I felt cognitive dissonance reading A1 on Dec. 21. “Sea-Tac Airport’s answer to overcrowding? Construction” highlighted the Port of Seattle’s more than 100 projects, noting that the number of passengers grew from 31 million in 2007 to 52.6 million in 2024 and is only expected to increase.
The Port is spending $5 billion to increase the flow of passengers. Arif Ghouse, the airport’s chief operating officer, “argues that increased demand and air traffic is coming whether or not the Port completes its project checklist” and that “the Port legally can’t limit air traffic … and airlines will continue to find ways to reach more passengers.”
The cities of Des Moines, SeaTac and Burien filed a petition for judicial review of the Federal Aviation Administration’s environmental review greenlighting the projects.
I haven’t flown since 2020. I know the math is clear — that to stabilize the climate, aviation will have to be decreased. The rest of the Dec. 21 paper had several articles focused on national disasters, with some including climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels as the cause.
It’s jarring to see promotion of aviation, a cause (burning fossil fuels), not connected to the effect (warming temperatures and increasingly deadly natural disasters).
Andrea O’Ferrall, Seattle
