Green MEP Keith Taylor on the Heathrow Expansion: Welcome to Never-Never Land

authordefault
on

This week, we learned that the world has entered a dangerous new climate change reality, writes South East Green MEP Keithย Taylor.

World average CO2 emissions have breached the critically importantย 400ppm threshold. This is a sombre reminder that the action on climate change needs to be the top priority informing all governmentย policy-making.

Yetย with a toxic air pollution warning in place across London on Tuesday, the government gave theย green light to Heathrow expansion.

Welcome to Theresa Mayโ€™s never-never land, where prime ministers never have to listen to experts and never have to apologise for increasing CO2 emissions and air pollutionย levels.ย 

The MP for Maidenhead has betrayed her constituents, the people of Britain and the planet byย flip-flopping on her previous opposition to Heathrow expansion.

That expansion will not be voted on in the Commons before next yearย is a welcome short-term reprieve, but the decision to expand any airport in the UK at all is a form of climate changeย denial.

Theresa May has promised to ratify the Paris Agreementย by the end of the year. But, Heathrow expansion has exposed that pledge as a cynical and empty gesture. Britain can make an attempt to meet its commitments under the Paris climate agreement, or it can wave through airport expansion.ย It canโ€™t do both.

While the Conservative government hasย stymied the efforts of the energy sectorย to move towards a low-carbon future, it is at least an industry that is capable of doing so. It is also an industry that is showing determination in the face of government subsidy cuts and a stripping ofย support.

Similarly, while the current administration is overseeing aย rise in carbon emissionsย emanating from road vehicles, there are low carbon alternatives on the horizon. Electric mobility is an emerging market, with an increasing and diverseย groundswell of support.

No such future exists for aviation. Aviation is a top-ten global polluterย and, worryingly, emissions are expected, at the current rate of expansion, to balloon by 300 percentย if something isnโ€™t done soon. The historicย ICAO aviation emissions dealย agreed in Montreal focused not on reducing emissions from engines or replacing fossil fuels, but on relatively weak energy efficiency and dubious โ€˜offsetting targetsโ€™, that wonโ€™t be mandatory for many years toย come.

The truth is that, just asย we canโ€™t developย any new fossil fuel reserves or push ahead with fracking, we canโ€™t expand Heathrow or any other UK airport and hopeย to keep to the upper 2C limit for global average temperatures rises agreed in the Paris accord. Unless we take fast and decisive action to halt the use of Britainโ€™s current fossil fuel stores, the more ambitious 1.5C limit is already beyond ourย reach.

The government’s climate-wrecking expansion decision means aviationโ€™s greenhouse gas emissions could now consume as much asย two-thirds of the carbon budget available to the UK byย 2050.

Despite this stark reality, what we hear from the Prime Minister and what we see in our papers is ‘momentous‘ news of a ‘solution’ to Britain’s โ€˜airport capacity crisisโ€™. The so-called ‘crisis’ is a myth conjured by the multi-million-pound budgets of the airportย lobbies.

Heathrow, an airport which has so far seenย soaring pre-tax profitsย of ยฃ223m in 2016, has spentย almost ยฃ2mย on its attempts to lobby TfL commuters in London while Gatwick, which madeย ยฃ141m in profit last year, has matched that spendingย almost pound for pound.

The total advertising spend for both campaigns is estimated to be betweenย ยฃ7m and ยฃ40m. Heathrow airport created and funded an entireย โ€˜grassrootsโ€™ organisationย to lobby for their paymasterโ€™s cause. The airport lobbies have sought to subvert democracy and buyย unfair public and political influence.

The reality is that there is no airport capacity โ€˜crisisโ€™ in Britain. It has always been a myth. That more passengersย fly in and out of London than any other city in the world is not an indication of a โ€˜crisisโ€™; itโ€™s merely a statistic with some importantย caveats.

In fact, every airport in the UK, apart from Heathrow, is operating under capacity; existing rail services can offer genuinely workable alternatives for theย nine out of the tenย of the most popular routes out of Heathrow airport; and, perhaps most importantly, three-quarters of international passengers areย disproportionately wealthyย and travel forย leisure.

That last caveat is a stark reminder of theย inherent unfairnessย ingrained in Britainโ€™s aviation industry. Just 15% of the mostย wealthy frequent flyersย take 70% of flights. The current taxation system means those who donโ€™t fly and those who fly even just once a year are subsidising the jet-setting lifestyles of a privilegedย few.

Heathrow expansion is the wrong answer to the wrong question. โ€˜No, we donโ€™t need any new runwaysโ€™ is the correct answer to the correct question.ย Greens reject the โ€˜crisisโ€™ mythย and, instead, want to work to reduce aviation demand while making the industryย fairer.

We support a fairer frequent flyer levy that would help reduce demand driven by the privileged few and reduce costs for the average UK holidaymaker. At the same time, demand for business flightsย can be reducedย by around 20% with investment in remote and digital office solutions. The World Wide Fund for Nature is currently running a scheme to help organisations achieve thisย target.

Furthermore, the post-referendum consensus is that aviation demandย in the UK will not rise by the numbers outlined in the Airports Commission report. It’s frustrating that Theresa May has chosen to base her decision on the questionable assumptions of a now dreadfully out-of-dateย report.

Which, alongside vastly inflating the economic and employment benefits of expansion, based its passenger projections on figures from 2013. Britain and her economy were in a very different place three years ago. The economic impact of the EU referendum result and theย expected impactย of leaving the European Union have rendered the commissionโ€™s findings at best, inaccurate, at worst,ย useless.

Iโ€™m asking Theresa May to reassess her decision and calling on MPs, who will be voting on it, to consider not the false choice between Gatwick and Heathrow, but the kind of future we want to build forย Britain.

Prioritising the needs of a small number of wealthy jet-setters over the needs of ordinary holidaymakers and listening to corporate lobbyists while ignoring the local communities set to suffer the immediate air and noise pollution impacts of expansion, to which the government has no answer โ€“ย as leaked documents reveal, is hardly a step towards delivering a country that โ€˜works for the many, not the privilegedย fewโ€™.

Moreover, ratifying the Paris Agreement without any intention of honouring its commitments and, subsequently, failing to deliver a secure future for our children and our childrenโ€™s children is hardly working in the long-term interests of the Britishย people.

Photo: Phillip Capper via Wikimedia Commons CCย 2.0

Get Weekly News Updates

authordefault

Related Posts

on

Unsubstantiated allegations against top climate advocates part of campaign to โ€œdiscredit and defundโ€ civil society actors in EU, says transparency campaigner.

Unsubstantiated allegations against top climate advocates part of campaign to โ€œdiscredit and defundโ€ civil society actors in EU, says transparency campaigner.
Analysis
on

San Francisco-based developers launch publicity drive to soothe local concerns over giant project.

San Francisco-based developers launch publicity drive to soothe local concerns over giant project.
on

Farageโ€™s new directors reflect his anti-science views.

Farageโ€™s new directors reflect his anti-science views.
Analysis
on

Premier Danielle Smith and U.S. President Donald Trump are weaponizing the powers of the state against wind and solar energy generation.

Premier Danielle Smith and U.S. President Donald Trump are weaponizing the powers of the state against wind and solar energy generation.