Government move puts Staverton expansion in doubt?

The plans for Camp Hope (against Gloucestershire Airport's plans for expansion) are still progressing - apparently chinese food will now be available on the site - more details coming soon - meanwhile the Government’s new aviation duty may help curb plans for expansion of Staverton and Bristol airports.

Since aviation fuel is not taxed, cheap flights have become the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions in Europe. The rise in Air Passenger Duty is a small step in the right direction, but charges on aircraft emissions will also increase the cost of flights - hopefully this is another nail in the coffin for Staverton airports (and others) plans to expand - see my hurried news release on this today here - it also makes the point that more climate change curbing legislation needs to come and that oil prices look set to rise massively - air travel will increasingly only be for the super-rich - in fact the bulk of Stavertons is private jets/corporate flights (I badly worded this - see comments below) - why on earth should they be allowed to increase emissions when everyone else has to decrease by 90%????

Meanwhile campaigning friends in Cheltenham met with Martin Horwood MP this morning re Staverton - hopefully that and the Gloucester Green party letter in Citizen today might make him rethink and come out against the expansion plans?

Local climate change campaigner, Kevin Lister has also pointed out in a letter there are other concerns re the Airports finances - he write with regards to a letter in the Echo/Citizen:

In Peter Jacques letter on 25th Sept he claims “The airport's assets will always be greater than its liabilities, borrowing to finance any improvements will, in no way, affect council taxpayers and there'll be no need for any future bailing out." We have down loaded a copy of the airports accounts from Company’s House for review against his statement. These accounts show the net assets of the airport are only £2,518,273. The business plan estimates that expenditure will be £2.19 million, but this estimate has not been validated and could easily rise to up to £3million. Furthermore, the airport only has £406,437 cash in hand, so the development will have to be funded entirely through borrowing.

As the total loan will most likely be higher than the assets, then the council tax payer will have to back the loan. Given the warnings of economic recession and escalating fuel prices, then if the business that the airport is relying on does not materialise, then the council tax payer will be left to pick up the bill. Alternatively, if the airport has to comply with environmental concerns such as restricted opening times, it will limit its revenue and increase the likelihood of requiring a council tax bail out. It is clear that what ever way this development is viewed, it is bad for the council tax payer. They will either suffer increased noise and pollution, or have the risk of bailing out a failed investment.

Other news re aviation this month comes from the European Parliament’s Environment Committee - they have voted to bring the aviation industry into the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme after Green MEP Caroline Lucas called for international agreement on reducing
flying’s increasing impact on climate change.

Dr Lucas had originally called for the aviation industry to be brought into an emissions trading scheme just for airlines – a proposal accepted by the full parliament last year but weakened in the report adopted earlier this month. Dr Lucas said at the time:

"The Environment Committee has voted to bring the ever-growing emissions from airlines in check. While the report is not as ambitious as my original proposals, which it adopted last year, MEPs have succeeded in significantly improving a weak proposal from the European Commission. With airlines the fastest growing source of climate-damaging emissions, it is crucial that the EU adopts robust measures to reduce these emissions as soon as possible. Past experience shows that unless polluters are made to pay or emissions credits, sectors like aviation - which can pass the cost on to their consumers - will gain windfall profits from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Clearly only a full auctioning of permits would ensure this is avoided and that airlines are made fully responsible for their emissions; thus we regret that MEPs did not support full auctioning. However, the Committee has voted for auctioning of half of the emissions permits, which is certainly a marked improvement from the Commission's proposal.

“Furthermore, the Committee has voted to take more account of the non-CO2 impact of aviation (which can be up to 4 times greater than the impact of CO2 emissions alone) by introducing a so-called ‘multiplier’ on CO2 emissions if alternative measures are not brought forward. Entry into the Emissions Trading Scheme cannot just be an excuse for the worst offending airlines to buy their way out of trouble and continue with a business as usual approach to their damaging emissions. I’m glad that MEPs have voted to limit the possibility for airlines to buy permits from other industry sectors that would allow airlines to increase their emissions. Trading with other sectors should not be manipulated by the aviation industry to enable it to pay for the 'right' to increase its pollution. Euro-MPs also proposed a significantly stricter initial permit allocation to the aviation industry than the original Commission proposal. While it is still more generous than that of other sectors or the Kyoto protocol commitment, it does at least imply an actual reduction in emissions."

The proposals will be debated and voted on by all MEPs next month. As Caroline Lucas said: “The challenge is to keep its strengths and make sure the bill is not further diluted.”

For more see here.