Boris to fund Heathrow legal challenge

By Richard on 19/11/2008
Tags:

BoJo waving

Proving that our finger is on the pulse of all things aviation related, Plane Stupid can exclusively reveal today that Boris Johnson has agreed to part-fund a legal challenge to Heathrow's expansion. (Exclusively, because everyone else ran this story last week.) London's mayor has stumped up £15,000 to help 2M prepare a challenge based on breaches of the EU-set NOx limits.

In 2010 a series of NOx limits will come into effect, and any country who breaches them will meet with heavy fines. It's expected that Governments would have taken steps to reduce emissions to avoid the fines, but there are already breaches at Heathrow airport and no sign of any action to reduce NOx levels. We're not very optimistic of any either, given that this would basically necessitate closing the M4 or the M25, or digging up runway 2. The current solution is to push for a 5 year exemption... basically to postpone the enevitable.

If Heathrow is already breaching NOx limits then building another runway is unlikely to reduce its emissions, so the councils, backed by Boris, are to take the UK to court to challenge the expansion plans. I think they've got a pretty strong case - after all, BAA had to do all sorts of fiddling to rig NOx levels in the consultation document. I suppose I should be grateful to BoJo for his cash - but given that he's supporting expansion at City Airport, I'm not. Green with one hand, blue with the other.

'Commons Five' slapped on the wrist

By Richard on 17/11/2008
Tags:

Parliament roof 3

The five Plane Stupid activists who marked the end of the Heathrow consultation by scaling Parliament and unfurling banners have been found guilty... and punished with a £365 fine. Not bad, all things considered. The day-and-a-half trial saw the five - Olivia, Leo, Tamsin, Graham and myself -  accused of section 128 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act: trespass within a restricted area.

Given that the world's media had covered the action and had photographed us up there we didn't deny it, but were arguing that we had broken the law to prevent a greater crime. It's the same defence Greenpeace used last month when they were acquitted of damaging Kingsnorth coal-fired power station. We spoke about the corruption that had gone on between the DfT and BAA - the moving of the NOx meters further from the source of the emissions to make the readings lower; the invention of new 'green' planes that no one planned to build and other desperate attempts to rig the outcome from the start.

The judge wasn't convinced our defence applied - it all comes down to whether we used force or not - but after being presented with written evidence from climatologists, MPs, campaigners and other experts he agreed that something untoward had gone on. He found us guilty (because he remained convinced we couldn't run our defence) but then handed out the most minor of punishments: £150 fine, £200 costs and a £15 'victim surcharge' (presumably to buy some locks for the unlocked doors we waltzed through). It's a great result, and I just hope that the activists who boarded a coal train earlier this year get off equally lightly...

Observer and NETCU smear environmental activists as terrorists

By Anonymous on 09/11/2008
Tags:

Earth First!

This morning the Observer carried a National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit press release, in which they claimed to have alerted a number of major carbon polluters to watch out for eco-terrorists, with advice on how they can withstand being targeted. The article goes on to say that "green extremists" - Earth First! and the Camp for Climate Action - may be about to launch a campaign of intimidation and fear aimed at disrupting businesses. Is this an attempt by the police to prime public opinion and pave the way for a crackdown on climate activists?

My words can only represent my own feelings but I know that many activists share the following views. We are in the grip of a global emergency: climate scientists are telling us that we have reached a 'tipping point' and if we do not take measures to drastically reduce our carbon footprint then our children will inherit a dying planet. Our abuses of the earth have already committed us to climate changes that will result in the deaths of many, many thousands of people and most of these will be from poorer nations that have played no part in creating this situation. My actions seek to highlight this and to attempt to slow it down. I want to preserve life, both of my friends and families but also of my fellow humans and creatures from around the globe.

Robin Hood Airport: robbin' workers to feed aviation bosses

By Anonymous on 03/11/2008
Tags:

Errol Flynn

Doncaster Robin Hood Airport has outlined its plans for continued expansion of passenger and freight through to 2030 in its Draft Airport Master Plan. How this fits into the recent UK commitment to reduce CO2 emissions is quite beyond us. Perhaps the passenger contribution towards tree planting, the £500 raised from cardboard recycling and the toilet fed by a grey water system somehow offset the global damage?

But sod climate change: these credit crunched times are all about job creation. Airport developers always dig up this old chestnut as a sure-fire vote winner, but is it actually true? Recent cost-cutting strategies within the aviation sector have resulted in hundreds of redundancies and measures such as automated check in are hardly going to help. Reports by John Whitelegg, Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University, and Wiz Baines of Groundswell show that airport expansion destroys more jobs than it creates through encouraging overseas tourism and investment, not to mention the economic impacts of environmental degradation, health damage and climate change.

DfT report shows public confused about airport expansion

By Richard on 31/10/2008
Tags:

Flight path

Whatdya think about aviation? Like the quick trips to New York to go Christmas shopping but hate the roar of jets overhead? Think we’ve broadened our horizons but terrified of climate change? Think your travel is essential but everyone else is binge flying? Then congratulations! You’re a member of the British public.

Yesterday the Government released its annual Attitudes to Aviation report, which showed that people are confused about airport expansion and climate change. Take some headline stats: 48% of people think we should expand our airports to boost the economy but 60% think we should limit expansion to protect the local environment and 56% oppose expansion on climate change grounds. 22% of people simultaneously want to expand airports and limit their expansion. At the same time.

Reach for the sky: aviation emissions in Climate Bill

By Richard on 27/10/2008
Tags:

Reach for the sky

The government has backed down on aviation and shipping, agreeing to include both in the Climate Change Bill's 80% emissions reduction targets. They had planned to let the industry grow as much as it liked while cracking down on other sectors, but changed their mind when faced with a major backbench rebellion.

So in theory aviation emissions will have to reduce by 80% - and, as there are no sustainable fuels in the pipeline, that should mean a lot fewer flights. The problem is that like all good Labour projects, there'll be plenty of creative accounting. This time its a cunning plan to let the UK buy other countries' emissions reductions off them, perhaps by taking a bunch of greener lightbulbs and handing them out around the world. This, frankly, is cheating.