Richard's blog

National Parks - the last refuge from the roar and crunch of mechanised civilisation. Where packs of ramblers roam free over the heathered hills, and ne'er an engine is heard. Unless, of course, you're talking about Snowdonia National Park, where the Welsh Assembly Government have decided to develop a private airport.

Llanbedr airport was built in 1938 and until recently was a military airbase, but was sold off in 2006 to Kemble, who already run a private airfield in the Cotswolds. Because of planning loopholes, the airport can begin operations without public enquiry or scrutiny - despite the impact on the National Park and the climate.

Take one former chief executive of British Airways. Add a hefty dose of criticism, blend with the Sunday Times's campaigning and leave to simmer over a Bank Holiday weekend. What have you got? Another nail in the coffin for the surely doomed third runway.

Bob Ayling, head of BA from 1996 - 2000, has joined the baying mob opposed to Heathrow's expansion, calling the plans to turn Sipson into Airstrip One a "a classic exercise in misguided central planning." While environmentalists have focused on the growth in emissions and residents on intolerable noise and pollution, Ayling has gone straight for the economic jugular, savaging BA and BAA's business plan and the regulatory framework.

The aviation industry loves to crow about its efficiency gains while steadily increasing the number of planes in the sky. They call this sustainable aviation and pretend that it's tackling their emissions. We're sceptical, and according to Australian scientists at the Centre for Climate Law and Policy, we are right: any efficiency gains are being outpaced by the increase in planes and flights.

According to the Centre's Associate Director, Andrew Macintosh, "at the moment the gains [the aviation industry's] making through technological advances and improvements in the way they operate the aircraft are being offset by the massive increase in the size of the market." In other words, small gains in efficiency are wiped out by everyone flying more, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with half a brain.

Macintosh also expressed doubt that the industry could keep growing without massively increasing its emmissions and that this would make it almost impossible to hit climate change targets. This echoes the concerns raised by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research who found that if aviation continued to grow, it would not only wipe out its own efficiency gains, but could end up accounting for our entire CO2 allowance under the Kyoto Protocol. Sustainable growth, eh?

Some PR boffin at Airlines PLC has been working their socks off, persuading everyone that the government's planned reforms to Air Passenger Duty are going to increase carbon emissions by encouraging people to fly further. The new taxes, which scale according to the type of aircraft (penalising old, dirty planes) are charged according to how far you fly.

The airlines think this is the begining of the end, and have been crying to the papers all week about how dreadful the new taxes will be. Their latest wheeze takes the biscuit: they claim that people wanting to fly long-haul will book a short-haul flight to Europe, paying the short-haul tax rate, and then change for a long-haul flight in Schipol or Charles de Gaulle, avoiding the greater long-haul tax. According to Saturday's Times, a family could save up to £200 through this loophole.

Like so much of the airlines' spin, this is clearly nonsense. Flying with a family is one of the most unpleasant experiences known to man, and the idea that people will voluntarily extend the misery by breaking their journey - increasing the length of time standing in Duty Free being pestered by their kids and increasing the likelihood of baggage getting lost - is laughable. Anyone mad enough to try this will end up getting the cold shoulder all holiday from their exhausted partner who can't believe they spent three hours stuck at Frankfurt airport to save a miserable £200 on a holiday costing the better part of a couple of grand. Good luck to them, say I.

As anyone who reads right-of-centre papers will tell you, the coalition against airport expansion is getting broader all the time. West Londoners sick of the roar of planes overhead; environmentalists worried about global warming (13% of the UK's climate impact and counting); residents of Sipson who'd rather their village wasn't bulldozed - these days it seems like everyone with half a brain is up in arms over BAA's plans for Heathrow. This is just as it should be - expanding Heathrow (or any airport) while trying to tackle climate change is complete and utter madness.

So what to do with this unlikely coalition? Well much as they'd all have been welcome to join us on the Commons roof, it might have been a bit crowded. A more practical solution is the 'Make a NOise!' rally on the 31st of May at Heathrow, which brings everyone who opposes the third runway together to, um, make a noise about it.

Hold the presses - the aviation industry has signed an awesome Earth Day agreement to do some stuff about the whole climate thingie! Great news for anti-aviation campaigners, but is it time to hang up our d-locks and put away the banners? Of course not - once again the industry is talking nonsense and massively overstating its ability to reduce its climate impact.

This time they've signed a declaration to do something about the amount of CO2 each plane farts out ("to lead towards carbon neutral growth and a totally sustainable future"), but declined to set any targets or timescales- or even to explain how they might go about tackling the issue. The "declaration on climate change" also focuses on per passenger efficiency - easily tackled by making bigger planes which carry more people - while ignoring the growth in overall emissions from coaxing more and more people to fly unnecessarily.

Another day, another blow for BAA. After months of speculation, the Competition Commission has indicated that BAA might have to sell off Gatwick to break up their monopoly over London's airports. While the papers are taking great delight in kicking BAA while it's down, I'm getting worried. Could splitting up the monopoly lead to more airport expansion?

According to the Evening Standard, the Commission condemned "A 'short-term and reactive' approach to airport expansion. Major decisions about infrastructure have 'generally been too late to meet demand'." If that wasn't enough to worry you, try this accusation: "BAA managers have also too easily given commitments not to expand further at an airport and abdicated responsibility to government for strategic planning."

Plane Stupid Scotland have taken to the roof of Holyrood to fight plans that will make it all but impossible to block new roads and runways. Under National Planning Framework (NPF) proposals, Ministers will designate a whole generation of dirty development as 'National Developments', which bypass public or parliamentary approval. The meager consultation exercise on the proposals ends tomorrow, with legislation expected in the autumn.

Ministers plan to lable Edinburgh and Glasgow airport expansions as National Developments, reinforcing existing plans to expand all Scottish airports by 2030. As a blank cheque for massive airport expansion with no scrutiny or accountability, the NPF is recipe for disasters like Heathrow in every major Scottish city.