Letter to Tewksbury Council regarding the expansion of Staverton Airport

Click to go back to my home page: http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

Dear Sirs/Madams

I am writing to you with regard to the development proposals that have currently been submitted by Staverton Airport .

The developments are outlined in the Staverton Airport ’s 5 year business plan. This clearly states that the business case for these improvements is aimed at increasing usable runway length to facilitate the introduction of additional services to UK and Continental airports.

Many of these proposed services are targeted towards business jets and short services such as links to London . These types of services are the most CO2 intensive method of travel. In addition, the government’s aviation white paper states that the high altitude that these gases are emitted at increases the global warming contribution by up to a factor of 4.

You will also no doubt be aware of the conclusions of the recent IPCC report on global warming. This report is absolutely unequivocal in its warnings on the severity of the issue that we face and its logic can not be denied in any way. As a society we face fundamental decisions about development and we need to recognise that the old assumptions about continued growth can no long apply. Strong and enlightened leadership is now called for in the challenge to these past assumptions.

In Staverton Airport ’s business case, they provide a conservative estimate of the additional services that they plan to introduce and the additional fuel that they will sell. Their plan is to introduce many more additional services over and above the base level in the business plan; furthermore having made the initial investment in the facilities they will be actively incentivised to introduce as many new services as possible to recoup their investment.

Staverton Airport argues on its web site that its contribution to global warming is negligible. This is a weak argument as we can all state that our individual contribution to global warming is negligible. The fact is that the cumulative amount of all our contributions is massive and growing and well beyond what the planet can sustain. Therefore, we all need to have the discipline to minimise our emissions.

I urge you to reject proposals for infrastructure developments and runway enhancement at Staverton Airport .

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Lister

Letter to the Advertising Standard Agency regarding Easy Jet Adverts

Click to go back to my home page: http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

The advert titled “Care about the environment? We do too!” by Easy Jet claims that aviation accounted for 1.6% of global greenhouse emissions and with the implication that this is small overall impact.

This advert overlooks the fact that international travel is not included in aviation emissions. When these are taken into account, aviation contributes 6% of the UK CO2 emissions (see government report SG/SG/3760, House of Commons Library). Furthermore, once the radiative forcing impacts of aviation emissions are taken into account, the impact of this is significantly increased. The advert also does not reference the fact that air transport is expected to contribute up to 60% of the UK global warming impact given current anticipated growth rates.

The advert implies that Easy Jet is committed to the environment by removing 22 older generation aircraft and replacing with newer aircraft. This is misleading. Easy Jet would have replaced these aircraft anyway as they would any other plane that is approaching the end of it service life. Furthermore the main thrust behind this initiative is to reduce operating costs, rather than improve the environment as stated in the article.

The article also implies that travelling by Easy Jet is environmentally friendly as they achieve “27% lower emissions per passenger kilometre” than traditional airlines. This is potentially misleading on two counts.

Firstly, without clear evidence of boarding across airlines their 27% lower emissions figure can not be verified. The Civil Aviation Authority does not publish seat utilisation by company. (See http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=80&pagetype=88&sglid=1&fld=200611). It is also not clear in the advert what Easy Jet considers to be a traditional airline. In very small print Easy Jet state the comparator basis being “27% lower emissions on a per passenger kilometre basis with the same age, journey and type of plane as a traditional airline.” However, on many Easy Jets routes, “traditional airlines” do not fly, thus making their comparator inaccurate.

Secondly, the statement of a 27% lower emission per seat overlooks the fact that Easy Jet’s total emissions have increased significantly. Furthermore Easy Jet is actively engaged in lobbying the government to support additional expansion of airports in the UK which will lead to a significant increase in total Easy Jet emissions as well as a significant increase in overall UK CO2 emissions.

The advert thus erroneously implies that flying with Easy Jet is environmentally responsible, when in fact the reality is that it may only be marginally less environmentally damaging than flying with a traditional airline.

I will be forwarding this correspondence on to my MP, David Drew.

Letter to the Advertising Standard Agency regarding Ryan Air Adverts

The advert taken out by Ryan Air in today’s Telegraph and other broad sheets to protest against the governments APD misleadingly quotes that the aviation industry only accounts for 2% of Carbon Dioxide emissions.

The advert uses the government's erroneous analysis of aviation emissions which only counts domestic travel. If international travel is included, which actually accounts for the majority of aviation emissions, the CO2 emissions by the aviation industry are 6% of the UK total, (see government report SG/SG/3760, House of Commons Library).

Further to this, the advert does not take into account the increased radiative heating impact of the CO2 emissions, (see various IPCC reports and the aviation white paper) which is commonly considered to be up to 4 times more significant than emissions emitted at sea level. Given these facts, aviation is currently accounting for up to 24% of UK global warming effect, rather than the 2% claimed in Ryan Air's advert.

Also, the article does not reference the proposed increase in air travel. Under current projections, air travel will eventually count for up to 60% of the UK global warming contribution, when the full impact of radiative forcing due to aircraft emissions are considered.

The advert also makes the claim the government has not introduced the APD to help combat global warming. This is unsubstantiated.

By implication, the advert dismisses the recommendations of the recent IPCC report, the Stern report and other scientific reports which have all argued that significant and urgent cuts are needed to reduce CO2 emissions.

The advert’s caricature of the Pope not being able to absolve Gordon Brown on this issue is also offensive to Catholics. By implication it implies that the Catholic Church does not support Gordon Brown and therefore supports expanding aviation growth irrespective of the damage that this is doing to the environment.

I will also be copying this letter to my MP

Response to the transport secretary (Douglas Alexander)

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:45:36 +0000 (GMT)From: Kevin Lister Subject: Response to your letter on airport expansion 6 Feb 2007To: emily.robertson@dft.gsi.gov.ukCC: David DREW
Dear Emily,

Thank you for the letter that you have sent my son on behalf of the Transport Secretary, which I have taken the liberty to respond to on his behalf.

I have referred to the governments 2003 White Paper, The Future of Air Transport and the subsequent progress report of December 2006, which you referenced in your letter to try and understand the specifics of your points.

The progress report states that the aircraft industry is “adopting a target to improve fuel efficiency by 50 per cent per seat kilometre in new aircraft in 2020 compared to 2000.”

A recent IPCC investigation into aircraft efficiency improvements concludes that “Because of the very long total lifetimes of today's aircraft (up to 50 years), however, replacement rates are low, and the fuel efficiency of the whole fleet will improve slowly.”

Further to this Boeing’s Walt Gillette who is the Vice President and Airplane Manager of the 7E7 says “The 7E7 will use less fuel per passenger than an A380 and Boeing has set itself a target of reducing the 7E7's fuel consumption by 20 percent compared with comparable types around today, such as the 767.”

As the 7E7 will be the most fuel efficient airplane in the skies for the next 20 years, can you explain where the other 30% of fuel efficiency that the airlines are committing to will come from, even given the unreasonable assumption that all the future planes flying will be 7E7s. If not, can I reasonably conclude that the 50% target in your papers does not represent a realistic target? Also, given that we are 7 years into the 20 year time frame for a 50% overall fuel improvement, could you advise on the progress that the airline industry has made towards these targets.

In your letter, you state that the White Paper has rejected proposals for development at some airports, it does however state “The Government therefore supported the development of two new runways in the South East: at Stansted and at Heathrow.” In addition, it also supports significant service increases at regional airports.

On your point on the APD, the feedback from passengers on BBC reports on the day of its introduction was that the additional charge was too small to stop people flying. In your letter, you have stated that the APD will result in savings equivalent to three quarters of a million tonnes of carbon. Can you confirm how this estimate has been derived and what percentage of the total fuel burnt by the aircraft industry this represents?

In your letter and in the white papers, you state that the government is committed to a reduction in CO2 of some 60%. The white papers say that this can be achieved by carbon trading under the proposed EU mechanisms. Unfortunately, the white paper does not give any consideration as to how this will be achieved, other than to imply that savings made by other industries will offset aviation. Can you say which other industries will make savings and can you give assurances that these industries will not simply relocate to other countries (i.e. China) which are not in the trading mechanism to continue operations? Can you confirm if you have contact other heavy industries to confirm that they will be prepared to cut manufacturing output to support the airline industry?

In the light of last weeks damning IPCC report and the governments attempt to stem demand by the introduction of the APD, can you confirm if the government or the transport secretary is reconsidering the proposals to develop new airport infrastructure across the country?

I am also copying my MP (David Drew) on this reply.

Regards,Kevin Listter

Government response to letter to Douglas Alexander MP protesting against airport expansion

Click to go back to my home page: http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/


Airport Policy Dept
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P4DR

Email: E#mily.ro#bertsonDELETE@dft.gsi.gov.uk
## and DELETE added to stop email spiders

Web site: www.dft.gov.uk

6 February 2007

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your very informed and heartfelt letter to Douglas Alexander, received on 9 January, regarding the Government's aviation policy and the environmental impacts of air travel. I have been asked to reply, as I'm sure you will appreciate that the Secretary of State receives a very large volume of correspondence. However I can assure you that the Secretary of State's office keeps a record of correspondence received on different policy areas, and we welcome and value the views expressed. Information contained in responses sent out by the Department is approved by Ministers.

The Government's policy on aviation was set out in The Future of Air Transport White Paper, published in 2003. The White Paper set out a long-term strategy for the sustainable development of air travel to 2030, recognising the growing aspirations to travel and the economic benefits that it brings, while tackling the environmental challenges.

The Government published a progress report on the 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper on 14 December 2006. The report sets out progress made in implementing the policies of the White Paper, including environmental measures. This report reaffirms the Government's commitment to the strategy set out in the White Paper. It continues to support the development of the aviation sector across the UK, and targeted airport development in the right circumstances. The White Paper rejected proposals for new capacity at several airports and at new greenfield locations, and instead promoted making better use of existing airport capacity, and ensuring where new capacity is required its provision is in line with the UK's environmental obligations.

The Government remains committed to putting the UK on a path to a reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by some 60% from current levels by 2050 (which includes emissions from domestic aviation). International flights from the UK are not currently included in this figure as there is, as yet, no international agreement on ways of allocating such emissions. Aviation currently accounts for approximately 6% of UK CO2 emissions. However, the Government has made it clear that the aviation sector needs to take its share of responsibility for tackling this problem.

The recent Stern report reinforced the importance of taking action on climate change but also of ensuring that there is international commitment to doing so. Stern also stressed the importance of using pricing mechanisms to ensure that users pay the full environmental costs of their actions while allowing the economy to continue to grow. The Government's aviation policy is fully consistent with this approach, and we continue to support industry paying for its environmental costs over time. The progress report sets out in more detail how the Government is taking account of the most recent information on climate change impacts, and how its aviation policy fits with the approach to tackling climate change across the economy as a whole.

Our progress report demonstrates how we are tackling the climate change impact of aviation, in particular, taking a lead in Europe on the inclusion of aviation in the established EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Following the publication of the European Commission's legislative proposal on the 20 December 2006, we will now continue to press for aviation's inclusion as soon as is practicable. The EU ETS is a major policy measure that aims to reduce CO2 emissions at the least cost to industry. Participants are allocated tradable emissions "allowances" (similar to quotas) that they can trade to help them in meeting their emissions reductions targets.

In the Pre-Budget Report on 6 December 2006, the Chancellor announced that the rates of Air Passenger Duty would double with effect from 1 February 2007. APD was increased in recognition of the environmental costs of air travel and to ensure aviation meets its environmental impacts. It is thought that by doing this, APD will achieve emissions savings equivalent to three quarters of a million tonnes of carbon per year by around 2010.

With regard to your reference to levels of pollution around Heathrow Airport, the Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow (PSDH) was set up to assess whether further development at the airport is likely to be consistent with the environmental conditions laid down in the Air Transport White Paper, including EU limit values for air quality. The Air Quality Technical Report, published in July 2006, confirmed that EU limit values are currently being breached in the immediate vicinity of Heathrow and adjacent to the M4, M4 spur and the A4. The potential for introducing mixed mode operations and/or a third runway are subject to our being able to show that levels of NO2 emissions at Heathrow can be managed within the EU limit as soon as possible. EU negotiations are underway on a new Ambient Air Quality Directive, if agreed, it will contain the possibility for Member States to postpone compliance with the EU limit values for NO2 for up to five years providing that a comprehensive action plan is produced and submitted for approval.

I hope you find this information helpful, and thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Secretary of State for Transport. Further information on the Government's aviation policy, and The Future of Air Transport progress report, are available on the Department for Transport website, www.dft.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,



Emily Robertson

Interersting Reading from the Government and other links

Click to go back to my home page: http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/


This is the governments aviation progress report which explains its plans for development of airports across the country and how concerned they are to mitigate the global warming impact of this

Aviation Progress report

This report is the Environmental Audit Committee Report (Reducing Carbon Emisssions from Transport). See notes 49 and 60 in the introduction on the governments subsidised quintrupling of aviation emissions. This report is highly critical of the governments proposals for expanding airports. Doesn't look like the government has bothered to read it!!

cmenvaud/981/981-i.pdf

See the National Statistics figures for CO2 emissions. Note the overall decline in CO2 from manufacturing as a result of the combined change to gas power in the UK and exporting of heavy manufacturing from the UK to China and oher developing countries. Also, remember that internation air travel is excluded from the figures!!!

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=901

Interesting news articles from the stop Stanstead Airport development.

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/news.html

Atricle from George Monbiot on the lack of joined up government thinking.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/12/19/preparing-for-take-off/#more-1036