Echo editorial on aviation shows serious lack of understanding

I have to say I was shocked by the lack of understanding in the Echos recent editorial - see here - at least Cathy Green was given space to write about the Heathrow camp and they also noted the cause was right - better than The Sun who have apparently only done 6 articles on climate change in the last 7 years!!!! No wonder so many people are so ignorant.

My response is below and below that is a letter by Nailsworth climate change protester, Kevin Lister who challenges a report by the Airport given to the Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce re Stavertons expansion plus a couple of his letters challenging views in the paper that because Staverton was so 'useful' in the floods it should be allowed to expand!!

Photo: Last years demo at Staverton

My letter to Echo today:

I read with concern your editorial about the Gloucestershire protesters who joined the Climate Change camp at Heathrow (Echo18/08/07). Several points need addressing if we are not to perpetuate seriously dangerous misconceptions.

You note that "air travel is one of the miracles of the modern age, not the total scourge which the protesters might have us believe". In fact there is no dispute: aircraft are amongst the most CO2 intensive methods of travel and CO2 emitted at altitude increases global warming by up to a factor of four. If aviation is allowed to grow at current projections it will account for all permitted greenhouse gas emissions - across all sectors - before 2045.

You note Jo Public wants holidays, but the science says we cannot expand aviation. In any case it is largely the wealthy who fly: the average salary of passengers using British airports is £48,000 and the proportion of lower income households who fly has shrunk since 2000 despite falling prices. 10% of people, mostly the better off, have accounted for fully half of all flights and we should not forget aviation is subsidised annually in this country by £10.4 billion (WDM figure for this year).

You note the ozone layer matters but that is a separate issue from climate change. You suggest the answer is "planes which are light on fuel". Even the latest planes consume only 12 percent less fuel. Indeed waiting for an aeroplane that doesn’t cause climate change is like holding out for a cigarette that doesn’t cause cancer. It’s just not scientifically credible.

Our Government is failing us: emissions are rising. We need our local press to tell us the truth: to tell us what the scientists are saying. The real irony, of course, is that a radical transformation that Greens advocate, is a win-win: warmer homes, stronger communities, tastier food, less time in traffic jams – even an end to the "status anxiety" which makes so many of us unhappy or even depressed. If we do not take these actions very soon scientists show we will make this planet uninhabitable. There is no question the Heathrow camp is the most important protest of our time.

Kevin on the Glos Airport report:

I have anonymously been forwarded a document prepared by Gloucestershire Airport which they have titled "Misconceptions." It is clearly intended to rebut the environmental concerns that I have raised about the airport. I feel that it is appropriate that I answer their claims and forward my answers to those who were on the inital circulation list. In summary the airports document presents a damning case for their stewardship of the environment, in the following ways: • They have devoted the opening section of their report to dismissing global warming by peddling unproven science. Far from demonstrating concern about the environment, they are demonstrating absolute contempt towards it. • Their report is frequently contradictory. For example, it claims that noise general aviation will be reduced following the expansion, but goes on to claim that helicopter businesses which are the noisest of all are an important client and implies that they will remain so. • Their report makes false and unsubstantiated claims, such as house prices rising in the neighbourhood of the airport. There is no evidence in the UK to support this at all. In fact in the vicinity of Heathrow, people are unable to sell their houses. • The report claims that there are no plans to expand the airport, but this flatly contradicts their statements in their business plan. I trust that you will give full consideration of the facts associated with the environmental damage that this expansion proposal will cause by not supporting its development nor be taken in by the mistruths and distortions that the airport are presenting. In the spirit of debate that the aviation industry have been calling for, I am copying my reply to the management of the airport. The airport's report and my response to it are attached. (Philip - I have those if anyone is interested).

I also point to these two letters from Kevin Lister in response to letters in the Echo praising their help in the floods:

1. Following Darren Lewington’s letter regarding the airports support during the flooding crisis, I would also like to congratulate his organisation for supporting the crisis. However, such support does not constitute a business case for the airport’s expansion which Darren Lewington's letter goes onto make (Citizen letters 9/08/07).

As I have pointed out in previous letters we face a critical danger from global warming and the recent flooding should be taken as a wake up call. The Nature magazine recently published research concluding that the flooding which has been experienced world wide is unequivocally linked to global warming.

We now face a period where food production across the world is falling due to the combined effects from global warming of droughts and floods and the desire to shift production to bio-fuels. This is coinciding with worldwide falls in oil production causing further prices rises. The total effect of these two major issues is that inflation is rising worldwide, causing corresponding increases in interest rates. All the indications are that the economic long term fundamentals are now in decline, and what we are seeing is not a simple market correction. As a result, this weekend the banks are standing on the precipice of a global liquidity crisis, and interest rates will stay painfully high for the long term.

This has a profound impact on the business case for Staverton Airport. Taking an optimistic estimate that the cost of borrowing will be 7%, and tax will be paid at 20%, then based on the airport’s business plan, it will take over 25 years to pay back the initial investment. If the cost of borrowing rises to only 8%, it will take approximately 45 years to pay back the investment, so bad is the business case. Thus the airport expansion is an extremely bad deal for the council tax payers of Gloucester and Cheltenham.

There can only two outcomes for the council tax payers of Gloucester and Cheltenham. They will either have to bail out the investment if the business fails, or they will suffer far more noise and pollution from the airport than it has claimed as it tries to ramp up the number of aircraft far beyond the current public predictions of service growth to obtain a reasonable return on investment.

As well as upholding the obligation on climate change and protecting the local environment, it is also vital that the elected councillors ensure that their constituents are not faced with unnecessary financial risk and that their taxes are effectively spent. If an important aspect of the business case for the airport's expansion will be the provision of support in the case of future flooding caused by global warming, then the council should first of all ask if the money it plans to spend on the expansion of the airport could not be better spent on investment in the appropriate emergency equipment instead; or on flood protection in the Bath Road area.

2. Gloucestershire Airports own business plan shows that the business case is virtually none existent. At present rates of interest it will take 25 years to break even. If the interest rates increases further, this will extend to 45 years. Expansion of the airport therefore represents an extremely poor investment for the council tax payers of Gloucester and Cheltenham, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. If flood response is the issue, the £2.5 million pounds to be invested in this scheme could be much better spent directly on flood prevention and appropriate emergency equipment. Furthermore, the statement "Of course aircraft pollute, but so do most things in modern-day life," is not an argument to build the airport, in fact it is the strongest argument of all not to build the airport. We now inhabit a planet which is saturated with excess CO2 because so many things are polluting. The position is clear; we can not put any more CO2 into the atmosphere. Peter should also realise that a key business sector for the airport’s expansion is “business jets.” He should also realise that European air traffic data shows recreational destinations such as Nice, Cannes and Mallorca to be among the top 20 destinations for "business aviation.” Thus business jets would be more appropriately named “recreational jets.” Thus, the most elite people of society are sticking two fingers up to climate change which is galling to those of us making sacrifices to cut our emissions. However, it might be that Peter already owns a “business jet.” He may wish to confirm this or if he has any other vested interests in the airport.