Are BAA's plans in terminal decline?

Posted by bex — 14 March 2008 at 5:30pm - Comments

Goddard cartoon

Image reproduced with kind permission of Private Eye Magazine and Clive Goddard.

Luckily for BAA, the Queen doesn't seem to have taken offence at apparently being banned from Heathrow in the run up to climate camp last year. This morning, she tootled off to Hounslow to officially open Heathrow's new Terminal 5 (although the public opening won't happen 'til the 27th).

Beleaguered BAA must have been hoping for a good news day. The company's been under fire of late from local residents, Mayoral candidates and a whole raft of campaigning groups, as well as their own customers, for everything from bad science and collusion with government to shoddy planning and delays.

Last weekend, it turned out that even the government's own environment advisors think a third runway at Heathrow could potentially increase "morbidity and mortality over a dense local population", and that there were "substantive uncertainties" over whether an expanded Heathrow could meet EU pollution limits.

The Sunday Times also reported that BAA executives "prevented the use of data in the consultation document which showed that the expansion would cause unlawful levels of pollution and extra noise. Instead, they gave civil servants amended data that showed the anticipated 230,000 extra flights a year at Heathrow would have a minimal impact on noise and pollution levels."

The revelations about the depths of BAA/government collusion in writing the Heathrow consultation show an incredible arrogance from both parties. Both seem to assume that what's good for BAA is good for UK plc (against the evidence, as it turns out) - never mind Britain's emissions reduction targets, climate change, the political process or public opinion.

But the opening of T5 hasn't given BAA the good news day it was hoping for, with a fair chunk of the media choosing to grill the company on climate change.

After the aviation industry was rapped on the knuckles by the Advertising Standards Authority for claiming that the third runway will reduce "aircraft emissions by 330,000 tonnes a year", BAA had to resort to telling the Today programme that Terminal 5 has "been built in a very very environmentally friendly way". (Phew - let's just not mention the fact that Runway 3 will generate extra emissions equal to those of Kenya...)

With BAA on the defensive and the government wobbling over the decision, it's starting to look like we really can win this battle for the climate. And there are plenty of exciting plans afoot to help us get there. For now, just put May 31st in your diaries - details coming soon.

Article tagged as: airport expansion, aviation, climate change, consultations, heathrow
Comments Commenting is now closed

You're right on the EU ETS - aviation's inclusion will do pretty much nothing to reduce the sector's emissions. Even in the toughest ETS scenario envisaged, by 2020 emissions would grow by 83% instead of 86% in a business-as-usual situation (pdf)- the industry will just be able to keep growing and keep polluting by trading permits with other industries.

Voluntary offsetting isn't much use either (actually, there's a risk that the fashion for offsetting could actually encourage people to take unnecessary journeys). Often, it's just an accounting trick; once you've put a tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere there's not much that offsetting can do to stop it changing our climate.

And using biofuels brings in all sorts of other problems.

The most effective way to cap emissions from flying is to cap the number of flights: ie stop expanding airports; ban domestic flights served by good train routes; cap long-haul flights (to ensure they don't just replace short-haul flights if the slots become free); and transferring the billions earmarked for aviation expansion to be ploughed into our railways.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 27 March 2008 at 11:03am

Hi elena

Yep, I agree that green taxation is an important tool in encouraging people to change their behaviour but, in terms of aviation, the carbon savings that might be achieved by adding a few pounds to flight costs would be wiped out in no time by a third runway at Heathrow.

Also, we're very deliberately targeting government policy rather than individual behaviour - we need a clear policy to cap the unsustainable growth in aviation. And, as we're calling for a transfer of the billions of pounds subsidies into the railways, the end result will also be that the cost of aviation goes up and rail travel is improved, adding incentives for people to take the most sustainable choice.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 2 April 2008 at 10:21am

You're right on the EU ETS - aviation's inclusion will do pretty much nothing to reduce the sector's emissions. Even in the toughest ETS scenario envisaged, by 2020 emissions would grow by 83% instead of 86% in a business-as-usual situation (pdf)- the industry will just be able to keep growing and keep polluting by trading permits with other industries. Voluntary offsetting isn't much use either (actually, there's a risk that the fashion for offsetting could actually encourage people to take unnecessary journeys). Often, it's just an accounting trick; once you've put a tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere there's not much that offsetting can do to stop it changing our climate. And using biofuels brings in all sorts of other problems. The most effective way to cap emissions from flying is to cap the number of flights: ie stop expanding airports; ban domestic flights served by good train routes; cap long-haul flights (to ensure they don't just replace short-haul flights if the slots become free); and transferring the billions earmarked for aviation expansion to be ploughed into our railways. Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 27 March 2008 at 11:03am

Hi elena Yep, I agree that green taxation is an important tool in encouraging people to change their behaviour but, in terms of aviation, the carbon savings that might be achieved by adding a few pounds to flight costs would be wiped out in no time by a third runway at Heathrow. Also, we're very deliberately targeting government policy rather than individual behaviour - we need a clear policy to cap the unsustainable growth in aviation. And, as we're calling for a transfer of the billions of pounds subsidies into the railways, the end result will also be that the cost of aviation goes up and rail travel is improved, adding incentives for people to take the most sustainable choice. Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 2 April 2008 at 10:21am

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK