expansion

Why we shut Stansted Airport

Stansted 5

Monday's action has shown the power of young people determined to turn the climate talk into climate action. We took the decision to disrupt the airport to directly reduce the CO2 impact of Stansted, as a response to the government's consent to its expansion. We did so with heavy hearts, knowing it would disrupt passengers, because we knew the consequences of this action couldn't be worse than the consequences of inaction. If irreversible climate change kicks in, millions of lives will be destroyed.

We are genuinely grateful for the level of support from people who have agreed with us that desperate times call for desperate measures. We have used this action to ask for everyone to 'please, do something'. We hope that all those that have expressed support for today's action will now think about what they are going to do to ensure the survival of our planet and people on it.

Heathrow decision delayed as Hoon rules out Commons vote

No, no, no

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.

Newquay Airport: accidental environmentalists

Closed

It was all going so right for NQY (Newquay) Airport. Despite ongoing incompetence, disorganisation, cancellations, compensation, off-the-record admissions that the venture has no long term economic viability and British Airways banning surfboards the struggling airport was being kept afloat by massive injections of taxpayers' money. Then it all started to go wrong.

The MOD was due to hand it to Cornwall County Council in August, but the council wasn't ready. A second date was set for December 1st, but no one had got round to building a control tower. Now the Civil Aviation Authority has refused to grant an operating licence, so NQY has been forced to close for at least three weeks. Ryanair's so angry it's pulled all its flights until further notice.

Turner-round, every now and then I get a little misquoted

Green plane

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?

BAA agrees to cap flights at Heathrow

Kid with banner

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.

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.

DfT officials ignoring Plain English Campaign courses

Crystal Mark 2008

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.

Boris to fund Heathrow legal challenge

BoJo waving

Proving that our finger is on the pulse of all things aviation related, Plane Stupid can exclusively reveal today that Boris Johnson has agreed to part-fund a legal challenge to Heathrow's expansion. (Exclusively, because everyone else ran this story last week.) London's mayor has stumped up £15,000 to help 2M prepare a challenge based on breaches of the EU-set NOx limits.

In 2010 a series of NOx limits will come into effect, and any country who breaches them will meet with heavy fines. It's expected that Governments would have taken steps to reduce emissions to avoid the fines, but there are already breaches at Heathrow airport and no sign of any action to reduce NOx levels. We're not very optimistic of any either, given that this would basically necessitate closing the M4 or the M25, or digging up runway 2. The current solution is to push for a 5 year exemption... basically to postpone the enevitable.

If Heathrow is already breaching NOx limits then building another runway is unlikely to reduce its emissions, so the councils, backed by Boris, are to take the UK to court to challenge the expansion plans. I think they've got a pretty strong case - after all, BAA had to do all sorts of fiddling to rig NOx levels in the consultation document. I suppose I should be grateful to BoJo for his cash - but given that he's supporting expansion at City Airport, I'm not. Green with one hand, blue with the other.

'Commons Five' slapped on the wrist

Parliament roof 3

The five Plane Stupid activists who marked the end of the Heathrow consultation by scaling Parliament and unfurling banners have been found guilty... and punished with a £365 fine. Not bad, all things considered. The day-and-a-half trial saw the five - Olivia, Leo, Tamsin, Graham and myself -  accused of section 128 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act: trespass within a restricted area.

Given that the world's media had covered the action and had photographed us up there we didn't deny it, but were arguing that we had broken the law to prevent a greater crime. It's the same defence Greenpeace used last month when they were acquitted of damaging Kingsnorth coal-fired power station. We spoke about the corruption that had gone on between the DfT and BAA - the moving of the NOx meters further from the source of the emissions to make the readings lower; the invention of new 'green' planes that no one planned to build and other desperate attempts to rig the outcome from the start.

The judge wasn't convinced our defence applied - it all comes down to whether we used force or not - but after being presented with written evidence from climatologists, MPs, campaigners and other experts he agreed that something untoward had gone on. He found us guilty (because he remained convinced we couldn't run our defence) but then handed out the most minor of punishments: £150 fine, £200 costs and a £15 'victim surcharge' (presumably to buy some locks for the unlocked doors we waltzed through). It's a great result, and I just hope that the activists who boarded a coal train earlier this year get off equally lightly...

Robin Hood Airport: robbin' workers to feed aviation bosses

Errol Flynn

Doncaster Robin Hood Airport has outlined its plans for continued expansion of passenger and freight through to 2030 in its Draft Airport Master Plan. How this fits into the recent UK commitment to reduce CO2 emissions is quite beyond us. Perhaps the passenger contribution towards tree planting, the £500 raised from cardboard recycling and the toilet fed by a grey water system somehow offset the global damage?

But sod climate change: these credit crunched times are all about job creation. Airport developers always dig up this old chestnut as a sure-fire vote winner, but is it actually true? Recent cost-cutting strategies within the aviation sector have resulted in hundreds of redundancies and measures such as automated check in are hardly going to help. Reports by John Whitelegg, Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University, and Wiz Baines of Groundswell show that airport expansion destroys more jobs than it creates through encouraging overseas tourism and investment, not to mention the economic impacts of environmental degradation, health damage and climate change.

DfT report shows public confused about airport expansion

Tags:

Flight path

Whatdya think about aviation? Like the quick trips to New York to go Christmas shopping but hate the roar of jets overhead? Think we’ve broadened our horizons but terrified of climate change? Think your travel is essential but everyone else is binge flying? Then congratulations! You’re a member of the British public.

Yesterday the Government released its annual Attitudes to Aviation report, which showed that people are confused about airport expansion and climate change. Take some headline stats: 48% of people think we should expand our airports to boost the economy but 60% think we should limit expansion to protect the local environment and 56% oppose expansion on climate change grounds. 22% of people simultaneously want to expand airports and limit their expansion. At the same time.