Richard's blog

If you've looked at the Department for Transport's website, you'll know that it's very worried about the environment. It launched an eco-driving programme, asking drivers ever so nicely if they'd mind not speeding everywhere. It is terribly concerned about water pollution, with the Highways Agency tripping over itself to tackle chemical run-off from its motorways. And it obsesses over newts, splashing cash re-housing the endangered amphibians whenever it wants to build a motorway through their habitat.

But climate change? Not a chance. For all its fine words about how it's the 'greatest threat since sliced bread', behind closed doors it's business as usual. Take domestic flights: how many do you think the Department took last financial year? How many pampered civil servants thought themselves above the rigours of train or video-conferencing, and jumped on an easyJet special last year?

The answer is a bit staggering: 2,766 flights in financial year 2007-8. Every day of the year (including Christmas) 7 DfT nutkins are hoping on planes to fly somewhere within mainland UK. But it gets worse: the DVLA took 1,832 flights - despite basically being charged with sorting out driver's licenses. The remaining agencies have no idea how often they flew, because they don't even bother to keep track. Setting a great example there guys. Trebles all round.

Disclaimer: Plane Stupid has nothing against newts - in fact we like them so much that we'd rather people didn't build motorways through their homes. Or build motorways at all...

There's nothing more family friendly than an afternoon fetishising guns, bombs and all things war-like. Combine it with lots of planes whizzing about and you've pretty much got my idea of the seventh ring of hell.

It seems I'm not the only one either: reports have reached Plane Stupid Towers that Plane Stupid Gloucestershire are standing up to the mighty war machine. Each night they've been sneaking out and grafitting the ubiquitious Fairford posters that have sprung up all over the region.

Not content with just tinkering with Fairford's marketting, PSG have laid down the gauntlet: they've written to the Air Show, the Police, the local paper and pretty much anyone with a freepost address, telling them who did the grafitti and where they can be found. "We will paint out as many of your signs as we can before the weekend to raise awareness of the environmental damage you will be causing," they said. "You try and stop us." Game on!

On Wednesday the Planning Bill received its Third Reading, and scraped through with a majority of just 43 votes. It now goes to the House of Lords where the unelected chamber is expected to step up and tear strips off it. If anyone is wondering just what the implications of the Bill are, I suggest reading the following excerpt from John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington, as he tried to persuade Labour politicians to oppose the Government and the Bill.

"The behaviour of the House in agreeing the programme motion and conducting today’s debate has been little short of a disgrace.

"The practical implication of the Bill is that it will most probably be used in my constituency first with regard to Heathrow. Before Members walk through the Lobby tonight, they should recognise what they are doing. If they vote for the Bill and it is used at Heathrow, thousands of people will lose their homes—they will be forcibly removed from their properties. Those parents who send their children to Heathrow primary, William Byrd school and Harmondsworth school will see those schools demolished. The proposal will also mean a roadway through Cherry Lane cemetery, so we will dig up our dead as a result of the proposals for Heathrow that will be forced through under this procedure. When Members vote tonight, they should recognise the human implications as well as the pollution of the air of communities across London.

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.

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?

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."

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...

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change research says we can't have unlimited aviation growth while still meeting our climate change targets - you know, the ones that try to stop us making life on earth rather unpleasant. The airlines disagree, of course - and spend large amounts of money telling us that you can have your cake and eat it too.

Someone forwarded me the Green Wing page of the British Airways magazine, where Willie Walsh answers your questions about the environment. They weren't very impressed by what they read: "I would have thought that questions about the link between aviation and the environment might relate to matters such as unnecessary flights within Britain and to Brussels and Paris or maybe even querying why we need to increase the number of flights which would require a third runway at Heathrow. But no. The top three questions that the world wants Willie to answer are:

"Would a third runway at Heathrow reduce the incidence of planes being put in a holding pattern and burning extra fuel? Does BA support the communities of developing nations? Are you planning to reduce the amount of packaging used in your meals?"