I have been lucky enough to travel by air to some wonderful places to see amazing wildlife. It would have been quite tricky to get to Mongolia or the Comores by train, boat or horse.
But, I made a decision nine years ago to stop flying for fun. Yes, I have jumped on board the odd plane to go to Northern Ireland or the Scottish islands when I need to for work. I made this decision because I simply struggle to justify the carbon footprint. I'm not evangelical about it and I certainly won't judge anyone for going on holiday by plane - there is a big world out there and many people are now able to fly and see it.
It's obvious that the aviation industry is of vital economic and social importance. And the RSPB would struggle to help our BirdLife partner organisations across the world to save rainforests and endangered species without it. But planes emit greenhouse gases. And lots of them. Which is why we are against any growth of an industry if it fails to fit in with wider ambition to move towards a low Carbon economy. Oh and if we've not been clear enough over the years, it's probably worth reminding you that we don't like new airports that threaten internationally important wildlife habitats.
Today, the UK Government launched its draft aviation policy framework. It does not cover options for loacting new airports but this consultation includes an examination of the climate change impacts of aviation.
Our initial assessment is that government seems to be focusing on just one test for its aviation strategy: does it provide economic growth?
To my mind, the UK’s aviation strategy must pass three key tests:
1) The climate test
Greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation sector must not threaten the UK’s ability to meet its climate commitments (80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050), and they must be accurately counted and brought into our overall framework for reducing emissions.
Aviation is the fastest growing source of emissions in the UK and government currently seems to lack a strategy for dealing with them. It needs to face up to this problem if it really wants to meet its climate targets.
As I have written previously, the fate of the millions of species with which we share this planet is partly dependent on our ability to tackle climate change. We need to limit concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global temperature rises. With every one degree rise in global temperatures, it is estimated that 10% of species will be committed to extinction.
This means that we need to decarbonise our economy quickly. We cannot lose sight of this goal as we look to meet the challenge of growing demand for transport and travel. We have the strongest domestic legislation in the world on climate change – the 2009 Climate Change Act - established thanks to support from all the major parties (and quite a few campaigners as well). Laudable ambitions would be undermined if we fail to include aviation emissions accurately in our national carbon budgets or allow expansion to continue unabated simply in the name of catering for predicted demand.
2) The wildlife test
Any airport expansion must avoid special places and areas that are important for wildlife and people. Some of the proposals for meeting our aviation demand have suggested building a new airport in the Thames Estuary. This area is extremely important for wildlife, at UK and European levels. In the winter it is home to over 300,000 wading birds which roost and feed there.
Plans for an airport in the estuary would obliterate this highly protected area that is part of both the RSPB’s Thames Estuary Futurescape and the Government’s own Greater Thames Marshes Nature Improvement Area. To us, it’s unthinkable to disregard the highest levels of European protection for natural habitats in the name of providing a new airport.
3) The economic test
Any proposed new runways or airports must make economic sense and meet a genuine need. Those arguing for expansion have tended to use a lot of explosive rhetoric and some questionable numbers to support their case.
Richard Branson believes we are becoming a “third world country”. Exponents regularly claim that we do 20 times more business with countries to which we have direct links, a figure reached by comparing the likes of China, Brazil and Russia with Mexico, Indonesia and Columbia. This does not seem very surprising.
A new hub airport in the Thames Estuary does not have the support of the airlines, its £30 billion cost is widely believed to be a significant underestimate and does not include the £20 billion or more it would take to close Heathrow. At a minimum we need some calmer rhetoric and some better evidence presented.
What’s more, it’s important that demand for flying is not simply predicted and then provided for. If we paid the true cost of flying, no doubt demand would be reduced as travellers looked to greener options, such as rail. Indeed, the Committee on Climate Change recently recommended a number of measures to limit demand, including the projected carbon price, restrictions on the allocation of landing and take-off slots and, most importantly, limiting further airport expansion.
The Committee on Climate Change released a report in 2009 which concluded that in order to keep within the 2005 levels of emissions by 2050 there could be a growth of demand by at most 60% and a growth of Air Traffic Movements (ATMs) of no more than 55%. The current level of ATMs is 2.2 million, and a rise of 55% would be 3.4 million by 2050. Current theoretical capacity of UK airports is 5.6 million. Yep, you can do the maths.
So, yes this is an important consultation. And, of course, I can understand the imperative of going for economic growth. But economic growth that locks us into a high-carbon development path is, well, just plane wrong.
Have a read and let me know what you think.
How right you are Martin, Justine Greenings announcement confirms the UK Government’s continued pursuit of economic growth regardless of the cost to people, wildlife and our environment. Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK, with this country already one of the world’s biggest producers of carbon per head through air travel. By 2050 aviation could account for one quarter of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Yet there are no targets to reduce this, and these emissions are still not counted in UK’s carbon budget system. What’s more, the consultation confirms that new and expanding airports are on the horizon, which would see emissions rise to alarming and unacceptable levels, and may threaten valuable wildlife habitats such as the Thames Estuary.
We know from past experience (the NO airport at Cliffe Campaign) that the RSPB, its scientific evidence and its over 1,000,000 members are a powerful lobbying force . We are passionate about protecting our globally important wildlife sites and our communities here in the Thames estuary and we ask everyone to respond to this important aviation draft framework before the 31st October.
Friends of the North Kent Marshes
Conservation and Communities United
NO estuary airport
I agree absolutely with you Martin,for other reasons never flew until we had a grand daughter born in Tuscany so of course we went.Now I wonder if it actually makes much difference as one more or less makes no difference to whether the plane fly's or not.It actually probably needs a combined effort by lots of us to do some good,will that happen,I very much doubt it and in fact as the major populations of China,India and others become better off there is sure to be greater numbers of flights.
I agree with most all of this. As an adult I also gave up flying for many years but two years ago went back to Africa for the first time in many years; I recently flew to the South of Spain partly to revisit "old fears" from many unaccompanied flights when young (landing during Amin's coup at Entebbe with tanks and soldiers, an engine failing twice and landing at Tripoli Libya unscheduled, 150,000 Junior jet Club miles ! etc). I honestly believe that the growth projections for "flying" are wrong based on past growth and extrapolating to the future. While its important to keep the pressure up on Boris Airport I think a new runway at Heathrow the likely outcome ! Unfortunately.
If we could only seriously reduce terrestrial emissions then I can live with "flights" because people love to travel.......holidays in the sun etc
Excellent blog Martin. I agree with all you say especially the three tests you make, namely, climate, wildlife and economic. I think it is noteworthy that the Thames Estuary air port proposal besides totally failing on the wildlife and economic tests, also fails totally on the climate test in respect of its construction compared to the construction of other airport options being discussed. The carbon emissions that would result from the construction of such an airport would in themselves be enormous and hugely greater than say an extra runway at an existing airport.