Barry's blog

From Press Release:

12 climate change activists from anti airport expansion direct action group, Plane Stupid, got onto the north runway at 03:30am this morning at Heathrow Airport by cutting through a fence, in a peaceful protest against proposals to build a new runway.  

The protestors say that going ahead with the recent Airports Commission recommendation that a third runway should be built at Heathrow will make it impossible for the UK to meet its climate change targets.  

The skies above Heathrow are already the busiest in the world, and demand for flights is driven by air fares that are kept artificially low by generous tax exemptions. The activists say that if the aviation industry paid more of its environmental costs then there would be no pressing need for a new runway.

Nine of the top ten most popular routes out of Heathrow are short haul[1], including destinations such as Paris, Manchester and Edinburgh which all have existing rail alternatives.  

Ella Gilbert, an activist from Plane Stupid who is on the runway, said:  

“Building more runways goes against everything we're being told by scientists and experts on climate change. This would massively increase carbon emissions exactly when we need to massively reduce them, that’s why we’re here.  

We want to say sorry to anyone whose day we’ve ruined, and we’re not saying that everybody who wants to fly is a bad person. It's those who fly frequently and unnecessarily who are driving the need for expansion, and we cannot keep ignoring the terrifying consequences of flying like there’s no tomorrow.  

No ifs, no buts, no third runway. And we mean it.”

Plane Stupid were very disappointed to hear the announcement from Sir Howard Davies this week that the Airports Commission unanimously backs a third runway at Heathrow. 

The worst part is that Sir Howard seems to have completely fudged the climate change implications.

Here's a reminder why airport expansion is a terrible idea:

• We cannot meet our climate change targets and build new runways at the same time. It's a choice between the two. This should be very simple to understand.
• We already fly more than any other country per head.
• Nine of the ten most popular destinations out of Heathrow are short-haul including to places such as Manchester and Paris. There are already very good existing rail alternatives that we should be using instead.
• 15% of the UK population take 70% of the flights. Building new runways will only benefit rich frequent flyers who are burning the planet for unnecessary leisure flights.
• Airport expansion will have terrible implications for noise pollution and air pollution.
• Local communities face being wiped off the map entirely by a third runway at Heathrow.
• Aviation gets huge tax subsidies and pays no VAT. Why are we propping up an industry which is highly damaging to the environment at the exact time we need to be reducing our carbon emissions?
• The huge advertising budgets of the aviation industry have tricked the public into believing we face an airport capacity crisis.
• Additionally, the employment benefits of expansion have been overplayed. Claims that airport expansion will create thousands of new jobs are based on unreliable statistics. Airport expansion actually results in more UK tourists going abroad, which creates a ‘tourism deficit’.

Climate protest is big again. Last week hundreds of thousands of people across the world took to the streets in a call for serious action to be taken to combat climate change (map above shows where marches took place). Truly, climate change has become a global movement.

UK politicians won’t be able to ignore climate change when they take the decision on airport expansion, expected about this time next year. It will come just before the COP in Paris where world leaders will gather to look at ways to cut CO2.

It will mean that any decision to build a new runway will be met by huge climate protests. Although the Government of the day will argue that the Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s official advisers, have said that one new runway would be compatible with the country’s CO2 targets, airport expansion on this scale will feel all wrong to climate campaigners. It will jar. It will anger.

And that anger will spill out on to the streets in demonstrations and direct action. If that activity is complemented by anger of local residents at what a new runway will do to their quality of life, the Government could find itself in the same trouble as when the last Labour Government tried to go for expansion: http://hacan.org.uk/victory-against-all-the-odds-2/

In recent years the aviation industry has not denied climate change. It has tried to sideline it by saying that technology will deal with it. Technology will improve but to allow the rest of the world at fly as much as the rich world does today. I don’t think so. Remember only 5% of the world’s population has ever flown. For the rest of the planet, our binge flying has to stop. I feel a slogan coming on….ready for the next climate march……..

Two new reports done by the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) & WWF and another one by The RSPB have shown that hopes of expanding airport capacity while meeting UK climate change targets can only be based on a wing and a prayer, requiring either implausible increases in carbon prices or constraints on regional airports to below current traffic levels.

Here's a summary of the new report ‘The Implications of South East Expansion for Regional Airports‘ by AEF & WWF:

The UK, like all G8 countries, is committed to cutting emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. But there are particular reasons why the challenge of ensuring that airports policy is compatible with climate policy has come to the fore in the UK. The number of flights taken per person in the UK is higher than in any other developed nation, London Heathrow is responsible for significantly more CO2 emissions than any other airport globally, and the Climate Change Act 2008 has made it a legislative requirement that the UK meets its political commitments on emissions.

In order for the UK economy as a whole to meet the requirement of the Act, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has recommended that aviation emissions should be no higher than 37.5 Mt CO2 by 2050 – reducing emissions back to 2005 levels. This, according to the Airports Commission, need not preclude a new runway. But the Commission has yet to spell out the policy steps that would be needed to reduce aviation emissions if a new runway were to be built.

The CCC has advised that since technology take-up, more efficient operations, or increased biofuel use can only do so much to reduce UK aviation emissions, limiting aviation CO2 requires limits on demand. Our analysis shows that the future Government would have two equally unpalatable options for constraining aviation emissions if approval was given for a new runway:

(i) Take unilateral action to tackle aviation emissions through taxes or other market based measures even though the Commission’s findings suggest that the cost would have to rise from around £3 per tonne of CO2 today to around £600 per tonne by 2050 which would have significant consequences for businesses. This option reflects Sir Howard Davies’ recent comments on the need for a higher carbon price.

(ii) Introduce very significant constraints on other airports, such as closure or restrictions to below current traffic levels at regional airports, to compensate for a new South East runway.

AEF are asking for people to:

1. Contact your MP to make them aware that airport expansion is an issue that will affect the whole of the UK, with significant implications for meeting our climate targets, the future of regional airports and the cost for the rest of the economy. It would be helpful if you could provide links to the report (AEF/WWF report: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_regional_airports_report1.pdf, RSPB report: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/aviationclimatechange_tcm9-372504.pdf). You could request that your MP makes a pledge to demand that the Airports Commission’s final recommendations are fully debated by elected members of parliament and not quietly given the go ahead.

2. Share the two reports with your contacts who you feel could be drawn into the airports expansion debate by the contents of the report, particularly members of the climate change community, leaders of other industries or regional airports.

3. Contact the Department for Transport to request that they produce a scenario of future passenger demand and resulting CO2 emissions based on the world as it is today without strong regulatory measures, not a scenario where such measures exist.

Last night celebrity judges including actor Hugh Grant, TV presenter Holly Willoughby, journalist Rachel Johnson and TV personality Gyles Brandreth picked this winning video with the videomakers taking home a prize of £10,000

The other 14 videos who made the final shortlist can be seen on www.no-ifs-no-buts.com

Plane Stupid posters mocking Gatwick's new "obviously" advertising campaign (see below) have started appearing on the tube network across London this morning.

Plane Stupid members were out from the early hours of this morning placing at least 300 posters across the London Underground train network.

The poster reads:

"I used to be an aviation advert. But that was Plane Stupid. Obviously".

This mornings subvertising effort was done in opposition to a recent Gatwick advertising campaign called "Gatwick Obviously" which is desperately trying to make the case for expansion of Gatwick Airport instead of at Heathrow or the Thames Estuary.

Barry Jones, 27, a Plane Stupid activist who took part in the protest said:

"Airport expansion is not the right answer in a time of climate crisis; at Gatwick, Heathrow or anywhere else. What the aviation industry has managed to do, partly through it's excessive spending on advertising, is to hijack the debate to make it appear that the only thing up for debate is where a new runway will go.

He added:

"When actually, the facts show that we cannot have any airport expansion if we want to meet our climate change reduction targets at the same time. When you add in the noise problems, air pollution and community blight caused by airport expansion then the case for expansion falls apart as it did before in 2010".

If you spot any of the posters on the tube please take a picture and email them to press@planestupid.com or you could tweet it to @planestupid

Plane Stupid are supporting UK Uncut's protest on October 5th against the governments dangerous plans to cut legal aid further, to the detriment of many vulnerable people and protest groups.

Here is their call out:

The government is about to launch its biggest attack yet on our rights, freedoms, and equality. They want to completely block access to justice for all but the rich, and they want to do it by the end of the year. Such an historic attack on people’s rights cannot, should not and will not go unchallenged. On 5th October, join UK Uncut as we take mass civil disobedience to show that we won’t take this assault on our equality before the law.

The government have forced through devastating cuts in every area from education to housing, welfare to healthcare, and now they want to stop us challenging their unfair and unnecessary decisions, and to stop us from resisting  injustice.

If these proposals go through they will stop people from disputing unfair evictions from their homes. They will stop babies from having their interests represented in family disputes. And they will stop the families of people killed in custody or detention from fighting for the truth.

This isn’t a cut that we’re talking about. The changes to legal aid won’t save even one penny, in fact they will cost money by causing havoc to the legal system. They are not motivated by a need to save money – these are ideological changes aimed at ruining justice for poor people and handing more contract cash to G4S and Serco.

So join the UK uncut collective in blocking roads outside of courts around the country.  In an act of direct action, we will stand against these dangerous changes that will destroy democracy and ordinary people’s lives.  We know that this will be disruptive. We know that it will stop the traffic. But we know that this kind of direct action works, and that we need to use it to save justice.

We already have the support of DPAC, Defend the Right to protest, Women Against Rape, Plane Stupid, Kent Refugee Help and BARAC UK.  But we need your help to make this huge. Get a group together, meet and come up with some ideas for your own act of creative civil disobedience. Start planning, find your nearest court, list your action on the action section of our website and get in touch if we can help.

Blocking roads has an important and effective history in direct action in the UK, and given the government has ignored petitions and protests, civil disobedience is needed to defend our rights against this attack. By blocking roads outside of courts, we will be symbolically highlighting the devastating effect the changes will have on access to justice. If you’re angry that the government is blocking justice for the poorest and most vulnerable, join us on the 5th.  Tell all your friends, family and colleagues. Shout about it, tweet it, facebook it. 

See you on the streets!

• More on the legal aid cuts here

Aound the world, in country after country, we're seeing the same thing: the companies that profit most from extracting and burning fossil fuels are putting a stranglehold on our political leaders. With climate politics deadlocked, 350.org are trying something new: directly targeting the companies standing in the way of progress.

Emissions from airlines blanket communities, causing heart failure, asthma, and other lung diseases. Airlines already accounts for 5 percent of global warming pollution, and aviation emissions are skyrocketing. If nothing is done, airline pollution is expected to double by 2020 and quadruple by 2050.

Last month, governments from around the world met to negotiate a program to cap airline pollution. But the airline industry, led by United, has spent millions lobbying to weaken standards.

A high level group of an intergovernmental panel known as the International Civil Aviation Organization (or ICAO) met in Montreal last month to design a system to reduce air travel’s footprint on the climate. They will release proposed rules in June, and a vote will be held in September. But United and other airlines have unleashed a horde of lobbyists, PR flacks, and “experts” to muscle the ICAO into making those rules as toothless as possible.

This isn’t the first time United has declared war on sensible environmental regulation. Last year, the European Union passed a law requiring airlines to improve their energy efficiency or buy pollution permits at a cost of just $3 per passenger. United responded by lobbying aggressively to get the U.S. Congress to pass a bill that prohibits U.S.-based airlines from complying with the EU’s efficiency standards and forces American taxpayers to foot the bill for the resulting fines.

United’s CEO Jeff Smisek wrote an op-ed in Hemispheres, his company’s in-flight magazine, arguing that the EU had no right to regulate flights taking off and landing in Europe.

Even other airlines think that United is extreme in its uncompromising opposition to all emissions standards. And in the highly competitive airline industry, United can’t afford a reputation as the anti-environment airline. If enough people call United out, it will have to stand down, and we’ll have a much better shot at controlling one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse emissions.

Sign the petition to United Airlines. Demand an end to its anti-environment lobbying.

This blog has been re-posted from 350.org