Richard's blog

When Governments face rebellion in the back benches, they traditionally defer whatever is causing the problem. This buys them enough time to offer out peerages and cushy jobs to the rebels, defusing enough of the protest to win a vote when the division bell sounds. But Transport Secretary Geoff 'Buff' Hoon may live to regret delaying the Heathrow decision, because this rebellion shows no sign of dying out.

West London Labour MPs who recognise they'll get a kicking in the next election (and a fair few who would benefit from high-speed rail) are now demanding a vote in the Commons - and the Tories or Lib Dems may be able to provide one. Senior Cabinet Ministers are now openly briefing against expansion, concerned that the "strict, local environmental limits" will be broken. BAA even tried to talk up an independent board to analyse the airport's eco-impact, only to be laughed off the Today programme.

The latest plan is to scrap the runway and opt for mixed-mode; such a political option. Mixed-mode - where the airport uses both runways for take-offs and landings - is not as sexy as the destruction of an ancient village, and there would not be as many extra flights. But it's still nonsense. It really doesn't matter whether your emissions come from new runways or old ones; what matters is whether they are increasing or not. Mixed-mode will increase emissions, so it must be sent packing - along with any residual plans to build another runway.

The uber-capitalists at the Competition Commission have given their final verdict: BAA is to be forced to sell Gatwick, Edinburgh and Stansted. The Commission wants to see more competition, by which it means more expansion at every airport. But how will the credit crunch impact on potential buyers? Who cares: Plane Stupid is offering to buy the airport and turn it into a newt sanctuary.

You might think that we don't have anything like the money needed to buy an airport - and on the surface of it you'd be right. But thanks to the wonders of venture capitalism and carbon trading, we've been able to concoct a marvellous scheme which should bring in the bucks. Gatwick emits millions of tonnes of CO2: 5 million annually, to be precise. Each tonne retails for $20 dollars or so, if it hits the Government's 'gold standard', so that's one hundred million dollars a year.

But we're not stopping Gatwick for just one year: we're closing it permanently. That unlocks decades worth of credits, and we can sell them now. 25 years would bring us in $2.5 billion; £1.6 billion in devalued sterling.  But why stop there: if we claim we had plans to build eight new runways and terminals all over the place (but can be paid not to) then we get to sell those credits as well. That's easily going to bring in the last £400 million. Who says market-based initiatives are rubbish then? Certainly not the newts...

In 1995 residents who lived near Heathrow received a letter through the post from Sir John Egan, then chief executive of BAA. He stated categorically that BAA did not want a third runway, and that Terminal 5 was not laying the ground for getting any additional airport capacity.

He wrote to them again in 1999 and went even further: "I can now report that we went even further at the Inquiry and call on the Inspector to recommend that, subject to permission being given for T5, an additional Heathrow runway should be ruled out forever." Heathrow boss Mike Roberts also wrote to residents to allay their fears about BAA wanting a third runway.

They were, of course, lying - and now Mike Forster, BAA Director of Strategy, has admitted it was all one big fib. When grilled about Egan's letters before the Heathrow Consultative Committee, Forster replied “Well, that's what he had to say to get permission for Terminal 5.” Well that's alright then. BAA has belatedly started being a bit more honest; last year their CEO refused to rule out a fourth runway when questioned by the London Assembly.

Source: Flickr

Over fifty young protesters from the climate action group Plane Stupid have this morning shut down Stansted Airport by camping on the runway and surrounding themselves with fortified security fencing.

The peaceful protest began at 3.15am this morning whilst the runway was temporarily closed for maintenance work. Plane Stupid aims to prevent the scheduled reopening of the runway at 5am. The group intends to maintain its blockade for as long as possible, preventing the release of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

10:50pm update: All 57 protesters have been released, mostly charged with Aggravated Trespass.

10:20am update: The Press Association reports that 57 people have been arrested, and 56 Ryanair flights cancelled. That's one flight per protester, meaning each personally stopped 41.58 tonnes of greenhouse gas equivalent.

8:10am update: At least 39 people have been arrested and the runway re-opened. BAA are claiming that 21 flights have been cancelled. Every minute the airport emits around 4 tonnes of CO2.

6:00am update: BAA have confirmed that the first flights out of the airport have been delayed. The average flight out of Stansted has a climate impact equivalent to 41.58 tonnes of CO2.

Photos available from our Flickr photostream.

Source: Flickr

One young woman, Lily, aged 21 said:

"We're here because our parents' generation has failed us and its now down to young people to stop climate change by whatever peaceful means we have left. We're afraid of what the police might do to us, we're afraid of going to jail but nothing scares us as much as the threat of runaway climate change. We've thought through the consequences of what we're doing here but we're determined to stop as many tonnes of CO2 as we can."

The young campaigners have raised a banner reading 'CLIMATE EMERGENCY'. Wearing high visibility vests which have the message "Please DO something" printed on them, they chose this day for the peaceful trespass as they knew the runway was closed for maintenance works and no flights were due to take off or land for two hours after they arrived.

Source: Flickr

Tilly, 21, said:

"We all grew up listening to Blair and Brown talking about the urgent need to slash emissions, but nothing ever happened. Even now politicians from our parents' generation are in Poland holding talks about talks, but still nobody's actually doing anything. The scientists tell us we've got about seven years to make emissions peak then drop, and if we fail it will be the people on this runway, and our children, who'll live with the consequences. That's why I'm doing this."

The campaigners chose to close Stansted after the government approved the expansion of capacity at the airport by ten million passengers a year. Aviation is Britain's fastest growing source of emissions, already amounting to at least 13% of our country's climate impact. With plans for new runways across the UK, including at Heathrow and Stansted, experts from the Tyndall Centre for climate research say Labour's aviation policy alone will scupper any chance the UK has of hitting its climate targets.

Daniel, 24, said:

"We fully appreciate the scale of what we've done here today and we know many people will struggle to understand why we've done it, but the Arctic ice cap is disappearing, the seas are rising and our last chance to save our future is vanishing. With people taking more flights in Britain than anywhere else on earth, we have a unique responsibility to tackle emissions from flying."

With everyone expecting an announcement on Heathrow next Tuesday, Transport Supremo Geoff Hoon has decided to delay his decision until next year to give himself more time to decide. It's no surprise that he's stalling for time: councils across London are gearing up for a judicial review and Hoon needs to be seen to have thought about his decision very carefully.

There are also rumours of a seismic split in the Cabinet, with a strange coalition of Harman, both Milibands and Hilary Benn on the opponents bench. But forget about democracy: Hoon also vowed not to let the Commons vote on expansion (because he'd lose - over 50 Labour rebels signed an EDM against expansion, wiping out Labour's majority). It makes a mockery of Brown's statement that "decisions should be taken on the floor of this House" when we scrambled about on his roof.

This dithering really isn't good enough: Sipson and West London have had the spectre of expansion hanging over them for far too long. The Government needs to come clean and tell us whether the runway is going ahead or not. After all, there's the long, hard work of building barricades to be sorted - or organising street parties, in the unlikely event that Labour comes to its senses and does the right thing.

With just a few weeks to go before the Government gives the go ahead for BAA to apply for planning permission to expand Heathrow and rumours are flying faster than a British Airways 747. The latest nugget of info is the announcement by Lord Turner that Heathrow could expand without CO2 emissions spiralling out of control. But is that what he actually said?

The Grauniad was the first to comment, with the headline “Climate change watchdog backs expansion of Heathrow”. Lord Turner, it said, had signalled that “the UK could meet its ambitious pledge to slash greenhouse gas pollution even if ministers give the go-ahead to expanding Heathrow airport”. The Evading Standards jumped on this, stating firmly that “a THIRD [sic] runway at Heathrow need not breach Britain's new legal target to cut greenhouse gas emissions”. But what did Turner actually say?

Just days before the expected announcement on Heathrow's third runway, and the BBC reports that BAA has agreed to an independent watchdog to monitor the airport and cap the number of flights. It claims it wants to use the new capacity to reduce congestion. What a load of nonsense: it's just a trick to get runway alternation lifted and the village of Sipson turned into runway three.

• Listen to the Today Programme report.

This is just like Stansted, which was subject to a cap on the number of flights, put in place when they airport was converted to passenger use. Last year BAA applied to have it lifted, and the Government just gave its permission. Similarly Heathrow's expansion was once limited to the fourth terminal, then the fifth. Even BAA used to claim that they didn't want a third runway - now they won't deny wanting a fourth.

The third runway and runway alternation must be a line in the sand. Any expansion at Heathrow - even if just to reduce congestion but not overall flights - cannot be allowed to go ahead. Sipson must not be sacrified to help BAA do its job properly - and if it is, then everything we've worked for will be lost, as the number of flights will just rise anyway once the tarmac is on the ground and the damage already done.

Civil servants are reknowned for their gobbledygook, so it's refreshing to see that the DfT has started sending its officials on Plain English Campaign courses in how to speak like everyone one else. In 2007/2008 the Department spent £2,868 on such courses.

Unfortunately they don't seem to have learnt anything, because 2007/2008 was the year when the DfT was working on the Heathrow consultation. A consultation so inpenetrable that it was described as "effectively tak[ing] away human rights" and "not [a] real consultation" because civil servants designed it "in such a way that most people are unable to take part."

So who gave such a damning critique of the consultation? Step forward Chrissie Maher, founder of the Plain English Campaign! Tut tut: sounds like those officials weren't paying attention. Will Hoon be sending them back to school? Somehow I doubt it.