450 words on why Staverton airport must not expand

The press rarely beat a path to the Green party's door so a lot of work is needed to get a Green perspective across - indeed debate is now missing on many topics as the three main parties have such similar views - but I am not writing about that now - The Citizen have asked for 450 words on Staverton Airport and the plans for it to grow...

Of course it comes when I am ultra busy and a deadline only a few hours away - anyway you can see what I wrote below - it is due to be in The Citizen on Saturday as the days' Comment piece - after all the Airport's views have been repeatedly expressed in the paper. However I have to say I was surprised they asked as the demonstration on Monday (click on 'Airport' Label below for more info) was well reported in the papers but the headline read: "Shock decision puts airport in jeopardy" and there has been a stream of articles supportive to the Airport for years.

Also many is the time the Green party's name has been dropped from the list of protesters - indeed Monday night we were not explicitly listed despite members coming from Gloucester, Cheltenham and Stroud Green parties - the only mention was the quote of Bryan Meloys as a Green party spokesperson - infact ridicule was also thrown at me on several occasions in the early days from the Echo and Citizen comments and quotes from the Airport - it was 5 years ago when I first challenged the airport's plans - see that original news release here - and a different picture to the one today - there is a now much greater awareness of climate change - still a long way to go though!

Anyhow delight occurred this week when for the first time the Citizen (who as noted have seemingly supported the Airport's plans) have come out against the growth in their editorial!! They talk lots of using the land for housing instead - although let us not forget it is greenbelt. Anyhow The Citizen also ran an online debate and filled a page yesterday with comments - including one of mine - see my comment here. Indeed I know many people have been incensed that our Councils could be supporting Airport expansion - I've had various emails - here's two:

Do you think the following statement is : 1 - true 2 - possible to defend 3- accurate 4- all of the above 5 - none of the above Staverton is an airport with 87000 flights per year, mainly by private planes. New services, introduced since safety concerns were raised (prove their is no real safety concern), provide very limited passenger flights to the tax havens of the Isle of Man and Jersey and at around £200 to Isle of Man and £150 to Jersey, those flying are not ordinary Gloucester tax payers like myself but perhaps rich tax exiles - ironic that it should look like the airport want public money to expand air services and make tax evasion even more convenient than ever. Bryan, Gloucester

We have to look to the future of limited air travel in order to reduce greenhouse gases leading to climate change. If every airport continues to expand there is no hope for reduction targets of carbon emissions in the UK being met. The cumulative effect of emissions from airport expansion makes the aviation sector the fastest growing source of carbon emissions in the UK. The Government has to move on from predict and provide of air travel and give stronger encouragement to alternatives of short haul air travel to rail. Hilary Burn, Bristol

One other comment I had recently from a Green party member is about the fact that we should also be focusing on Aviation Fuel Tax - as even if airport expansions are stopped flying will still increase - maybe not as much but still too much - pricing it properly is the only way to reduce flying. How can governments be serious about climate change when they subsidise flying at the expense of other forms of transport. It's not fair to motorists! BA announced this week that fuel prices will reduce profitability this year: BA paid a total of £900 million for fuel in 2002, but with oil at more than 100 US dollars a barrel, this figure is expected to be around £2.1 billion in 2007/08. It may be that fuel prices will cripple the airlines within a few years anyway but fuel tax is only fair (when compared with other modes of transport) and would bring the day of reckoning closer......anyway.....


Here's the 450 words on Staverton Airport:

Will Staverton's Airport expansion plans be remembered as a defining moment? The point we recognised that in a world with climate change and ever fewer oil supplies 'business-as-usual' is doomed?

The rejection of the Airport's proposals by Gloucester City's Scrutiny committee along with a County-wide derision of the Airport's report denying manmade climate change, shows a positive shift is taking place. Growing numbers see the planets future as more important than cheap flights and recognise the sheer nonsense of allowing Staverton's emissions to rise when every other business is expected to cut their emissions. I am hopeful this is the forerunner of real change and that rejection of the Airport expansion will be confirmed by Full Council.

Some may still peddle myths that climate change is not serious or urgent, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it's peer reviewed analysis of 2,500 of the world's top climate scientists shows no such doubts. Climate change is deadly serious and critically urgent. Indeed many now view the IPCCs most recent and shocking report as being "too conservative'. Morally no one can support growth in aviation if they have read that report.

Even if we set aside the watertight environmental arguments against airport expansion there is also a watertight economic case. Why are taxpayers, who are already increasingly stretched, being asked to support and be liable for assets of an Airport? The risks for taxpayers having to bail out the Airport will increase with rising fuel costs and the introduction of taxes that ensure air travel pays for the damage it causes. Responsible businesses are looking at alternatives to flying, like video conferencing.

Disturbingly Staverton Airport have tried to mislead us, not just on climate change, but also by claiming the work is safety related rather than expansion. This contradicts the evidence of their own Business Plan which endorsed more and larger planes.

Equally disturbing is the councillor's Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group report, which reads like it was written by the Airport itself. It contains no real analysis of the economic and environmental issues or consultation with the community. And what about the noise impacts of more planes? I applaud Gloucester councillors for seeing the report for what it was and recommending no expansion.

This week the Airport claims that the Cabinet have delayed a decision on the Airport expansion because of their private meeting with senior Council representatives. Let us hope this is the last spasm of this dying proposal. The extra time will surely only confirm the reality that the airport proposals must not go ahead. It is now time for an open discussion about the alternatives to airport growth.

Gloucestershire has a proud aviation heritage, let us now take a lead in common sense.

Cllr. Philip Booth (Green party)
Stroud District councillor for the Randwick, Ruscombe and Whiteshill ward