Lies, lies and Gloucestershire Airport expansion

Lies is perhaps too strong but I have to say I am pretty unhappy about the way the Airport are treating us with regards to their proposed expansion. They have consistently denied plans to massively increase flights and dismissed my comments in the local papers - they've also even denied their own Business Plan was accurate when it was released to the press with info about flight increases - but now the truth is finally emerging...

Photo: me outside Gloucestershire Airport

Staverton Airport's managing director, Mark Ryan, has confirmed that plans to demolish existing buildings and extend the runway are to allow additional European flights. This goes against all economic and environmental sense - as blog readers will know I have campaigned much against airport expansions - it was last summer we had a protest outside Staverton itself. See my latest letter this week to local press here.

World's scientists last month warned there may be just eight years to act on greenhouse gas pollution to avoid the worst of global warming - in the face of this and the overwhelming evidence on the increasingly likely risk of run away global warming, the decision to develop the airport and increase the number of flights is madness.

Photo: Demo last summer against Staverton's plans for expansion

Today's report in the Times on the saturation of the Southern Oceans with CO2 shows still further how stressed the environment has become. The article's warning is that global warming is now forecast to accelerate further - our position is critical.

Staverton Airport has long claimed that the modifications it is currently proposing are for safety related purposes only. It is now clear that this claim was designed to mislead and avoid the necessary public scrutiny that an airport development should be subjected to, especially given the increasing public concern about global warming. It is disingenuous in the extreme to argue that little is changing when they are planning flights to Europe.

As Kev in Nailsworth of Kev's Climate Column fame said: "To give an order of magnitude of the environmental impact of this development, I previously calculated that the proposed development would require approximately 1.5 million trees to be planted to absorb the CO2 produced. Given the increased number of flights that the airport management is now claiming it wants to introduce, this is will be an under-estimate. "

Despite the airport management’s claims, the development will have a significant global warming impact. Kev has already written to all Gloucester and Cheltenham councillors re this expansion - the two Councils are shareholders of the Airport - here are some of the points he makes:

As a share holders of this airport, it is incumbent on yourselves to oppose this development, for the following reasons:-

• Aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions. Current government policy effectively provides unrestricted development of aviation, in the face of all credible scientific evidence. The government's own figures show that aviation emissions will treble by the year 2050.

• The government and the aviation industry, (including the Staverton airport web site) claim that aviation emissions can be managed through incorporation of aviation into the European Carbon Trading Scheme (see more below). This is a blatant and cynical lie. The transport secretary (Douglas Alexander) on being questioned by the environmental audit committee on the inclusion of aviation into the European Carbon Trading Scheme said: "In terms of where we are in those negotiations, the evidence from the public statements of Lufthansa, even in the last 48 hours, evidences that the argument is not yet won within the aviation community. It is also no secret that some of our international partners are less than convinced of the merits even of a European scheme, never mind a wider scheme given the global nature of airtravel." It is therefore absolutely obvious that there is no mechanism in place that will ameliorate the emissions generated from this development or for that matter any other airport expansion, despite the claims made by Staverton airport and others within the industry.

• The aviation industry would like to claim that their emissions are a small percentage of the overall total compared to power generation and car emissions. However policies are gradually being developed to reduce these such as carbon capture for power stations and road pricing for cars. Aviation is the only major emitter of carbon that is doing absolutely nothing to reduce its total emissions.

• The management claim that with the new development the total number of flights from the airport will not increase, implying that existing flights will be replaced by the new services. There is absolutely no evidence to support this and it is inconceivable that the airport management will terminate existing businesses and service contracts once they introduced new passenger services. The most likely scenario is that the existing customers will be maintained and the proposed new business will be run in addition.

• The airport has made erroneous claims on the benefit to the local community such as “business jets operating from the airport having the range to take colleagues to almost anywhere,” implying that this is critical to business development in the area. However as custodians of the future environment, it is incumbent on you to encourage businesses in the area to use low carbon forms of communication such as video conferencing, rather than allow the most carbon intensive modes of operation. Also, in reality a large number of these “business jet” flights are likely to be made by the rich and famous and will not support any critical business development.

• The airport has made and will continue to make the claim that its emissions are small compared to the adjacent motorway. However, this overlooks that fact that airport is actively seeking to increase its carbon emissions. If history has told us anything, it is that it is far easier to stop a bad idea from beginning than to stop a bad idea from continuing. Japan tries to continue whaling because it has a whaling industry to support, cars are driven long distances on motorways because people choose to live further from work and demand that motorways stay accessible so they can continue to work. In the near future as the impacts of climate change bite deeply into everyone’s standard of living and future security, those industries and people who have become dependent on airports like Staverton will argue that its continued operation is essential for the maintenance of their livelihoods, to the detriment of everyone else.

I therefore urge you to consider this development rationally and dispassionately in the face of the emerging evidence from global warming and consider the implication of the long term over those of the short term. It is too easy to claim that global warming is the fault of others, that our individual contribution is trivial and we are helpless and then to do nothing. This attitude will most certainly achieve nothing. In this emerging crisis we must all be leaders and not followers. With the current evidence, there is no argument to support expansion and development of the airport.

See also Kev's letters to Tewkesbury councillors re the planning applications here - especially his 16th May blog entry. Click on Labels below to see my previous letters to Tewkesbury councillors.

Flights increase - EU emissions Trading scheme is not the answer

It was only a couple of weeks ago we had news that flights have reached record levels (Guardian, 9 May 2007). Governments have systematically failed to introduce the bold and ambitious policies necessary to stop and reverse aviation growth. Worse, the policies currently being considered by the European Union look unlikely to make any significant difference.

Green MEP Caroline Lucas writes: "Putting aviation into the EU's emissions trading scheme is being presented as the single most effective way of tackling the growth of aviation. Yet incredibly, according to the European Commission's own figures, the current proposals will merely reduce forecast demand growth from 142% to 135% by 2020."

The argument goes that as long as reductions are made "somewhere" in the economy it doesn't matter who makes them - and aviation's contribution will be to finance efforts in other sectors. But this overlooks at least two critical points.

First figures show how accustomed to flying some of us are becoming. Allowing this to continue unabated - as is apparently foreseen - will increasingly lock people into air-dependent lifestyles. The more embedded such living and working patterns become, the harder it will be to reduce demand for air travel in the future.

Second, without a parallel emissions charge (or equivalent measure) to cover aviation's non-CO2 emissions, the effect of aviation buying the right to emit a tonne of CO2 from another sector with much lower CO2 impacts will be a net disbenefit to the environment.

Ministers and the Commission must put in place a scheme which will genuinely ensure aviation emissions are reduced - as well as recognise that emissions trading, however well-designed, can only ever be part of the answer: kerosene taxes and airport capacity reduction must also be introduced.

Peter Lockley, of the Aviation Environment Federation campaign group, said: "Even the most optimistic industry estimates have fuel efficiency only increasing by 1-2% each year. So if the number of flights goes up 5% a year, it's not very difficult maths to see their carbon emissions are going to rise, just as the scientists say they need to be reduced."

Research shows that 2.51m flights are timetabled worldwide this month, topping the previous high of 2.49m from August last year. That represents an additional 113,827 flights compared with May 2006, or 17.7m extra seats.

Mr Alexander, managing director of aviation analyst firm OAG, said: "This is great news from a travellers' viewpoint, with much more competition and choice."

What planet are these people living on???

The largest year-on-year rise is within China, with nearly 23,000 more domestic flights scheduled this month than in May 2006, a rise of 18%. US domestic flights have risen by some 19,000, though that represents just a 2% rise, to 838,000. Demand also soared within India, up 10,000 flights, or 25%, to 43,000 flights.

The figures show that the UK is now the most popular country for international flights, with 121,000 scheduled arrivals and departures this month, up 7%. Spain showed the single largest rise, up nearly 10,000 flights, or 16%. Overall, the low-cost sector showed a rise of some 70,000 flights, up 22% year-on-year. In sheer size, the most noteworthy route showing a year-on-year increase is for flights between western Europe and Africa but transatlantic routes also showed a significant rise.

It was great to hear at least one in the industry talking sense - Mark Ellingham, founder of the Rough Guide series, has called for stringent new taxes on flights to deter travellers and reduce environmental damage. He wants a £100 green tax on all flights to Europe and Africa, and £250 on flights to the rest of the world, as well as a moratorium on airport expansion. He said there was no such thing as an ethical holiday. "The tobacco industry fouled up the world while denying it as much as possible for as long as they could. If the travel industry rosily goes ahead as it is doing, ignoring the effect that carbon emissions from flying are having on climate change, we are putting ourselves in a very similar position to the tobacco industry."

BBC Gloucestershire have a webpage on the airport with comments for and against Gloucestershire Airport's expansion - they have included my words.