for plant and animal (including human) life on Earth .

So how’s that going? Not well. Overall c arbon dioxide emissions in January 2005 stood at 378 ppm. In June 2009 they were at 387 ppm. In 2015, the year of the Paris Agreement, they passed 400 ppm, the level that climate scientists had called the point of no return. In June 2019 they had climbed to 411 [63] ppm. Air transport (passenger and cargo) produced a total of 815 million tonnes of CO 2 emissions worldwide in 2016 ,[64] up from 781 million tonnes in 2015 . By 2017, the total had climbed to 859 million tonnes. [65] In 2018, aviation emissions exceeded the billion tonne mark for the first time. [66] Meanwhile, as we have seen, the sector is planning on a near-doubling of passenger travel by the mid-2030s. [67]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that the climate impact of aircraft is two to four times greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone .[68] The aviation indus - try , along with its necessary “bus stops” – its airports – has changed our world in many positive ways but, directly and indirectly, at a serious cost to the planet .

Alternative Fuels

Will aviation be able to radically reduce its fossil fuel use or even leave fossil fuels behind, by developing and transitioning to alternative fuels?

While serious work is being done to identify and test a widening range of alternative fuel sources, those fuels won’t necessarily clear the air around airports or sharply cut the global fleet’s GHG emissions, despite their greener credentials.

14 The European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Environment Agency, and EUROCONTROL, in their European Aviation En vironmental Report 2016 , highlight an important – and not widely known – fact; namely, that (italics added)

sustainable alternative fuels reduce aviation GHG emissions through savings which are achieved in the production phase of renewable, biological material (feedstock), and in the process of conversion into fuels. Emissions reductions are not achieved in the actual combustion phase. This is due to strict fuel speciﬁcations which require sustainable alternative aviation fuels to have “drop-in” characteristics with comparable behaviour to fossil fuel during the fuel combustion phase. [69]

And then there’s the challenge of scaling up to meet global demand. Some biofuel options derived from agricultural crops take farmland out of food production at a time when global population numbers have never been higher and continue to rise. Efforts to develop fuel from non-edible sources (algae, jatropha, camelina, waste cooking oil, landfill waste, and so on) have made progress but have also come up wanting; demand far exceeds source and production capabilities. And biofuels cost more than traditional jet fuel to produce .

One potentially promising idea is the farming and processing of halophytes, a family of plants that grow in desert conditions and can be irrigated with saltwater. Studies are under way, notably at a research facility in Abu Dhabi ,[70] but it’s still early days and there are significant challenges to be overcome . [71] With global aviation burning through, as we’ve seen, more than 5 million barrels of jet fuel every day, and with the industry continuing to forecast record growth, it’s doubtful whether halophytes, miracle plants though they seem to be, can be grown in sufficient quantities and processed at a fast-enough rate to meet industry demand, even if supplemented by the other fuel options under study today .

In 2017, the David Suzuki Foundation summed up aviation’s fossil-fuel dependency this way :

Currently, airplanes use kerosene fuel, and there is no indication that commercial aircraft powered by solar panels, batteries, biofuels, or hydrogen can be expected anytime soon. In terms of efficiency, it appears that improvements in current aircraft technology have nearly reached their limit, and further significant fuel-efficiency gains will only come from the development of radically new airplane designs and systems. The time, cost and coordinated effort it would take to develop and test such designs and then phase them into the world’s fleets of aircraft make this unlikely to happen anytime soon. It is therefore an impractical solution for the urgent problem of climate change. In reality, the small, incremental gains that we can reasonably expect in aircraft fuel efficiency will be eclipsed by the projected growth in the industry .[72]

Eviation’s new electric Alice has since shown that, in some areas, aviation technology is advancing far more rapidly than anticipated, but the Foundation’s conclusion still stands.

The Centre for Aviation (which calls itself “one of the world’s most trusted sources of market intelligence for the aviation and travel industry”) supported the Suzuki Foundation’s conclusion in a December 2018 industry analysis, stating: “Because of projected traffic growth, climate change is possibly aviation's biggest environmental challenge.” [73]

15 4 Environmental Consequences of an Airport on the Pickering Federal Lands

The Context

In 1972 the federal government of the day chose to seize far more land northeast of Toronto than was needed for a planned international airport. The thousands of excess acres were intended to act as a buffer between the facility and the surrounding population, which – as Transport Canada said at the time – amounted to “relatively few” people .[74] While Toronto’s Malton International (now Pearson) was functioning on under 5,000 acres, a total of 18,600 acres were expropriated for the new airport in Pickering . It was a far cry from the staggering 97,000 acres commandeered for Mirabel in 1968, but an inordinate amount of land nonetheless.

Meanwhile, Ontario was about to expropriate another 25,000 acres. A new city, called Cedarwood, with a planned population of 150,000 to 200,000, [75] was to be built cheek-by-jowl with what Transport Canada was calling the New Toronto Airport (destined to replace Malton, although this fact wasn’t made public at the time) .

Most of the appropriated land was prime farmland in active production. The communities surrounding the airport site – Stouffville, Markham, and Pickering – were relatively small, and their built-up areas were some distance away. Census data and other sources show Stouffville, the closest town, with a population of 11,500 in 1971; Pickering with a population of 38,000 in 1981; and Markham (incorporated as a town in 1972), with a population of 56,000 in 1976. While the ambient noise level in the largely rural area would have been extremely low (it still is), the introduction of a major international airport, which is what was planned, would have permanently disrupted the peace, well-being, and daily lives of all who resided and worked in the area, changing north Pickering permanently from rural to heavy-industrial.

Fast-forward 47 years. It’s 2019 and neither the airport nor Cedarwood has been built. Stouffville, Markham, and south Pickering have grown not so much up as out, in some instances to the very border of the Federal Lands. By the time of the 2016 census, Stouffville’s population had increased to about 45,000, Pickering’s to 89,000; and exploding Markham’s to 329,000. Although Cedarwood never got off the drawing board, a new community, Seaton, with a much smaller population plan, is now being built on a fraction of the expropriated footprint. Meanwhile, in 2015 and 2017, about half the original airport acreage , in the west and north , was transferred to Parks Canada to become part of Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP) , which has been planned to showcase nature, culture, and agriculture.

Federal studies over the decades have failed to show any need for a Pickering airport. The land retained as the site of a potential airport, some 9 ,600 acres (more than twice the size of Pearson’s site toda y [76 ]), will soon be hemmed in on the south by Seaton, which will be a sizeable, mostly residential town, and on the west and north by the national park, where wildlife and natural habitats are protected. The “potential future airport” site itself continues to be farmed and has also become a de facto wildlife sanctuary and area of considerable renaturalization, the unsurprising consequence of more than four decades of minimal human activity there.

Which brings us to the pollution that would be introduced to the area should a Pickering airport ever be built.

16 Uxbridge

Claremont #9 sion Stouffville ces Con

r k

- D

r h

B L r i o RNUP n Pickering

e c k

Federal Lands o a d

t h

i n 7 e # way High Markham Seaton Pickering

Northern part of Rouge National 9,600 acres retained by Transport Urban Park as of 2017 Canada for potential future airport

This map shows the area reserved for a potential future airport The preferred airport layout, from the Pickering Airport Draft Plan following the land transfers by the federal and provincial govern - Report (GTAA, 2004, p. 5:55). Transport Canada used much the same ments to Rouge National Urban Park. Rapid urban development in layout in 2015 when revising zoning regulations to reﬂect the new Stouﬀville, Markham, and south PIckering has already spread, or boundaries between RNUP and the smaller airport site. The main will soon spread, right up to the Park’s western boundaries and runways would end just short of the park boundary, which is now just to Hwy #7. west of the CPR rail line. Note the site’s many creeks and tributaries.

Light Pollution

There would definitely be a change in the night sky all around the facility. Most affected would be the national park. How could its mandate to protect wildlife and ensure ecological integrity within its boundaries be respected when the sky is lit up every night by an airport right next door, confusing migratory birds and endangering the health of surrounding ecosystems ?

Noise Pollution

Scientists have found that “human noises are often 10 times that of background levels, impairing our enjoyment of natural parks and impacting animal behaviour. ” [77 ] So imagine the impact on the surrounding countryside if an airport – of any size – were imposed on the area. Increased road traffic, possible commercial night flights, night flying manoeuvres (an essential part of flight training), the elevated noise level that is the inevitable accompaniment of any large transportation facility – all of these would disturb the peace of north Pickering, the national park, and areas well beyond.

Even denser population centres can suffer. In 2018, Columbia University studied flights out of La Guardia airport to determine trade-offs between more-efficient flight routes and the health effects they triggered on the ground. Their conclusion: “Despite increases in efficiency, flight automation systems without a careful assessment of noise might generate flight paths over densely populated areas and cause serious health conditions for the overflown communities.” [78] And, as we have seen (p. 5), a WHO study in 2018 not only confirmed the harmful effects of chronic exposure to aircraft noise, especially on children, the ill, and the elderly, but also found those effects to be far more serious than originally thought. The WHO faulted government policies and noise targets for being outdated and inadequate.

17 The GTAA was well aware of the potential for noise disturbance while developing the Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report for Transport Canada in 2004:

When the Government of Canada acquired the Pickering lands in the early 1970s, lands were well removed from urbanized areas and were surrounded primarily by agricultural farmland in a rural setting. Over the last 30 years, the urban area of the GTA has expanded at a very rapid rate, and today urban development is beginning to approach the airport lands. To the north-west there is the Stouffville expansion; to the north-east the expansion of Claremont; to the east the potential expansion of the Pickering hamlets (Greenwood and Kinsale) and residential clusters (Staxton Glen, Barclay Estates, Forest Creek Estates and Birchwood Estates); to the south the future community of Seaton; and to the west the urban expansion of Markham. [79]

Since that paragraph was written, 15 years ago, urban expansion has continued apace, local population numbers have continued to climb, and thousands of acres of the original airport site have been made part of a national park. If a Pickering airport were built, a significant percentage of the local (and not- so-local) population would be affected by aviation noise pollution.

The map below and the table on the next pages show the altitude at which planes would be flying over various sites closest to, or directly under, the runway approaches. Noise would be loudest in those corridors but would also be noticeable in varying degrees all along the approaches and even in areas beyond the 10 nautical mile limit.

Runway Approaches of Proposed Pickering Airport [80]

These are the latest proposed runway layouts and approaches. The map locates points 10 and 20 nautical miles from the ends (thresholds) of runways. By clicking on the live map at https://landoverlandings.com/be-informed/maps/ , you can enlarge it to 200 m to see how close your home, and the public and private facilities that your family uses, would be to the runway approaches.

18 Establishments, Public Facilities, and Areas That Would Be Under or Within 250 m (820 ft.) of a Runway Approach

Location Typical Aircraft Altitude Range

Ajax Paradise Beach/Park 2,000–3,000 ft. Lakeside Park 2,000–3,000 ft. Carruthers Creek Public School 2,000–3,000 ft. Ajax High School ` 2,000–3,000 ft. St. Paul’s United Church 2,000–3,000 ft. Ajax Town Hall 2,000–3,000 ft. Ajax Library (Main Branch) 2,000–3,000 ft. Lord Elgin Public School 2,000–3,000 ft. McLean Community Centre 1,000–2,000 ft. Lester B. Pearson Public School 1,000–2,000 ft. Rossland Ridge Bible Chapel 1,000–2,000 ft. Vimy Ridge Public School 1,000–2,000 ft. Westney Heights Baptist Church 1,000–2,000 ft. Paulynn Park 1,000–2,000 ft. Fox Run Golf Centre 1,000–2,000 ft. Greenwood Conservation Area 1,000–2,000 ft.

Markham-Stouffville Meadowbrook Golf Club 2,000–3,000 ft. South Gormley 2,000–3,000 ft. St Panteleimon Greek Orthodox Church 2,000–3,000 ft. Reesor’s Farm Market 1,000–2,000 ft. Markham Airport 1,000–2,000 ft. Wideman Mennonite Church 1,000–2,000 ft. South Dickson Hill 1,000–2,000 ft. MindTech Montessori Schools 1,000–2,000 ft. Markham Fair Grounds 1,000–2,000 ft. Rouge National Urban Park Less than 1,000 ft. Mongolia Less than 1,000 ft. Camp Robin Hood Less than 1,000 ft.

Oshawa North Oshawa 2,000–3,000 ft. Oshawa Executive Airport 2,000–3,000 ft. Oshawa Airport Golf Club 2,000–3,000 ft. Thornton Cemetery 2,000–3,000 ft.

(continued on next page )

19 Location Typical Aircraft Altitude Range

Pickering Hawthorne Valley Golf Club 1,000–2,000 ft. Bailtul Mahdi Mosque 1,000–2,000 ft. Bunker Hill Golf Club 1,000–2,000 ft. Kinsale 1,000–2,000 ft. Rouge National Urban Park Less than 1,000 ft. Glen Cedars Golf Club Less than 1,000 ft. Pickering Museum Village Less than 1,000 ft. South Greenwood Less than 1,000 ft. Valley View Public School Less than 1,000 ft.

Uxbridge Goodwood Golf Club 1,000–2,000 ft. Rouge National Urban Park Less than 1,000 ft Goodwood Conservation Area Less than 1,000 ft

Whitby Hannam Park 2,000–3,000 ft. McKinney Park 2,000–3,000 ft. Lyndebrooke Golf Course 2,000–3,000 ft. Robert Munsch Public School 2,000–3,000 ft. Heber Down Conservation Area 1,000–2,000 ft.

Along that corridor, as far as 10 nautical miles from the ends of runways, aircraft noise would be loud enough to drown out conversation. When you zoom in on the Runway Approaches map on the Land Over Landings website, you can see, using Satellite View, that, for instance, the homes of thousands of resi - dents in Ajax, Whitby, and around Oshawa airport would be within the greatest-noise-level zone. In rural areas, notably in Markham, Pickering, and Stouffville, aircraft would overfly several clusters of recently built country estate properties.

The list above is not exhaustive . Nor does it take into account aircraft noise further afield that, while not deafening, would be considered disruptive, irritating, annoying, or at least noticeable. Most of these communities are rarely affected by aircraft noise today – with the very occasional exception (the helicopters of emergency services, for instance) – so the noise level difference would be substantial. Airport-related ground traffic noise would likely be restricted to major arteries.

Note also that the degree of noise (or annoyance) outside the worst-case corridor would fluctuate. There are many reasons for this, including wind strength and direction, humidity, the time of day or night, the type of aircraft, the frequency of landings and take-offs, the type of locale (urban, rural).... Noise would be more disruptive in the countryside, where the ambient noise level is far lower than in towns and cities.

Transport Canada warns against incompatible uses, especially residential uses, where there is aircraft noise. A Noise Exposure Forecast restriction starts at NEF 25 (the outer ring around the core), where the noise becomes annoying to residents. “At NEF 30,” says Transport Canada, “speech interference and annoyance caused by aircraft noise are, on average, established and growing. By NEF 35 these effects are very significant.” [81] The department also states in its land-use guidelines:

20 l l a

f o

h d c n a a

o s r y p a p a w

n e u h r t

t d a e s h t o

p e t o r o p N

s . ’ e t r s i o o p n r

i y a

g d n i e r t e c k e c i ﬀ P a

t e s h o t

. m n

a o e

d b a d

n e y l s a e a C

k b i t

l r

s o d n l p o u s ti o n p a w r

m s T u e : s p e s c a a r

h u e s

o m n S

o a

f . s

e e e t i u k s l

a b t

r m e

o t h p s t i

a a n

e i l e

h t h t i t a

f w n

o a s

c a h

t e e r r o w A

n , .

a 5 d e 1 n r 0 a a

2 t

e s y l h e t u

J w r

f o e f o

h t p p

a a o t

m m ,

t k g s r n a a i c P n

e o r n z o

a f s b - ’ r e a r U d

u l a s a n o n a p o C x

ti t e a r - o e N

s p i e s o g n n u a

r o ft T R

r s n i s d

o d a r

e c t n

a e d l c v i u e d

o f n i o w

s s e a y c

, a n s e e w s h n b c u a r a

o e e r h e p t r

p h n I t a

21 For new aerodromes, Transport Canada recommends that no new noise sensitive land uses be permitted above 25 NEF/NEP. Noise sensitive land uses include residential, schools, day care centres, nursing homes and hospitals. [82]

No recent draft of a noise-exposure-forecast map for the Pickering site and surrounding area has been made public. The department might argue that there’s no point, as the proposed runway layout of the potential airport is itself just a draft. Yet, as shown in the map on p. 21, that same runway layout has been used by Transport Canada to regulate the height and location of specific infrastructure and the types of activities requiring the approval of local land-use planners. It has also been used to indicate the wildlife hazard zone. Partly thanks to this government map, which fixes the location and orientation of the runways, our aviation consultants were able to identify where aircraft noise would be greatest. The public facilities just listed (pp. 19-20) would be inside the noisier zone(s).

A noise-contour map is a far more complicated creation than the map on p. 21. Having access to such a map would provide certainty where at present there are many grey areas. How, for instance, can home- buyers in Seaton and various other new subdivisions know for sure whether their property would or wouldn’t be within the 25 NEF zone, or close to it? It can be instructive to see what Pearson’s Operating Area and Noise Exposure Forecast contours look like. The map is accessible via the Publications and Reports page of the GTAA’s website. [83] Pearson’s noise print is massive, irregularly extending north-west to part of Countryside Drive (near Caledon), south-west almost to Winston Churchill Blvd (near Milton), south-east along much of Hwy 427 to below the QEW, and north-east to Finch and across Hwy 400.

A disturbing disregard for the health and quality of life of current and future residents of southern Durham Region and south-eastern York Region was recently demonstrated by Durham Regional Council and some local municipal councils when they voted in support of a Pickering airport. The councils’ ramping-up of pressure for approval and construction of the airport (strongly backed by property developers) stems in part from fear of a surge in local opposition to an airport once Seaton is populated and once Rouge National Urban Park is fully operational. [84] They are right to anticipate increased opposition. The number of people objecting to potential airport noise will only grow – and rapidly so – as the new town, new subdivisions, and new park continue to take shape. And, of course, there are the unknowns that lie ahead with respect to our planet’s changing climate.

Back to Pearson for a moment: Ground-level monitoring stations surrounding the airport show that aircraft noise can, on rare occasions, exceed 70 dB (vacuum cleaner noise level) as far as 15 km (8 nautical miles) from the end of a runway. In 2018, nearly 1,500 individuals were annoyed enough by aircraft noise to take the time to lodge a complaint about it. [85] There were nearly 120,000 complaints in all. Now there’s a dream airport career: noise-complaint clerk!

Water Pollution

The area still earmarked for an airport is crisscrossed by small and large segments of the sub-watersheds of Brougham Creek, Michell Creek, Reesor Creek, Urfe Creek, Upper and Lower Duffins Creek, White - vale Creek, and Wixon Creek. Michell Creek drains into East Duffins Creek, which could also be im - pacted by airport site run-off. To the site’s immediate east is the Carruthers Creek watershed. Even the GTAA (Pearson’s operator) has acknowledged that the site is an area of important freshwater streams :

Duffins and Carruthers are the healthiest watersheds in the GTA and management plans designed to protect them have been developed by the TRCA and local municipalities. [.. .] changing the upper aquifer recharge rate or polluting the recharge waters will have an immediate impact on down gradient fisheries and farm and domestic water supplies. [86] 22 That was written in 2004. The streams are still clear and supporting a coldwater trout fishery. Duffins Creek is part of Ontario’s “Bring Back the Salmon” restoration project. Its waters are now spawning- grounds for Atlantic salmon .[87] Furthermore, in this rural area, almost all residents and businesses rely for their drinking and other water needs on local aquifers, accessed by way of individual or shared wells, whether dug or drilled. So putting groundwater at risk in this area would have far-reaching consequences.

A “key attribute” of the preferred runway layout, said the GTAA in its Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report , was that it would “avoid impacting West Duffins Creek, affecting only some of its tributaries ” [88 ] – a staggeringly disingenuous statement. The tributaries are waterways feeding into West Duffins Creek.

One of two deicing areas in the proposed airport layout would be at the western end of the longest runway. The Draft Plan noted that any future airport expansion might require the “diversion of the tributary of West Duffins Creek around the west end” of that runway to “minimize the potential impact of the deicing facility on the waterway.” [89] “Minimizing” is cold comfort for the salmon and other aquatic life downstream from an airport. All that could be hoped for is enforcement by Ottawa and the Province of the water protection laws and regulations that an airport is required to observe.

One last thing to think about: On July 3, 2019, a Norwegian Air plane made an emergency landing at Florida’s Orlando International and, for reasons unknown at time of writing, discharged a considerable amount of jet fuel over the airport’s runways and taxiways. [90] While there seems to be general agreement that such fuel dumping at an airport is rare, it is clearly neither impossible nor preventable.

Air Pollution

A functioning Pickering airport and all the ground transportation it would attract would discharge carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, ozone, particulate matter (fine and ultrafine), and other dangerous gases into the air in the course of its normal daily operations. If exposure to them were concentrated or frequent enough, all these pollutants could be harmful, some extremely so. And if the airport accommodated general aviation, the “avgas” that currently powers many small planes would add lead to the toxic mix.

Not surprisingly, airport workers, especially those providing ramp services such as aircraft marshalling and baggage handling, are at greatest risk of developing health problems – many serious – triggered by airport-caused air pollution. But as we’ve seen (p. 9), the air-quality study downwind of Los Angeles airport found that dangerous ultrafine particulate matter can be dispersed by the vagaries of the winds over far greater distances than previously known. No one living in the vicinity of an airport can be assured of escaping its potential health impacts .

Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, and even Oshawa residents many kilometres southeast of the Federal Lands could be affected by aircraft pollution. Residents to the north and south of the site could be affected every time the crosswind runway was used. Stouffville and Markham would be affected. The national park would be seriously affected because its northern sector would be directly under all three planned flight paths. The farmers in the park and visitors to the park would be unable to escape inhaling aircraft exhaust. And the soot from the exhaust would settle on the water surfaces, the soil, and the vegetation all around, and this could happen even with the use of alternative jet fuels, as only some types of alternative fuels may end up free of aromatic hydrocarbons or sulphur. [91 ]

Heat Pollution

All those hard surfaces, which characterize an airport and the warehouses and operations that normally surround an airport, would turn the rural Federal Lands into a sprawling zone of urban heat islands. 23 Summary of Pollution Types, Causes, and Areas That Would Be Affected

Light Causes • Brilliant night-time lighting from airport and surrounding commercial/industrial development. Areas affected • Parts of Rouge National Urban Park, Ajax, Markham, Pickering, Stouffville, Uxbridge, Whitby.

Noise Causes • Aircraft and ground vehicles travelling inside airport boundaries and to/from airport. Areas affected • Anywhere in the vicinity of arriving/departing aircraft flight patterns, especially in landing approach flight paths. • Wherever ground vehicles are travelling to or from airport and surrounding commercial/industrial development. • Parts of Rouge National Urban Park, Ajax, Markham, Pickering, Stouffville, Scarborough, Uxbridge, Whitby and Oshawa.

Water Causes • Fossil-fuel combustion pollutants from aircraft and ground vehicles travelling inside airport boundaries and to/from airport. • Accidental/fugitive release of deicing and other chemicals used at airport. These pollutants are washed from the air, or from the surfaces they settle on, during and after storm events, contaminating groundwater (drinking water aquifers/wells) and major watersheds (aquatic life). Areas affected • Parts of Rouge National Urban Park, Ajax, Markham, Pickering, Scarborough [because of the Rouge River], Uxbridge, Whitby.

Soil Causes • Fossil-fuel combustion pollutants from aircraft and ground vehicles travelling inside airport boundaries and to/from airport. • Accidental/fugitive release of deicing and other chemicals used at airport. These pollutants settle on vegetation or soil. Areas affected • Parts of Rouge National Urban Park, Ajax, Markham, Pickering, Stouffville, Scarborough, Uxbridge, Whitby and Oshawa. Airborne aerosol pollutants can be widely dispersed by the wind before settling.

Air Causes • Fossil-fuel combustion pollutants from aircraft and ground vehicles travelling inside airport boundaries and to/from airport. • Fugitive emissions from other chemicals used at airport. Areas affected • Parts of Rouge National Urban Park, Ajax, Markham, Pickering, Stouffville, Scarborough, Uxbridge, Whitby and Oshawa. Air pollutants can be widely dispersed by the wind.

24 5 Airports and National Parks

There are no major international or reliever airports within the borders of Canada’s national parks, and none of the 26 airports in the National Airport System are on any park’s immediate doorstep. Banff, Canada’s most popular national park, is about an hour’s drive from the closest major airport, at Calgary. Jasper, the second most-popular park, is some 3.5 hours from the closest airport, at Edmonton. From Georgian Bay Islands National Park, the closest airport is Toronto Pearson, a good 1.5 hours’ drive. The situation can be somewhat different in the far North, for reasons specific to the remote locale: staff and visitors may access national parks by way of small water or land aerodromes in or near the park when there is no other convenient mode of transportation. In the Greater Toronto Area, though, how could any sane person think that a major airport sharing a fence line with a national park is remotely acceptable?

National parks, even Rouge National Urban Park, are kept isolated as much as possible from urban areas and their potentially negative effects on the flora and fauna that the parks are mandated to protect. RNUP’s Management Pla n 2019 states:

The Rouge National Urban Park Act , enacted in 2015 and amended in 2017, is specifically tailored and dedicated to a new category of protected area—a national urban park. Section 4 of the Act states that the park is established for the purposes of protecting and presenting, for current and future generations, the natural and cultural heritage of the Park and its diverse landscapes [...] The 2017 amendments to the Rouge National Urban Park Act adopted the definition of ecological integrity as presented in the Canada National Parks Act . Section 6 of the amended park legislation states: 6 (1) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, must be the first priority of the Minis - ter when considering all aspects of the management of the Park. [...] The Rouge National Urban Park Act , as amended, gives Parks Canada the legislative framework it needs to ensure the strongest-ever protections in the Rouge’s history for the park’s ecosystems and its vast and diverse array of cultural and agricultural resources. [92]

The ambient noise level is very low within RNUP. But add an airport and that would change. N ewer planes aren’t as noisy as older ones, but the fact remains that the flight paths into or out of any airport on the remaining Federal Lands would lie across the park – and the planes over the park would be low. There’s no avoiding this, as runway orientation is chiefly dependent on the direction of the prevailing winds. [93] And given the proximity of ends of runways to the park’s boundary, planes would be right overhead. If the Pickering airport became a busy airport , a day’s outing in the valleys, woods , fields, and meadows of RNUP would be a misery for every visitor.

The many forms of pollution emanating from an adjacent airport would undermine the park’s most fundamental aims, operations, and responsibilities, by: • compromising the air quality of the park; • endangering the health of streams, creeks, and wetlands; • endangering the health and, in some cases, the very existence of birds and other wildlife; • imperilling the health of whole ecosystems; and • putting in harm’s way the health and wellbeing of employees, residents, volunteers, and visitors.

An adjacent airport would pollute unspoiled nature and destroy the peace and tranquility that are, and should always be, non-negotiable characteristics and benefits of a national park.

25 6 The Greenwashing of Airports

The “Green Airport” Myth

What if Pickering airport were built to be “green”? Would that make a difference? Some people seem to think it would, so let’s look at that.

In Jets & Jobs , the 2016 study done for Transport Canada on possible future uses for the Pickering Lands , we find the following:

Some regional and municipal government stakeholders see an opportunity to build a “green” airport, using the latest technologies, materials and practices for a sustainable airport. According to them, efforts to reduce the environmental footprint of the airport would go a long way towards achieving social license for the project. One [contributor] was a global expert in Energy and Transportation who shared a vision of a carbon-neutral airport, which could play a role in the Region’s efforts to offset its carbon footprint, as well as showcase innovation in biodiversity and agriculture. This expert boasted the proximity to Toronto’s zoo and to the Rouge National Urban Park as an opportunity to position the airport as a sustainable and environmentally friendly business, which could partner with the community in a network of win-win ways. Another stakeholder suggested there may be an opportunity to foster a green business community including a “green” airport, possibly in partnership with UOIT. [94]

These contributors to the study failed to allow for the damage their vision would do to the existing environment. Thousands of acres of wildlife habitat and prime agricultural land would be destroyed during preparation of the terrain. Removal of the topsoil and trees would release the carbon they had sequestered. Massive amounts of dust would be raised during earth-moving operations. The manufactur - ing processes to create the requisite steel, glass, plastic, asphalt, and concrete would all generate green - house gas emissions. The energy used by vehicles, machinery, and equipment would produce more. Without a technological sea change before then, many of the emissions would be the product of burnt fossil fuels – and this is just to get the airport built.

Adding a new airport to the world’s tally is not a green action. But refraining from building new public infrastructure while existing infrastructure isn’t fully utilized is a green action and a way for governments to avoid increasing GHG emissions. (It’s worth noting here that the Southern Ontario Airport Network is not calling for a new airport to relieve looming air-traffic congestion. Revealingly, those airports are focussed on expanding their services and seeking new markets. [95] )

Also overlooked by the Jets & Jobs contributors (and by today’s airport proponents, now clamouring for something far bigger than before: an “aerotropolis”) is that the escalating climate crisis is becoming too grave to ignore, and that governments will soon be obliged to clamp down on GHG emitters, especially those providing products and services deemed non-essential to human and community needs. Investors are already becoming sensitized to the risks of supporting high-emissions industries and operations. Globally, more than USD $8 trillion in assets were divested from fossil fuels by the end of 2018. [96] More will follow. So even if Pickering were approved and its construction begun, there is no guarantee that

26 evolving circumstances would allow the project to see completion. The airport could easily become a stranded asset – all that damage done for nothing, all those invested billions lost.

As for the “green-ness” of airports themselves, it’s true that some facilities around the world are trending away from wasteful uses of water and electricity and towards natural heating, cooling, and lighting models, as well as the containment of run-off and the introduction of varied and sometimes elaborate recycling schemes .[97,98 ] But an airport, by its very nature, can’t be “green” or “carbon neutral” or “eco-friendly,” for the simple reason that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It can’t be divorced from its purpose, which is to serve as a loading, unloading, and maintenance stop for aircraft. Nor can its “green” measures, however extensive, make a discernible difference to aviation’s overall emissions tally . As reported by a study recently published by Carbon Brief, any expansion of airport facilities undermines any carbon emission reduction goals of the aviation sector. [99]

A CNN business article, reporting on green airports, stated that “by adapting clean energy policies and technologies, eco-conscious airport operators hope to make a dent in these numbers [i.e., airports’ 5% contribution to aviation’s 2% contribution to human-caused GHG emissions worldwide] and boost the industry's environmental street-cred. ” [100] In other words, the “green airport” trend is more about optics than it is about genuine actions to protect the planet.

No airport, however “green,” could hope to offset or neutralize or even appreciably affect the total emissions count of all the aircraft that use it, and all the vehicles and equipment that service it, and all the cargo and passenger vehicles that frequent it. This observation is not intended as an indictment of airport operators’ environmental efforts; every improvement counts. But let’s face it, no number of airport rooftop gardens, recycling measures, indoor trees, and LED lights will ever come close to significantly reducing or neutralizing aviation’s fossil fuel emissions. Anyone arguing otherwise is indulging in greenwash, pure and simple.

The Trouble With Greenhouses and Indoor Agriculture

What about “an airport and agriculture”? Can they be good partners, as Pickering airport proponents argue? The believers make their claims with great conviction, although it’s never clear what kind of airport they have in mind. A Pearson reliever for domestic aviation? A cargo airport? An aerotropolis? And what types of food-production “agriculture” do they think might be compatible with their airport? Growing food in farm fields is apparently unacceptable, which leaves some form of “inside agriculture” – but what kind? Greenhouses? Vertical farms in industrial buildings? Who knows? Missing are the detailed economic analyses showing that private-sector “inside agriculture” would be profitable in north Pickering or, at the very least, would cover operating costs.

If “inside agriculture” were really a solid business idea, one would expect to find numerous privately- owned urban agriculture facilities already operating in the Region, whether on existing or abandoned commercial/industrial sites (including “brownfield” sites) or on Class 6 soils as, say, part of an aggregate- pit rehabilitation project, many of them producing local food next to Canada’s largest urban centre. We’ve looked, and what we’ve found is a scattering of indoor facilities primarily dedicated to high-value-added agricultural products such as mushrooms and tree-and-garden-plant propagation (nurseries), but no sites growing large quantities of fruit and vegetables for a price that fits the grocery budget of most Canadians. In fact, we are unaware of any detailed business model proving that large-scale, food-producing “inside agriculture” would be viable here.

The chief reason for the void is that indoor growing means higher energy costs. These food-production facilities are more profitable when located in areas with a mild winter climate and with low electricity

27 costs. Ontario has the highest electricity rates of any jurisdiction in Canada and the U.S., recently edging out Hawaii, whose power plants are primarily still supplied by oil tanker. In recent years, southwestern Ontario greenhouse food growers have chosen to build their new greenhouses in Ohio, where electricity rates are far lower. [101]

We asked our consultants (agricultural economists) about food-production greenhouses on the Pickering Lands when we were discussing the scope of work of our recent agricultural economics study. They thought we were joking. In their report, A Future for the Lands , they dismissed the idea out of hand, explaining their exclusion of greenhouse food production from their agricultural production model because existing greenhouses at Leamington, in Ontario’s warmest climate zone, would have a competitive advantage over similar facilities in north Pickering. [102] The higher average outside temperatures in extreme southwestern Ontario mean lower energy costs for greenhouse operations. Most clusters of food-producing greenhouses throughout the world are found in areas where the average wintertime temperatures are warmer than Ontario’s.

Even more problematic than greenhouses are indoor farms, the costliest way to produce food. [103] Energy costs for these facilities are higher because of the extra power required for indoor lighting (whereas the sun is free and renewable). [104] A professor of plant physiology at Utah State University has calculated that even the best-case scenario requires four times more energy to grow lettuce indoors than to truck the crop across the U.S. [105] And both methods are more expensive than growing the produce locally, in the ground, in the sun.

The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the drawbacks of inside agriculture, warning that “environmental benefits associated with local food can be offset by inefficient production systems with high emission intensity and resource needs [...] For example, vegetables pro - duced in open fields can have much lower GHG emissions than locally produced vegetables from heated greenhouses.” [106]

Unless powered by renewable energy, greenhouses and indoor farms aren’t green. And even if powered by renewable energy, they aren’t entirely green nor do they make an airport green. Nothing does.

Final Word

An airport is not a benign presence. Whatever services it offers, whatever boost it may provide to the economy, it remains a polluting facility. No matter how “green” it is, it is inescapably tainted by the business it’s in. It is indivisible from the polluting aircraft that rely on it, so its existence will endanger the health of plants, animals, and humans in its immediate vicinity and – we now know – can also have a negative effect on the health of people living much further afield.

These are the facts.

28 Sources

1. Aviation’s Pollution Trail 1. John Whitelegg, “Aviation: the social, economic and environmental impact of flying,” Ashden Trust, London, 2000: 2. http://us-caw.org/pdf/air10.pdf. 2. Anna Maria Sulej, Żaneta Polkowska and Jacek Namieśnik, “Contamination of Runoff Water at Gdańsk Airport (Poland) by Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),” Chemical Faculty, Gdańsk University of Technology , 2011. Accessed at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252016/. 3. International Civil Aviation Organization (website), “Traffic growth and airline profitability were highlights of air transport in 2016.” https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/traffic-growth-and-airline-profitability-were-highlights-of-air-transport-in-2016.aspx. 4. Index mundi, “World Jet Fuel Consumption by Year.” http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption. 5. Air Transport Action Group, Facts & Figures. Accessed June 20, 2017, at http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html. ATAG no longer shows such consumption data on its website. 6. International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO Environmental Report 2010, Chapter 1: Aviation’s Contribution to Climate Change: 38. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/EnvironmentReport-2010/ICAO_EnvReport10-Ch1_en.pdf. A more current tally is surprisingly hard to come by. Globally, between 2010 and 2017, the number of passengers carried increased from 2.6 billion to 4 billion and, between 2009 and 2017, departures of registered carriers jumped from 26.1 million to 35.8 million (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR). Despite this growth, the sector still quotes the 2010 emissions figure.

2. Types of Aviation-Caused Pollution 7. Environmental Protection UK: Aviation Pollution (website). http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/policy-areas/air-quality/air-pollution-and-transport/aviation-pollution/. 8. Joel Adams, “Airport responsible for considerable light pollution in Sussex,” The Argus (website), June 13, 2016. http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14552709.Airport_responsible_for_considerable_light_pollution_in_Sussex/. 9. Globe at Night (website), “What is Light Pollution?” https://www.globeatnight.org/light-pollution.php. 10. Martin Kaltenbach, Christian Maschke, and Rainer Klinke, “Health Consequences of Aircraft Noise,” published in Deutsches Ärzteblatt International , August 2008. Accessed at National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696954/. 11. R. Lawton and D. Fujiwara, “Living with aircraft noise: Airport proximity, aviation noise and subjective wellbeing in England,” reported by the European Commission: Science for Environment Policy, July 8, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/how_does_living_with_aircraft_noise_affect_wellbeing_uk_ airports_462na3_en.pdf. 12. World Health Organization, Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (2018) . http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/publications/2018/environmental-noise-guidelines-for-the- european-region-2018. Although published for Europe, the guidelines were developed with input from Asia, Australia, and America, so they reflect global findings and have global application. 13. Jangu Banatvala, Martin Peachey, and Thomas Münzel, “The harms to health caused by aviation noise require urgent action,” BMJ Opinion (blog), June 18, 2019. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/06/18/the-harms-to-health-caused-by-aviation-noise-require-urgent-action/. 14. Anna Maria Sulej et al., “Contamination of Runoff Water at Gdańsk Airport (Poland) by Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),” Chemical Faculty, Gdańsk University of Technology , 2011. Accessed at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252016/. 15. M. Nunes, Y .G. Zhu, T .Y. Stigter, and M .R. Teixeira, “Environmental impacts on soil and groundwater at airports ,” National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2011. Accessed at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22002748. 16. “EPA: Limit plane deicing chemical runoff,” Associated Press, September 29, 2009. Accessed at NBCNews.com: Environment. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33071411/ns/us_news-environment/t/epa-limit-plane-deicing-chemical-runoff/#.WSG64Lj1r1s. 17. Government of Canada, Transport Canada: “TP 14052 – Guidelines for Aircraft Ground – Icing Operations,” Section 13.1, June 2018. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14052-menu-314.htm#toc-13. 18. Ibid.: Section 13.2.1.

29 19. Government of Canada. List of airports owned by Transport Canada, September 26, 2018. http://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/operating-airports-aerodromes/list-airports-owned.html. 20. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, “Water management: policies, guidelines, provincial water quality objectives,” section 7, February 1999. https://www.ontario.ca/page/water-management-policies-guidelines-provincial-water-quality-objectives#section-7. There is a separate and stricter regulation limiting contaminants in potable (drinking) water. 21. Mason Inman, “Plane exhaust kills more people than plane crashes,” National Geographic News (website), October 12, 2010. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/. 22 . International Civil Aviation Organization, Airport Air Quality Manual , First Edition, 2011: 1:2. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Publications/FINAL.Doc%209889.1st%20Edition.alltext.en.pdf. 23. United States Environmental Protection Agency (website): Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution, n.d. https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoor-air-pollution#What%20is%20CO. 24. Wolfram Schenkler and W. Reed Walker, “Airports, Air Pollution, and Contemporaneous Health,” July 2015. Accessed June 24, 2019 . https://www.restud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MS17397manuscript.pdf. 25. United States Environmental Protection Agency (website): Learn about Lead, n.d. https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#effects. 26. Janet Raloff, “Airports’ leaden fallout may taint some kids,” Science News , July 14, 2011. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/airports%E2%80%99-leaden-fallout-may-taint-some-kids. 27. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Agency: Aviation Gas, recent program update June 20, 2019. https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/. 28. Green Facts: Airport Pollution Dioxide (based on World Health Organization report: Health Aspects of Air Pollution with Particulate Matter, Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide , 2003). Accessed June 25, 2018. https://www.greenfacts.org/en/nitrogen-dioxide-no2/level-3/02-health-effects.htm. 29. Frederic Beaudry, “How Does Nitrogen Oxide Pollution Affect the Environment?,” ThoughtCo., May 23, 2019. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-nitrogen-oxide-pollution-1204135. 30. “Worldwide study reveals air pollution link to unborn baby growth,” University of Aberdeen: News Details, April 18, 2019. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/12920/. 31. United States Environmental Protection Agency (website): Ground-level Ozone Basics, n.d. https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ground-level-ozone-basics#formation. 32. United States Environmental Protection Agency (website): Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM), n.d. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm. 33. United States Environmental Protection Agency: (website) Sulfur Dioxide Basics, n.d. https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics. 34. The Danish Ecocouncil, Air Pollution in Airports: Ultrafine particles, solutions and successful cooperation , March 2012: 4. http://www.project-cleanair.eu/measurements/documents/Air%20pollution%20in%20airports.pdf. 35 . International Civil Aviation Organization, Airport Air Quality Manual , First Edition, 2011: 3-3, 3-4. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Publications/FINAL.Doc%209889.1st%20Edition.alltext.en.pdf. 36. National Cancer Institute: 1,3-Butadiene. Reviewed January 31, 2019. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/butadiene. 37 . Dierdre Lockwood, “Los Angeles Airport Pollutes City Air For Miles Downwind,” Chemical & Engineering News , May 30, 2014. http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/05/Los-Angeles-Airport-Pollutes-City.html. 38. Wikipedia: Carbon dioxide: Toxicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide. 39. Centre for Biological Diversity: Airplane Emissions, n.d. Accessed August 10, 2019. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/ 40. Climate Central, “Hot and Getting Hotter: Heat Islands Cooking U.S. Cities,” August 20, 2014. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/urban- heat-islands-threaten-us-health-17919.

3. Are Things Changing for the Better? Growth Forecasts, Emissions Reduction, Alternative Fuels 41. International Air Transport Association, Press Release No. 59, “IATA Forecasts Passenger Demand to Double Over 20 Years,” October 18, 2016. https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-10-18-02.aspx.

30 42. Airports Council International, Media Release, “ACI has released the World Airport Traffic Forecasts 2016–2040, marking the beginning of the ACI-NA/World Annual General Assembly, Conference and Exhibition,” September 26, 2016. https://aci.aero/news/2016/09/26/aci-has-released-the-world-airport-traffic-forecasts-2016-2040-marking-the-beginning-of-the- aci-na-world-annual-general-assembly-conference-and-exhibition/. 43. Airports Council International, ACI Guide to World Airport Traffic Forecasts, 2016. ” https://store.aci.aero/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ACI_Guide_to_World_Airport_Traffic_Forecasts_2016-2-1.pdf. 44. International Air Transport Association, Director General's Report on the Air Transport Industry, AGM 2019, Seoul, June 2, 2019. https://www.iata.org/pressroom/speeches/Pages/2019-06-02-01.aspx. 45. Ibid. 46. Sophie Yeo, “Explainer: Aviation’s battle to limit rising emissions,” Carbon Brief: UK Emissions, June 30, 2015. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-aviations-battle-to-limit-rising-emissions. 47. Christine Negroni, “How Much of the World’s Population Has Flown in an Airplane?” Air&Space Smithsonian , January 6, 2016. https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/how-much-worlds-population-has-flown-airplane-180957719/#xeFrXa0I36txCX4T.99. 48. David Suzuki Foundation, “Air travel and climate change,” October 5, 2017. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/. 49. Benjamin Hulac, “Pollution from Planes and Ships Left Out of Paris Agreement,” ClimateWire (website), December 14, 2015. Accessed June 2019 at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pollution-from-planes-and-ships-left-out-of-paris-agreement/. 50. Oliver Milman, “First deal to curb aviation emissions agreed in landmark UN accord,” The Guardian , October 6, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/06/aviation-emissions-agreement-united-nations. 51. Ibid. 52. StackExchange: Aviation: “What is the lifespan of commercial airframes (in general)?” https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2263/what-is-the-lifespan-of-commercial-airframes-in-general. 53. Wikipedia: Airbus A220. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220. 54. Hugh Morris, “How many planes are there in the world right now?” The Telegraph , August 16, 2017. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-many-planes-are-there-in-the-world/. A 2019 source quotes a total of 32,000. https://www.fastcompany.com/90378081/whats-the-path-forward-for-electric-planes. 55. Bjorn Fehrm, “Electric aircraft, the first fall on the Hype curve,” Leeham News and Analysis (website), May 31, 2019. https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/31/bjorns-corner-electric-aircraft-the-first-fall-on-the-hype-curve/. 56. Wikipedia: Eviation Alice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviation_Alice. 57. Vera Pardee, Up in the Air: How Airplane Carbon Pollution Jeopardizes Global Climate Goals , Centre for Biodiversity, December 2015: 2. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/pdfs/ Airplane_Pollution_Report_December2015.pdf. 58 . Ibid.: 7. 59. International Air Transport Association, “IATA Media Briefing: Environment,” IATA Annual General Meeting and World Transport Summit, Seoul, June 1–3, 2019. https://www.iata.org/pressroom/media-kit/Documents/environment-presentation-agm2019.pdf. 60. International Air Transport Association, “Summary – Sustainability for the Future: Creating a Sustainable Industry,” IATA Annual General Meeting and World Transport Summit, Seoul, June 1–3, 2019. https://www.iata.org/events/agm/2019/Pages/sustainability-session-summary.aspx. 61. Lisa Song, with additional reporting by Paula Moura, “An (Even More) Inconvenient Truth: Why carbon credits for forest preservation may be worse than nothing,” ProPublica, May 22, 2019. https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/. 62 . NASA: Global Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide. Time Series: 2002-2016. Accessed July 2019. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide. 63. Ibid., Direct Measurements: 2005–Present. 64 . Jörgen Larsson, Anneli Kamb, Jonas Nässén, and Jonas Åkerman, “Measuring greenhouse gas emissions from international air travel of a country’s residents methodological development and application for Sweden,” May 2018. Accessed at ScienceDirect: Enb\vironmental Impact Assessment Review, September 2018. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925517303116#bb0165. 65. Air Transport Action Group, Facts & Figures (website). The 2015 and 2017 figures were both sourced from ATAG in 2017, but the web page has since been updated to show current data. http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html.

31 66. Aviation Environment Federation tweet, June 7, 2019: “In 2018, global aviation emissions shot past the 1,000 MtCO2 mark for the very first time. @IATA [International Air Transport Association] reported this week that 2018 emissions from its members were 905 MtCO2. Adding an estimate for other airline and military emissions, based on @IEA [International Energy Agency] data, takes the total over 1,000.” https://twitter.com/The_AEF/status/1137005306939158528. 67. International Air Transport Association, Press Release No. 55, “2036 Forecast Reveals Air Passengers Will Nearly Double to 7.8 Billion,” October 24, 2017. https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2017-10-24-01.aspx. 68. David Suzuki Foundation, “Air travel and climate change,” October 5, 2017. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/. 69. European Environment Agency, European Aviation Environmental Report, 2016: 37–8. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/ﬁles/european-aviation-environmental-report-2016-72dpi.pdf. 70 . Michael Fahy, “Masdar trials desert fish farms and biofuels grown with seawater,” The National , March 6, 2016. http://www.thenational.ae/business/economy/masdar-trials-desert-fish-farms-and-biofuels-grown-with-seawater. The trials were apparently successful, according to a subsequent report in 2019. But can halophyte farms be scaled up to supply the vast volumes of aviation fuel required every day? And will the world’s arid areas, where these farms would be situated, become too hot for human habitation and perhaps even for halophytes, as our biosphere heats up? The report doesn’t go there. https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/80371/sustainability-series/. 71. Rita Sharma, Silas Wungrampha, Vinay Singh, Ashwani Pareek, and Manoj K. Sharma, “Halophytes As Bioenergy Crops,” Frontiers in Plant Science , September 13, 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020079/. 72. David Suzuki Foundation, “Air travel and climate change,” October 5, 2017. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/. 73. Centre for Aviation, “Aviation's challenging environmental outlook: faster action needed,” CAPA Analysis Reports, December 18, 2018. https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/aviations-challenging-environmental-outlook-faster-action-needed-452167.

4. Environmental Consequences of an Airport on the Pickering Federal Lands 74. Transport Canada: Air: “Response to Synopsis Report of the Hearing Officer [Mr J.W. Swackhamer, Q.C.]; New Toronto Airport”, 1973: 10. 75. John Slinger, “Terminal open by 1979: City of 200,000 to rise near airport in Pickering,” Globe and Mail , March 3, 1972: 1. 76. Wikipedia: Toronto Pearson International Airport. Pearson ”features five runways and two passenger terminals along with numerous cargo and maintenance facilities on a site that covers 1,867 hectares (4,613 acres).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Pearson_International_Airport 77 . Damian Carrington, “Noise pollution is drowning out nature even in protected areas – study,” The Guardian , May 4, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/04/noise-pollution-is-drowning-out-nature-even-in-protected-areas-study\. 78. Peter Muennig, Zafar Zafari, Boshen Jiao, Shukai Li, and Brian Will, “Airport Flight Patterns Take a Toll on Human Health,” Columbia University, August 16, 2018. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/optimizing-airport-flight-patterns-take-toll-human-health. 79. Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report, 2004, section 8.4.2: Airport Operating Area Concept: 8:94. 80. Map: “Runway Approaches of Proposed Pickering Airport,” Land Over Landings, 2019. Details calculated from data in Part 4 of Transport Canada’s draft Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations, Canada Gazette , July 25, 2015. The table following the map is based on data visible on the map at 200 m scale. https://landoverlandings.com/be-informed/maps/. 81 . Government of Canada, Transport Canada: “Aviation – Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes,” section 4.3.1. Last modified March 15, 2017. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp1247-menu-1418.htm#mb6. 82. Ibid.: section 4.6.1. 83. Toronto Pearson International Airport, Noise Management, AOA and NEF Map, December 15, 2005. https://www.torontopearson.com/en/community/noise-management/publications-resources. 84. Dr Gary Polonsky, Jets & Jobs: Summary of Findings from the Targeted Stakeholder Consultations by the Independent Advisor on the Economic Development of the Pickering Lands , presented to the Minister of Transport, June 2016: 16, 27. Accessed at https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ontario/economic-development-pickering-lands.html. 85. Toronto Pearson International Airport, Noise Management, “Noise Statistics Update, 2018 Year End”: 3. https://tpprodcdnep.azureedge.net/-/media/project/pearson/content/community/noise-management/pdfs/ annual-noise-reports/2018-annual-noise-report.pdf.

32 86 . Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report, 2004 : 3:18. 87 . The Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program / Bring Back the Salmon Lake Ontario. http://www.bringbackthesalmon.ca/about/. 88. Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report, 2004 : 4:44. 89 . Ibid.: 5:59. 90. Kevin Spear, “Orlando airport doused in jet fuel when Norwegian plane made emergency landing,” Orlando Sentinel , July 3, 2018. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-norwegian-dumps-fuel-orlando-airport-20190703-2exvt23hnjagpi7zw3xfvgvmvy- story.html#nws=true. 91. European Environment Agency, European Aviation Environmental Report, 2016 : 38. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/ﬁles/modes/air/aviation-strategy/documents/european-aviation-environmental-report- 2016-72dpi.pdf.

5. Airports and National Parks 92. Government of Canada, Parks Canada, Rouge National Urban Park Management Plan, 2019 : 5. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/on/rouge/info/gestion-management/gestion-management-2019. 93. Sajid Nadeem, Fatima Hafeez, “Runway Orientation Assignment.” https://www.slideshare.net/sajid93/runway-orientation.

6. The Greenwashing of Airports 94. Dr Gary Polonsky, Jets & Jobs: Summary of Findings from the Targeted Stakeholder Consultations by the Independent Advisor on the Economic Development of the Pickering Lands , presented to the Minister of Transport, June 2016: 27, 30, 31. Accessed at https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ontario/economic-development-pickering-lands.html. 95. Southern Ontario Airport Network, Flying Together , May 2017: 6. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4bd6a164b05ff55f9fb6e7/t/5b05a79cf950b76fb5f0933f/1527097262649/ Flying+Together+-+The+Southern+Ontario+Airport+Network+%282%29.pdf 96. Wikipedia: Fossil fuel divestment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_divestment. 97. Shireen Jkassim, “GREEN Airports – Features and Perspectives,” EAG Consulting Sdn Bhd, Malaysia, 2014. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/46/130/46130361.pdf. 98. Sarina Houston, “6 Eco-Friendly Airports,” The Balance Careers, January 14, 2019. https://www.thebalance.com/eco-friendly-airports-282729. 99. Declan Finney and Giulio Mattioli, “Planned growth of UK airports not consistent with net-zero climate goal,” Carbon Brief, June 24, 2019. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-planned-growth-of-uk-airports-not-consistent-with-net-zero-climate-goal. 100. Eoghan Macguire, “Green airports on carbon cutting mission,” CNN, October 2, 2012. Accessed at http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/02/business/green-airport-aviation-environment/index.html. 101. “Hydro costs force Kingsville greenhouse to expand outside Ontario,” CBC News, November 28, 2016. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/greenhouse-hydro-ontario-businesses-1.3870512. 102. Econometric Research Ltd. and JRG Consulting Group, A Future for the Lands: Economic Impact of Remaining Pickering Federal Lands if Returned to Permanent Agriculture , January 2018 : 30. http://landoverlandings.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Final-Report-Mar-7-FINAL.pdf. 103. Jonathan Foley, “No, Vertical Farms Won’t Feed the World,” Medium, August 1, 2018. https://globalecoguy.org/no-vertical-farms-wont-feed-the-world-5313e3e961c0. 104. Andrew Jenkins, “Food security: vertical farming sounds fantastic until you consider its energy use,” The Conversation, September 10, 2018. http://theconversation.com/food-security-vertical-farming-sounds-fantastic-until-you-consider-its-energy-use-102657. 105. Tom Philpott, ”Skyscrapers Full of Lettuce Promise an Eco-Friendly Alternative to Outdoor Farming. There’s Just One Problem,” Mother Jones , July/August 2018. https://www.motherjones.com/food/2018/07/vertical-farming-drought-california-plenty-energy/. 106. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change and Land, Chapter 5: Food Security , August 2019:5: 82. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf.