Heathrow camp: the most important protest of our time

Mark Lynas describes the climate protesters at Heathrow as "The most important protest of our time" - that is spot on. More of that in a moment plus questions that I've been asked in last few days about aviation - but first to the extraordinary hype by the media - allegations have been plaguing the camp all week - hoax bombs, assaults on airport fence, warnings of clashes with police and more.

Photo: Our local Staverton airport that is planning expansion

Journalist George Monbiot writing from the camp in The Guardian said: "Shameless exaggerations of the climate protesters' dastardly plans have left us baffled at the camp."

His comments are echoed by reports from various friends and colleagues who have been to the camp - it is once again outrageous misreporting of the facts - the campers will certainly be breaking the law by taking direct action - all protests can now be deemed unlawful - but they will be governed by strict non-violent principles. Monbiot writes more:

As for scaling the perimeter fence, it has been ruled out on the grounds that we would probably be shot. Invading Heathrow's massive runways would put the lives of thousands at risk. So where did the story come from? It was, or so the byline claimed, written by Robert Mendick, the Evening Standard's chief reporter. One of the campers phoned Mr Mendick and asked him what was going on. "I'm very constrained about what I can say for various reasons," Mr Mendick replied. "Suffice to say I understand what you're saying and I can't go into it. Er, and I would further say it's, er, not something I was actually massively involved with and, er, I'll leave it at that." "What do you mean?" "... I really can't go into it."

So what does he mean? Why is Mr Mendick unable to say where the claims in his story came from? How did he manage to write an article that he was not "massively involved with"? Is there a computer programme at the Evening Standard that composes reporters' articles on their behalf? I left messages for Mr Mendick yesterday but was unable to speak to him.

Protests like this have two peculiar vulnerabilities. One is that anyone can claim to speak on their behalf, either in person or online, whether or not they are involved. The other is that anyone can say anything about them without fear of being corrected, let alone sued: accusations can be leveled at the collective that could not be directed at any of its members. As long as the claims remain in the plural, they can be stretched as far as public credulity will allow.

During one roads protest in the 1990s we were accused of stabbing guards with hypodermic needles filled with blood, setting pit traps lined with metal spikes in the hope of catching and killing the police and arming ourselves with catapults and crossbows to take out the contractors: all nonsense, of course. Yet when some of us were hospitalised by guards (alongside several others, I had a bone broken during an unprovoked attack), most of the newspapers wouldn't touch the story for fear of being sued by the security firm.

Scare stories about anarchist baby eaters are as old as protest. We can't prevent their publication - all we can ask is that you read them with the scepticism their authors failed to employ.

There is more in The Guardian about the protest clashes here. Update 26th August 2007: See also the excellent review of Guardian coverage by Medialens here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070823_giving_the_climate.php

Here is how local Nailsworth climate change campaigner described a day at the protest:

Today a rag tag bunch of people armed with placards and concern for the planet dared to walk to the empty BAA offices for what is in fact a token protest. No passengers were inconvenienced, no terrorist targets were being threated. The only thing being challenged was the appalling case for expanding Britans airports against the overwhelming scientific evidence. The reaction of the police has been a violent challenge which would be worthy of the worst police states as dozens of riot vans descended on the protesters, which ranged from mothers with young children to old age pensioners....The governments cynical position on claiming that global warming is a concern whilst simultaneously expanding airports and denying the public any say in the decision leaves direct action as the only action. The police's over reaction today is a serious warning for future liberties.

See more and his photos here. And more from Indymedia:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2007/climatecamp/
And more re the camp here:
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/

Update 21/08/07: See George Monbiot writing in The Guardian about why "the climate camp at Heathrow is materially different from protests that have taken place in Britain before." Also Cathy Green plans to put photos on her blog soon.

Protesters are inspiring example

Simply by occupying the proposed runway site, the protesters have provided an inspiring
example of how citizens can fight climate change. Climate change is happening, and the scientific evidence all points to it being man-made. See Mark Lynas' article in the New Statesman about why this protest is so important and read more below:

Now to your questions answered...

Aren't the Government taking action on climate change?

As I've noted on this blog many times our policy makers do worse than nothing. Gordon Brown is spending billions of pounds on new road construction, Heathrow is to have this new runway plus passenger numbers across the UK are planned to double and triple in coming years, new planning 'reforms' will make roads, incinerators and runways easier to build, UK is failing miserably in it's renewable energy obligations. There is even a paradoxical scramble amongst countries to grab oil reserves at the North Pole, accessible only because of predicted glacial melting caused by the very burning of the oil they're scrambling for!

Both Labour and Tories are getting good at sprouting green rhetoric but their continued support for Heathrow expansion and road widening suggests that we need deep-seated political change to get to an ecologically and socially just society. In Stroud Greens have had more success in getting arguments heard - the local District Council has officially questioned the expansion of Bristol airport and made strong statements in it's submission re the proposed climate change bill demanding that aviation be included in the calculations.

Why is a flight so bad?

Cathy Green from Cheltenham Green party who joined the Heathrow protest said to the local paper before she went: "The links between climate change and aviation are undisputed – aviation is the fastest growing source of emissions after deforestation. This is because aviation emissions are at high altitude and have to be multiplied by a factor up to 4 times the effect of the CO2 alone (see latest IPCC report). Other pollutants such as N02 and effects such as high altitude cloud formation cause this."

All scientists agree on just how important it is that we stabilise global temperature rises below the danger line of 2° - the aviation industry is key player in standing in the way. A return flight for example to, say, Thailand, means for each passenger about six tonnes of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere - three times more than is likely to come from any other activity you do in the year, including driving and heating your house. The industry tried to play down the multiplier effect that Cathy mentions and claims the flight would "only" be 2.16 tonnes.

See my post on 7th July re clouds - I have now seen newer research showing that we have underestimated the effects of these - already night flights are said to account for only 22% of air travel over the UK but up to 80% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to contrails.

I still marvel at how these planes take off at all - a 400-tonne Boeing 747 going London to Dubai carries 57 tonnes of kerosene in its wings and tail - using 12 litres for every kilometre travelled - and if caught in a holding stack waiting for clearance it will burn 100kg of fuel for every minute!

But aviation is only a small part of UK emissions?

It is true that aviation is a smaller part but it is the growth that is the serious problem. BAA's chief executive argues that aviation accounts for only 6 per cent of UK carbon emissions and 3 per cent of those globally. These figures of course include no multiplier effect and are also reckoned to be an underestimate.

Aviation is also by far the fastest-growing source of greenhouse-gas emissions globally. If air travel goes on expanding, all carbon-reduction targets go out of the window. As the Tyndall Centre - the UK's best-known academic body specialising in climate research - reported in a 2006 study, aviation could account for 100 per cent of the UK's carbon allocation by 2050 in a climate stabilisation scenario. In other words, all other carbon-emitting sectors will need either to go zero-carbon or to shut up shop, merely to allow for the growth in air traffic. As Mark Lynas quotes in his article: "Tyndall Centre scientists are adamant that 'there is no chance for the climate without tackling aviation' - and that means stopping the expansion of airport infrastructure."

What about biofuels?

Richard Branson has pledged billions for biofuels research, but even if technical hurdles - such as biofuels' propensity to freeze at high altitude - could be overcome, there isn't enough land out there to support the volumes of fuel required without either displacing large areas of food production or further destroying tropical forests. See previous posts on biofuels. No one, not even airline PR people, claims that alternative fuels can be developed for at least another 30-50 years, much too late to help reduce climate change, which requires concerted action in the next decade.

New planes are already environmentally friendly?

The new Airbus: the A380 is dubbed as an ‘environmentally-friendly aircraft’ that consumes 12 percent less fuel that its competitors. One protester responded saying: "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. These new airliners aren’t being manufactured to clean-up the aviation industry, they’re being built to significantly enlarge it."

We can offset our emissions?

Offsetting does not reduce emissions - it simply allows them in one place while trying to mop up the damage somewhere else. Clearly though it is better to offset than not - but be careful about how - there are many dodgy offsetting schemes - see previous posts on this topic.

Why are flights so cheap?

The Aviation Environment Federation has estimated that airlines pay just 18p per litre on fuel that would cost you and me 75p - helping net the industry billions in hidden subsidies. The World Development Movement calculates that this years subsidy to UK aviation is £10.4 billion! Hence the calls for a level playing field and aviation to pay its way.

Taxing aviation means poor travelers can't fly?

Infact most of the boom in low-cost air travel has been by rich people travelling more often. Surveys show that most people in the lowest social groups do not fly at all. 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 prices falling. 10% of people - mostly the better off have accounted for fully half of all flights.

We need action to make those who pollute pay for their damage and 'green' choices to be made easier if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change: travelling the same journey by train would have meant 17 to 19 times fewer CO2 emissions. Trains are also now capable of travelling at 300kph. 70% of EU flights are under 1000km and it is clear we should instead be expanding a fast rail network not yet more damaging air travel. A weekend in Prague should not be cheaper than a weekend in Bournemouth.

China plans 48 new airports by 2010?

There are all sorts of issues here about equity - and clearly we need to put this in perspective - even once these new airports are completed there will be fewer than 500 paved airports in China compared to 5,000 in the US. Plus this is less about travel and tourism and more about economic development. See my previous posts on Contraction and Convergence as a way forward.

Oil is running out?

Indeed it is - this makes it even more absurd to be developing our airports. Whatever the actual volume of oil left under the ground it is clear that, at today's level of consumption, with population growth and economic expansion, it will run out in the not too distant future. Furthermore, the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions means that we cannot burn all those reserves without irreversible and catastrophic changes to our climate. Read more on this in my blog entries re peak oil.

What's at stake if we don't stop aviation expansion?

I need not go into this again in this blog entry - the evidence is overwhelming about what is already happening around the world - but I will mention that campaigners against Stansted expansion recently introduced a witness from Greenland at the public inquiry. Aqqaluk Lynge, an Inuit human rights leader - he gave a powerful speech saying: "You may say that the expansion of London Stansted Airport will play only a small part in increasing climate change, but everyone can say that about almost everything they do. It is an excuse for doing nothing. The serious consequences affecting my people today will affect your people tomorrow."

He continued saying the Inuit, "the people who live farther north than anyone else", were "the canary in the global coal mine." Some Inuit villages have already lost homes as the sea moves 300 metres inland in places, while thinning ice makes hunting increasingly difficult, even dangerous. "We don't hunt for sport or recreation. Hunters put food on the table. You go to the supermarket. We go on the sea ice."

Just after he made that speech on 9 August scientists reported that the Arctic sea ice had reached its lowest level in recorded history. With a further month of melt left to go, the experts expect that the previous record - set in 2005 - will be "annihilated".

More questions?

I am happy to answer more questions - but will also point folk in the direction of our Green party report re Bristol airports expansion - see here - and the Stop Bristol Airport expansion site with it's questions and answers - see here:
http://www.nobristolairportexpansion.co.uk/questions.php

You will also find more discussions in previous posts on this topic - see Labels below - and more re Staverton airport's proposed expansion - it cannot be allowed to happen if we are serious about tackling climate change.

A final word on the protests

The stepping up of direct-action protests on global warming has come not a moment too soon. Let us hope this camp reminds Gordon Brown, his Cabinet, BAA and others of their complicity in devastating environmental destruction. Non violent direct action to combat ecological destruction is the right thing and The Green Party explicitly supports it. It is shameful but hardly surprising that terrorist legislation is being used to try to silence protest voices at this camp.

We need to look at all ways we can get the message across - Greenpeace this last week decided to photograph hundreds of volunteers lying naked on Switzerland's Aletsch glacier - glaciers are key indicators of global warming and the signs are not good: glaciers are shrinking rapidly....Air travel is the fastest growing source of CO2. It is our children that will pick up the bill from this dangerous and ill-thought out expansion.....