<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://planestupid.com/taxonomy/term/210/all" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Committee on Climate Change</title>
    <link>http://planestupid.com/taxonomy/term/210/all</link>
    <description></description>
    <language>en</language>
          <item>
    <title>CCC hides killing blow behind polite veneer</title>
    <link>http://planestupid.com/blogs/2009/12/8/ccc-hides-killing-blow-behind-polite-veneer</link>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don&#039;t believe what you&#039;re reading in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6948138.ece&quot;&gt;most of today&#039;s papers&lt;/a&gt;. The Committee on Climate Change&#039;s report into aviation and CO2 targets is clear that we can&#039;t expand all the airports and meet the Government&#039;s greenhouse gas emission targets. But instead of spelling it out, they&#039;ve chosen to present the Government with an impossible choice: cancel Heathrow or condemn millions to fuel poverty.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The CCC explained that if biofuels work, if efficiency suddenly starts increasing, if other sectors reduce their emissions by 90%, then we can have some airport expansion. Not only is that a lot of ifs, but it&#039;s also a lot less expansion than was envisaged. Gone is the 200% increase in passenger numbers, replaced by a somewhat more sedate (but still delusional) 60% hike. This means that it&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5601100.ece&quot;&gt;regional airports versus Heathrow&lt;/a&gt; in the fight to expand, because once we hit 60%, forget it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But even if the industry suddenly starts making greener planes, other sectors are being asked to make 90% reductions to cover aviation&#039;s shortfall. This is a recipe for big increases in fuel bills, which has the privatised energy monopolists rubbing their hands in glee. This is a recipe for inequity: poorer people spend more of their income on heating than transport, while richer people spend more on transport than energy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The CCC&#039;s vision of less airport expansion in return for more fuel poverty is not likely to win many votes. No Government with half a mind would think making the poor pay through the nose for the excesses of the wealthy would make a solid manifesto commitment (what about the Tories? - Ed.). In the cold hard world of realpolitick, airport expansion will be reigned in, whether O&#039;Leary likes it or not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of course to the army of uninformed hacks out there (step forward &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400749.stm&quot;&gt;Roger Harrabin of the BBC&lt;/a&gt;) this report gave the green light (in every sense of the word) to Heathrow expansion. Sadly that says more about the quality of journalism than climate change policy.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
     <category domain="http://planestupid.com/category/blog-tags/committee-climate-change">Committee on Climate Change</category>
 <category domain="http://planestupid.com/category/blog-tags/heathrow">Heathrow</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1031 at http://planestupid.com</guid>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>