Tim and Cait have been focussing on climate change work, with Tim continuing to take part in work at ICAO (the International Civil Aviation Organization at the UN) on options for addressing aviation emissions at the global level through market-based measures. Cait, meanwhile, has been looking closely at the recent recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change regarding aviation emissions. She also attended a parliamentary event organised by RSPB to consider the environmental impacts of a Thames Estuary airport.

The Boeing website describes the plane as having been “designed for environmental performance”. On noise it says “ .. the noise footprint of the 787 is 60% smaller than those today of similarly sized planes.” But what will this actually mean for people on the ground?

A reduction in noise ‘footprint’ presumably means a reduction that in the area that would experience a particular level of noise, probably 85dB in this case. A 60% reduction in the footprint corresponds, by our calculation, to a reduction of about 3dB in noise level, which would produce a reduction in perceived noise of about 20%.

Of course, any reduction in noise is welcome. But this modest improvement from what will initially be only a very small number of aircraft (which, incidentally, were promised many years ago) will sadly do little to address the problem of noise around airports, with any noise savings likely to be quickly swallowed up by increases in air traffic.

After road transport, the researchers found that “emissions from shipping and aviation were the second greatest contributor to premature deaths, causing 1,800 early deaths annually, followed by powerplant emissions, which cause an estimated 1,700 premature deaths each year”, states a note from MIT.

More precisely, the report, published in the journal ‘Environmental Science and Technology’ indicates that “other transport” causes 1800 “nominal early deaths per year” but provides a “corrected central estimate and uncertainty” value of 2600 (within a range of 1400−4000). “Other transport” means transport other than road vehicles and includes trains, shipping and aviation. A split into these components is not available at present, but further work is planned that will differentiate between these sources, AEF has been advised.

The deaths considered were those due to small particulates, PM2.5m, which are thought to have the biggest impact on human health. Deaths from larger particulates (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3), were not included.

“The Chancellor announced in his Autumn statement that we would explore all the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow”, she told the conference. “The Coalition has always been clear that it does not support a third runway at Heathrow. One of its very first acts as a Government was to confirm this.”

She also took a swipe at the recent propaganda calling for Heathrow expansion: “Then there’s China… Like the rest of the Westminster village … I’ve read on the escalators at Westminster tube station that we’re lagging behind in this important market … lagging behind unless, that is, we include the 3000 flights every year to Hong Kong.”

Villiers did not, however, mention that the Coalition Statement also previously stated clearly that Government did not support new runways at Gatwick or Stansted.

Moving on to the forthcoming aviation strategy consultation, she said “I know some would like us to go faster but this decision is a crucial one which requires an objective, thorough and evidence based analysis of our connectivity needs and how best to meet them in a sustainable way.”

AEF concurs. We believe that convincing and logical arguments are needed to justify airport expansion, not spurious arguments and hype.

One example was provided at a meeting the same day held by the Independent Transport Commission, where BAA and London First argued for an expanded Heathrow hub airport, on the basis that good air links to rapidly growing economies such as China are necessary for British business people. This may be so, but it has very little to do with expanding Heathrow as a hub airport, a hub being, by definition, where people change planes; at Heathrow, most transfer passengers are not from the UK.

A British business person wants, ideally, a direct flight to their destination. But recognising that there can never be point-to-point services for a great majority of city pairs, travellers have to change planes. It is unimportant to travellers, and thus to the business community and the national economy, whether their interchange is at Heathrow or at any other airport.

Theresa Villiers’ full speech.

While we await publication of the draft aviation strategy in early summer, speculation about the Government’s airports policy continues. AEF responded to a request for information from Keith Taylor, MEP for SE Engand, in relation to constituents’ concerns about Gatwick expansion, and separately advised a journalist writing about Gatwick noise. We also attended the Integrated Transport Commission symposium on UK aviation strategy, and gave an interview to Radio Surrey, after Dunsfold Park lost an appeal against the local council’s decision to impose limits on the frequency and times of flights from the airfield.

The significance of aviation emissions for UK airports policy has recently had some media attention. AEF board member Jeff Gazzard had a letter published in the Guardian in response to claims from air traffic management company NATS that a third runway at Heathrow would improve the sector’s CO2 performance. And while continuing to fully support aviation’s inclusion in the EU ETS, AEF challenged the claim by Tim Yeo MP that the extension of the policy to airlines from January this year means that UK airports can expand without any concern about emissions growth. Finally, as aviation emissions need to be tackled at global as well as national levels, Tim attended an expert group meeting of the UN’s ICAO looking at possible market-based measures to address the sector’s emissions.

We have also been continuing to engage with issues relating to the CAA’s environmental work. As well as submitting a written response to the CAA’s consultation on its environmental programme, we met with CAA to discuss the relationship between this work and the proposed changes to the aviation regulation that would be introduced by the Civil Aviation Bill. We also met with an MP interested in the possibility of the CAA being given formal environmental duties by the Government.

CAA environment consultation: AEF response

See also CAA wades into environmental controversy with advice for Government alongside consultation on its own strategy

The time has come for aviation emissions to be brought within the UK’s carbon budgets, the Government’s official climate advisers said today. The 2008 Climate Act omitted emissions from international aviation and shipping because of debate about how account for them, but the data now exists – including, for aviation, emissions information collected through the EU Emissions Trading System – to make this possible, says the Committee on Climate Change.

The Committee is already required by the 2008 Act to ‘take account of’ these emissions when setting the carbon budgets for other sectors, so formal inclusion of aviation and shipping should not in fact have any impact on the carbon budgets that have already been approved by Government for other sectors, and for the UK as a whole.

AEF Deputy Director Cait Hewitt said:

“People in the UK fly more than anyone else in the world so it is right for us to take the lead in tackling the growth in aviation emissions.

“If the Government accepts the advice of its climate change advisers, aviation will be included on much more generous terms than those agreed for other sectors, with aviation allowed to increase its emissions by 120% of 1990 levels by 2050 while other sectors are expected to make cuts of 80% by then. But by including aviation in the carbon budgets we can make sure that the books balance and that steps to move the UK towards a greener economy aren’t scuppered by runaway aviation growth.

“If people and businesses want to carry on flying, we need to plan the future in a way that takes account of emissions from aircraft.”

For more detailed commentary, see Aviation should be included in the UK’s carbon budgets, Government advisors recommend

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has today recommended that emissions from international aviation be formally included in the UK’s carbon budgets. The Climate Act 2008 commits the UK to cutting emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, with a system of annual carbon budgets ensuring that the target is delivered. The Act currently omits emissions from international aviation and shipping but requires the Government to reconsider whether they should be included in 2012, with advice from the Committee on Climate Change. Already the Committee is required under the Act to ‘take account of’ these emissions when setting the carbon budgets for other sectors, so formal inclusion of aviation and shipping should not in fact have any impact on the carbon budgets that have already been set for other sectors.

2009 report: some aviation growth compatible with emissions stabilisation

In 2009 the Labour Government asked the CCC to advise on how aviation emissions could be returned to 2005 levels by 2050. The Committee concluded that after taking account of likely improvements in aircraft technology and air traffic management, and allowing for the possibility of 10% of aircraft fuel by 2050 being from sustainable sources, the ‘stabilisation’ target could allow for a 60% growth in passengers.  Even allowing for the introduction of carbon prices through the EU Emissions Trading System, however, the CCC predicted a growth in aviation demand of 115%, or 105% if no new runways were built anywhere in the UK before 2050. In other words, demand would need to be restrained if it was to keep to the 60% growth increase that would be compatible with the target.

Today, for the first time, the CCC formally recommended that the Government assume a long term scenario for aviation based on aviation emissions getting back to around 2005 levels in 2050 – the default level assumed by the Committee in its emissions modelling up till now, and the basis for their 2009 report.

The Committee has not analysed the CO2 impacts of any particular airport proposals and makes no specific recommendations in relation to airport expansion. Nevertheless, its recommendations underline the importance of ensuring that realistic climate change considerations are among the framing conditions for the new airports policy, the draft of which will be published this summer.

A good deal for airlines

If adopted by Government, this emissions ‘scenario’ would give aviation very significant advantages over other sectors in terms of emissions abatement.

Firstly, UK aviation emissions grew around 120% between 1990 and 2005, so constraining 2050 emissions to 2005 levels means that aviation would be allowed to grow 120% over 1990 levels by 2050. Meanwhile, other  sectors are expected to cut their emissions by more than 80% over the same period.

And secondly, the Climate Act takes account of the impact on global warming of emissions other than carbon dioxide (CO2), which are significant for some sectors. But the act omits the very important impacts of NOx and water vapour emitted by aircraft in the upper atmosphere.

AEF’s view

AEF strongly supports the inclusion of aviation emissions in the UK’s carbon targets and budgets, to support action which we are actively engaged in progressing at European and international levels. The sector’s emissions have historically grown rapidly, and the only reason for their being omitted when the Climate Act was agreed in 2008 was a technicality about how to account for them – an issue that can now be easily addressed using data collected through the EU Emissions Trading System. People in the UK fly more than anyone else in the world, so it is right that the UK takes a leading role in tackling aviation emissions growth. The Committee’s recommendations would give aviation considerable leeway compared with other sectors but would ensure that aviation in future participates transparently in the UK’s efforts to bring our economy within sustainable limits.

For the CCC’s report, released today, see the CCC website

Meanwhile, with pressure mounting on the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, to agree on a global alternative to aviation’s inclusion in the EU Emissions Trading System, ICAO’s Council met to discuss how to take forward its work programme on possible ‘market-based measures’ to tackle aviation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Tim, representing a coalition of environmental NGOs, will be participating in ICAO’s discussions about this over coming months. In the past fortnight, he also addressed the 6^th Environmental Summit organised by the industry body Air Transport Action Group, on a panel discussing aviation’s role in ‘sustainable development’.

Back in the UK, AEF has been engaged in various discussions about the role of industry regulator the CAA in managing environmental impacts. While we await a date for the report stage of the Civil Aviation Bill, at which we expect possible environmental duties to be raised again, the CAA’s consultation on its proposed environmental strategy is ongoing. We are currently working on a written response; in the mean time Tim presented AEF’s views at a workshop for key stakeholders. He also attended CAA’s Airport Performance Facilitation Group which is focused on the trials of ‘operational freedoms’ at Heathrow and airport performance charters.

Finally, we have been considering UK and EU approaches to noise management. EC Directive 2002/30, which sets out how European member states should approach noise mitigation around airports, is due to be reviewed, and we met with the UK’s Department for Transport to exchange views about proposed changes to the legislation. We also met with Defra for an update on their noise work, including on the economic cost of damage to health from environmental noise.

He didn’t mention noise, air pollution, or destruction of local villages. But even on his own terms he’s wrong – on both counts.

AEF’s new 2-page briefing Runways, emissions and the EU ETS explains why.