Greens and aviation industry clash at Labour Party conference

Earlier this week I spoke at the Climate Clinic. This report is from DeHavilland:

Representatives of environmental groups and the aviation industry have clashed over the need to restrict access to air travel.

Speaking at the Labour conference at a fringe event 'Does business need bigger airports?' were Brian Wilson, chairman of flying matters, Richard Brown, chief executive of Eurostar, Roger Wiltshire, director general of the British Air Transport Association, Dr Doug Parr of Greenpeace, Joss Garman of Plane Stupid and Charles Secrett of the Mayor of London's Office.

The meeting was hosted by Jon Leake, environment editor at the Sunday Times.

Opening the meeting, Greenpeace's chief scientific advisor Dr Doug Parr stated that there was a moral case to control carbon emissions. He pointed to WHO figures which suggested that 150,000 deaths every year were related to climate change.

Aviation contributed 13 per cent of the UK's carbon dioxide output, Dr Parr continued, stating that there was consensus that this would double by 2030. All but the DfT's estimates had emissions trebling by 2050, he added.

There had to be an end to the policy of predict and provide for airport capacity, Dr Parr asserted. He rejected the notion that technology would provide a solution, pointing out that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had found that the growth of the industry would outstrip efficiency gains.

The Greenpeace spokesperson maintained that emissions trading would not have the necessary impact, warning that in order to cut aviation the price of carbon would have to be so high as to destroy other economic activity.

Instead, he called for a restriction on airport capacity, beginning with a moratorium on the building of new runways.

Representing the British Air Transport Association, Roger Wiltshire stressed that aviation provided the UK with jobs and vital economic links, adding that the Government had recognised this in the 2003 aviation White Paper and subsequent policy.

The industry had produced a sustainable aviation strategy, Mr Wiltshire continued, which aimed at improving efficiency by 50 per cent by 2020.

Turning to air passenger duty, the BATA director general contended that the money raised was not linked to environmental improvements. He instead advocated the development of an international cap on aviation emissions, arguing that this was necessary to safeguard the industry in the UK.

At £2 billion, air passenger duty was over four times the level of the carbon costs of air travel under the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), Mr Wiltshire revealed. He denied suggestions that the industry was subsidised, pointing out that other forms of public transport were exempt from VAT.

The aviation industry encouraged the development of rail links to airports, Mr Wiltshire explained, but asserted that it was not realistic to advocate the substitution of rail travel for most short haul flights.

In addition, rail 'depends on major raids on the public purse', the BATA director general maintained, stating that this reduced the amount of money the Government could spend elsewhere.

For the Mayor of London's Office, Charles Secrett began by observing that there was no possibility of low carbon air travel in the near future. Therefore, there was a need to reduce the number of flights, he said, calling for a curb on the number of 'frivolous' short trips to allow for continued long haul business and leisure travel.

Rationing must be equitable, Mr Secrett continued, noting that eight per cent of the population accounted for 50 per cent of the flights. Therefore it was untrue to claim that the poor would be hit hardest by restricting access to air travel, he stated, advocating an allowance of perhaps one low cost flight per family per year.

Mr Secrett later clarified that that the exact level of rationing would have to result from a societal decision, the suggestions he had used being a way of starting the debate.

The Mayor of London's representative called for an EU carbon market and a halt to the expansion or new building of airports. Supporting a levy on aviation fuel, Mr Secrett called for this to be ring-fenced to develop alternative transport. This would include low-carbon aircraft fuels, he said.

London was working with the aviation industry and the Government to increase efficiency in the industry, Mr Secrett continued, pointing to reforms to flight paths, a reduction of stacking and initiatives such as turning off engines while on the ground.

The Mayor's Office was also working to educate Londoners, promote videoconferencing and would lead by example, cutting its use of air travel and offsetting where necessary, he said.

Finally, Mr Secrett called for alternatives to air travel, claiming that it was ridiculous that there were 30 flights a day between London and Manchester.

For Eurostar, Richard Brown claimed that the number of business passengers using the Channel tunnel was increasing, putting this down to the hassle factor at airports, the fact train journeys could be more productive and firms' concern over their environmental impact. Switching to trains was an easy way of cutting a company's carbon emissions, he maintained.

The train produced ten times less carbon dioxide than a comparable flight between London and Paris or Brussels, Mr Brown asserted, adding that high-speed rail had comparable door-to-door journey times to these destinations from further afield, including the cities of the Midlands.

In addition, Eurostar was setting up through-fare partnerships with other European rail firms to allow passengers to travel on to other destinations, he said.

Mr Brown pointed out that 20-25 per cent of all flights from Heathrow were to other UK cities or near-continental destinations such as Paris or Brussels. He suggested that the train was a viable alternative.

Aviation was part of the problem, Brian Wilson of Flying Matters acknowledged, but argued that it should not be a scapegoat or an excuse to avoid tackling more difficult sectors of the economy, such as housing, which produced 42 per cent of the UK's carbon emissions.

It was politically undeliverable to deny people the opportunity to fly, he claimed, stating that marginal flights would be the first victims. The consequence of rationing would be the centralisation of aviation on London, he argued.

Noting that a small percentage of passenger accounted for a great number of the flights, Mr Wilson observed that the A and B social groups would be able to afford more expensive air travel. Therefore the poorest would be disproportionately affected, he warned.

Mr Wilson attacked as 'deeply offensive' the idea that some flights could be branded as frivolous. He accepted the need for sustained investment in rail to provide travellers with a genuine choice, but maintained that this would take time to implement.

For Plane Stupid, Joss Garman highlighted evidence from the Tyndall Centre, whose director had called for aviation growth to be curtailed. He claimed that resistance to this was a case of 'the privileged protecting their luxuries'.

Mr Garman attacked economic arguments for air travel, stating that the industry was subsidised and highlighting that the UK faced a £17 billion net outflow of tourism revenue.

Roger Wiltshire countered that the tourist industry in the UK benefited from foreign visitors and highlighted the fact that air passenger duty increased the cost of flying by $320 for those outside the EU.

Mr Brown pointed out that visitor numbers from France had increased after the opening of the Eurostar.

Following the main speeches, a representative from the WWF asked if the aviation industry would agree to its inclusion within the limits set in the Climate Change Bill.

Instead, Mr Wiltshire argued for an international solution which set limits on all airlines' emissions.

Dr Parr accused the aviation industry of not engaging with the challenges posed by climate change, asserting that it was 'rhetorically accepting it, but actually not dealing with it'.

A delegate from the Campaign for Better Transport asked the aviation representatives if they could see a case against expanding Heathrow beyond the proposed third runway.

Nicholas Stern accepted that aviation would grow, Mr Wilson replied, reasoning that this required a growth of the associated infrastructure. Flying should not be restricted to the wealthy, he asserted.

Replying to Mr Garman's assertion that the public backed restrictions on air travel, Mr Wilson replied that voters generally expressed support for anything virtuous, but would not support the party that espoused it.

Dr Parr called for a radical change of lifestyles, noting that the Conservative quality of life review had acknowledged the tension between levels of consumption and environmental protection. When Environment Secretary, David Miliband had often spoken of the need for behavioural change, the Greenpeace spokesperson added.

He called on business and the Government to provide a lead to consumers.

Mr Wiltshire took issue with Greenpeace's assertions on the effect of radiative forcing, claiming that carbon dioxide emissions had the same environmental impact regardless of the height at which they were released.

Concluding the meeting, Mr Wilson spoke of the impact that new technology would have, claiming 'Rolls Royce engineers will contribute more to combating climate change than Greenpeace ever will'.

In response, Dr Parr pointed out that firms like Rolls Royce operated in a political and regulatory context set by the Government and maintained that Greenpeace would exert its influence by lobbying the latter. He finished by reiterating that new runways were not compatible with cutting carbon emissions.

More reports can be found on The Guardian and The Telegraph.