Ask Leo: what is radiative forcing?

Carbon Footprint

Scientists measuring the impact emissions have on the climate often talk about 'radiative forcing', and say that aviation's emissions have a radiative forcing impact of around 2.7. But what is radiative forcing, and do all scientists agree on aviation's impact?

The warming impact of aviation emissions is notoriously difficult to quantify. Because aircraft exhaust contains other greenhouse gases whose impact is less well understood than carbon dioxide (such as nitrogen oxide [NOx] and the water vapour that makes up condensation trails), and because this whole bundle of gases is deposited right where we don't want it – into the upper atmosphere – trying to ascertain exactly how much warming will result from a given journey is riven with uncertainty.

London First: scrap 5,000 flights at Heathrow

Sardines

What strange times we live in. First the Tory party decides it doesn't think Heathrow should expand (and then goes further, with vague comments about no expansion in the South-East), then business leaders demand BAA axes 5,000 flights to sort out Heathrow's chronic delays.

This is about the only sensible thing I've ever heard a business leader say. BAA likes to cry about how Heathrow is over-capacity, and therefore must expand right bloody now. But what sort of an argument is that? If Glastonbury announced that it was really overcrowded because they'd decided to let 30% more people in that it was designed for, would your first response be "expand the festival"? Doubt it - you'd demand they reduced the number of people there until it only had the number of entrants it was designed for.

Why do BAA think it's acceptable to over use the airport? If, as they are so proud of claiming, it was designed for 55million but currently handles 70 million, then why don't they just starting cancelling flights until we're back to 55million again? When people's homes are at stake (not to mention the climate) why should we let BAA artificially create delays to justify expansion. You may think Heathrow needs sorting out, but it doesn't need expansion. BAA must stop squeezing people into Heathrow as thought they were sardines.

Amy Greenhouse says "No, no, no!"

Tags:

Greenpeace meets Winehouse in a megamix climate change third runway multimedia mash up. Or something.

Plane Stupid vs the Government - Parliament protestors in court

Parliament roof 4

On Monday the five Plane Stupid protestors from the Parliament rooftop action plead not guilty to charges of being in a restricted area - section 128 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act. We're back in court in late July, with a trial likely to take place in September.

There's no denying we were on the roof, but we think we had a lawful excuse - trying to stop the Government and BAA working together to sneak a third runway past the electorate. What's our evidence? Well, there's the Greenpeace 'BAA files' for starters, then a healthy chunk of paperwork exposed by the Sunday Times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

When the nitrogen oxide data was getting too high, BAA and the DfT worked together to move the readers further away from the airport. When BAA didn't like some of the questions in the consultation, they got to re-write them. The DfT is a minute's walk from the court room - perhaps the officials would be gracious enough to appear and explain themselves?

Transport conference delegates shocked by elephant in the room

The white elephant

A 5 metre high giant inflatable elephant shocked delegates at the Edinburgh Caledonian Hilton today with a massive banner stating 'Aviation is the elephant in the room'.

This spectacle, created by anti-aviation group Plane Stupid Scotland, is a huge visual reminder that aviation remains a massive elephant in the room as long as emissions from aviation continue to be ignored in the Climate Change Bill.

The display took place outside a Hilton-hosted conference that brings organisations and researchers together to discuss how to "deliver the national transport strategy whilst meeting… climate change targets".

The message for delegates and the public was clear: we must not repeat the government’s mistake in ignoring aviation, and make it top priority when discussing transport and climate change.

Plane Stupid Scotland member Dan Glass points out that: "The elephant in the room here is that if Scottish aviation grows as predicted its pollutions will swamp all our efforts and sacrifices to reduce emissions. We can forget about 80% by 2050 – we can forget about a liveable world for our children."

Calls to include aviation in the Scottish Climate Bill are rendered doubly urgent as the Scottish Government will imminently bring legislation to expand both Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, and to outlaw objections to these expansions whether by parliament or public unless on limited planning grounds.

There is a rising tide of dissent against aviation expansion in Scotland, leading recently to the creation of anti-aviation network AirportWatch Scotland. Plane Stupid Scotland too shut down Edinburgh’s private airport in January and occupied the Holyrood rooftops in April. These are part of a growing host of groups and individuals that see airport expansion as a blight upon the environment and upon affected communities.

Tilly Gifford From Airportwatch Scotland said:

"We are facing a runaway climate threat but the Scottish government's reaction is to triple air traffic and expand Glasgow and Edinburgh airports whilst conveniently excluding aviation from the Scottish Climate Bill. The climate scientists have made it clear - we have to stop airport expansion. No more white elephants- real action now."

Birmingham airport buys second opinion

Second opinion

In the fast-moving world of aviation expansion, it's perfectly common for big business to spend loads-a-money producing crazy reports that claim extravagant benefits and underplay the costs. But Birmingham airport may have sunk to a new low: after its first report came to the wrong conclusions, it procured a second opinion.

According to the first report by experts at Liverpool University, expansion would bring health implications for children at 31 local schools, elderly people and anyone with circulatory or respiratory conditions. But the second report conveniently decided that there wouldn't be “any meaningful health outcome” from changes in air quality, while dismissing any chance of significant impact on children’s learning.

The airport claims it paid for the second report - an additional £10,000 on top of the original £50,000 - because the Liverpool authors refused to condense their report into snappy soundbite. Maybe that's true - or maybe the airport owner didn't like paying for a report that said the opposite of what they wanted to hear...