Is Aviation a Net Contributor to the Exchequer?

Twitter is not the place for complex arguments about economics, but we were challenged by John Morris from Birmingham Airport over what we said in the Birmingham Post about the claims that the airport is good for our economy today.


We have produced an in-depth report for the DfT's consultation on aviation, which revealed that last year aviation was responsible for a net loss of over 85 000 jobs in the region, so obviously they were not happy with such a negative story going in the press at this sensitive time.


John Morris claimed that "aviation is a net contributor to the exchequer, unlike other public transport." so let's examine that a little:


Firstly, the UK needs some aviation so shutting it down does not make sense, but the benefits aviation can yield have already been realised and further expansion yields little extra benefit, but a lot more costs including more noise, more emissions and more outbound tourism. The business benefits are flattening off (as probably evidenced by the business share of passengers dropping as passenger numbers increased overall) but the outbound tourism costs are linear with increase of passengers.

Secondly, let's look at what a "net contributor" is and on what basis this can be claimed. He implies that they receive no revenue from the government but instead pay some tax including APD. However, they also forego payment of tax and duty on fuel, VAT on tickets, and can claim back VAT even though they don't pay it (zero rated rather than VAT exempt). They also receive subsidies in other forms (e.g. they rarely pay for the full costs of extra surface access infrastructure that enables passengers to get to the airport). So they can only be a "net contributor" if you ignore all the ways in which they are not taxed and the ways in which the government pays costs that rightly should be paid for by the aviation industry.

Thirdly, aviation is not a form of public transport by any reasonable definition, so you cannot compare it as like-for-like with trains, trams or buses.


I'm afraid they really don't understand what planet we're on:

Joe Peacock

Being negative all the time?

Yesterday I was at a conference and when I said I had to rush off to do some media work setting up interviews about today's biofuel flight was asked ((I don't remember the exact words) something about being negative and fighting against things all the time.

I was slightly taken aback, because I see Friends of the Earth as a solutions organisation that has a clear idea of a better way to do things and fights for that. The previous high profile media story we had was about Bike Trains which was one of the most positive things we've done and created lots of smiles as well as highlighting some serious issues about Birmingham's road system.

We have also done some really positive work that's gone into the "What a Waste" report that we put together along with the Chamberlain Forum. We have to combine that with pointing out the problems with the way things are done currently and particularly with the Tyseley Incinerator, but there would be no point in fighting against the incinerator and current refuse collection service if we had no idea what would be better to go in its place.

With airlines and countering their greenwash it is a bit more difficult, though, as apart from not flying in the first place, there is no real green alternative. Does that mean we should stay silent and stop campaigning against airport expansion?

Certainly not. It may not be the most fun, rewarding and successful bit of the campaigning we do, but highlighting the extreme stupidity in claiming biofuels are a green solution for aviation really has to be done, because if we don't who will protect the people who need the land for growing food and the species whose habitat is being lost to massive monoculture plantations to feed the West's addiction to flying?

Highlighting the small amount of good practice in sustainability is important to encourage more of it, but stopping the stupidest, worst practice happening is even more important, because the effects of that can be truly devastating on people's lives and the health of the whole planet.

Joe Peacock

Hideous Greenwash

This week there's been some really shocking greenwash going on with Tar Sands exploiters trying to sell their oil as being ethical and Ryanair doing green PR campaign!

A marketing blog was quite taken back by this, as "Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary previously described global warming as “bullshit” and green activists as “Luddites”. He also labelled environmentalists “lying wankers” and said that the best thing that can be done with them was to “shoot them” as they seek to make air travel the preserve of the rich."

Now he's boasting that his fleet has lower CO2 emissions than competitors, so why does he think that matters? Surely, it's not a cynical marketing ploy by a member of a struggling industry. With Thomson having to abandon its plans for a flight using 50% cooking oil due to problems getting it here from the USA, you really do wonder how desperate things are getting for airlines.

Even more shocking and disgraceful is the Ethical Oil campaign by Canadian Alykhan Velshi as revealed here. The devastation caused by exploiting tar sands is very well documented, as is the fact that it takes almost as much energy to get the oil out of it as it produces, making it a completely useless exercise and pretty much the most polluting way of getting fuel possible.

Trying to justify this on the grounds that Canada is a better place for gay people than other oil producing nations is just abhorrent:

They also use the persecution of women, terrorism and many other ridiculous claims that supposedly mean dirty Canadian oil is better than any other. Take this action now to stop Tar Sands coming into Europe, oh yes and please think again if you were going to fly abroad on holiday this year, as there is nothing that increases your carbon footprint more.

Joe Peacock

Airport Watch Conference, ULU 18th June

This weekend I went to represent Birmingham FoE at the Airport Watch conference and discovered that there has been a lot of evidence gathered both on the environmental, but also the economic effects that aviation is having on this country.

The day was divided into 3 parts: in the morning session we had presentations on the different areas that will be covered in the scoping document on aviation which the government is consulting on at the moment. Then, in the afternoon session we were able to question civil servants from the DfT who are working on this on the process on how it will work. For the final session, we had the minister for aviation, Theresa Villiers, who spoke on the government's attitude on various aspects of what we had been talking about through the day. This was the first time a minister had attended a gathering of aviation campaigners and her presence was a welcome sign.

Generally, quite a positive thread ran through the day's presentations, especially from the two chairs, John Stewart of HACAN and Airport Watch and Tim Johnson of AEF. The main reason for their positivity seems to be the government's very different tone to the previous administration and the presence of Theresa Villiers as minister, who was one of the main people within the conservative party pushing for abandoning the 3^rd runway at Heathrow.

In a way, it was a shame that the presentations were given in the morning when the speakers were just preaching to the converted (the attendees from airport watch and related groups would have known most of what was said already). The presentations were all very good and showed how well our evidence base is building in order to fight the case of the airports and airlines economic arguments, as well as their technical and environmental ones.

It was heartening that the government has made the consultation so open (in complete contrast to the one on HS2) and that they have deliberately left an appropriate time-frame for people to be able to collect evidence to back up their arguments. There is still a complete imbalance in the financial resources available to pro and anti-aviation campaigners, but we were given assurance that the evidence provided will be scrutinised properly, unlike the evidence given by the aviation industry which formed the basis of the 2003 white paper.

One of the biggest themes of concern to come out of the day was the conflict between the government's localism agenda and the need to tackle aviation and climate change at a national or even international level. I think that Theresa Villiers was left in no doubt that she needed to go away and look at that to ensure that all the work on the aviation framework was not going to be in vain. There was some assurance that issues of national strategic importance will be tackled at a national level, but this does seem to be a contradiction in much of government policy and the dots need to be joined up a lot better in many areas, if we are to be able to tackle environmental problems, particularly the country's climate change targets.

With no economic case for airport expansion, growth incompatible with legally binding CO2 reduction targets and a growing awareness of the blight on local communities in terms of both air pollution and noise are issues that sound alarm bells loud across government. The aviation industry surely has quite a battle to win in order to persuade people that business as usual can continue.

Joe Peacock

BFoE goes to Holland – day 1

Last month I got a very exciting invitation; to go to a Friends of the Earth Holland (Mileudefensie) conference for the weekend and meet activists from all over the Europe. I asked a few of our other more experienced campaigners to see if they wanted to go, but when nobody else was available Hil (my partner) and I were delighted to accept the offer.

So, on Friday, four of us set off from Birmingham New Street (the others being our 6-month old baby, Fred and Tim Atkinson, the network developer for FoE in the Midlands). Being Friends of the Earth, there was no question of us flying, so it was train down the Euston, Eurostar to Brussels, train to Amsterdam, another local train to Beverwijk and then a short bus ride to Wijk aan Zee where the conference is being held.

The journey was pretty easy, if rather long with all the connections working (although 2 of the lifts didn't – at New Street to get onto the platform and at Beverwijk to get off the platform, making it a little difficult with Fred's buggy). Luckily for us, little Fred likes train travel, as he's already had experience of going on a 5-hour trip to Wales by train, so his first trip abroad was taken in his stride and even though we arrived long after his bed time (it was nearly 10.30pm) he remained good natured throughout.

Tim went off to set up his tent with Job from Mileudefensie (who joined us on the train in Haarlem), but we opted for comfort staying in a lovely B&B where they even offered us a beer when we arrived - most welcome.

We had a comfortable night's sleep and now feel fresh and ready for the first day of this gathering of European activists. The only disturbance being that we seem to be under the flight path to Schiphol. I wonder if that is just unavoidable around this area, as in many parts of Europe which are blighted by aviation noise.

Rising Oil Prices and the Threat to the Aviation Industry

We've all known about "Peak Oil" for some time and been warning that this will impact on unsustainable fossil-fuel dependent industries. This is starting to hit home already, yet state aid continues to be pumped in to prop them up.

It has been reported, the aviation industry faces danger from fragile consumer confidence and rising oil prices as passenger numbers fall at Stansted and Heathrow Airports. The leisure market, dominated by Ryanair and easyJet and charter operators, remains weak. Stansted and Southampton were BAA's worst performers last month, posting year-on-year falls of 7.4% and 8.7% respectively. Colin Matthews, BAA chief executive, said: "Continued rises in the price of oil are a concern for airlines and passengers in all our markets." John Strickland, an industry consultant, agreed saying: "The big concern in the industry is still the oil price. It is rising rapidly." Rising oil prices means the cost of fares are increasing, thus further reducing passenger numbers. Last week BA increased its fuel surcharges for the third time in less than four months as the price of jet fuel rose to $134 (£82) a barrel – three times its low point in early 2009, in a attempt to survive. Fuel accounts for nearly a quarter of airline operating costs and is largely out of carriers' control.

The spiraling costs of fuel has greatly impacted budget airlines, such as Ryanair. Ryanair said its fuel bill soared by 93% in 2008 and represented almost half of its operating costs, up from 36% 2007. Budget airlines are mitigating the increases by charging higher fees for checking in bags and priority boarding passes. Budget airlines will try to leave the prices of fares untouched, as cheap tickets are key to their business model which use bargain fares to pack passengers on to airplanes. "They cannot afford to raise fares. It would break their model," said Strickland. "Occupancy would fall and they will not make enough money to cover increased fuel costs." Furthermore, the cost of fuelling a transatlantic flight, the most profitable part of BA's business, has quadrupled since 2000 to $44,000 (£22,200). It is estimated many airlines will not survive a combination of expensive fuel and a drop-off in demand as passenger numbers decline due to expensive fares and dwindling consumer confidence.

This ties in with the work Birmingham Friends of the Earth has been doing. We oppose the growth in aviation as it is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions, plus airports create noise, air pollution and congestion. Rising costs of fuel and increased usage of the aviation industry are highly unsustainable for passengers and the environment. We are against the growth of this industry and would like to see it pay its full environmental costs, not shift them onto the tax-payer. Joe Peacock reacted to the news this week of state aid being provided to subsidise the building of the runway extension at Birmingham Airport through the Regional Growth Fund. "The aviation sector pays no tax on its fuel and no VAT on the sales of tickets and planes but that is not enough it needs our help to build the infrastructure from which it plies its trade.” “These decisions show the hand of the Government and with its financial support of the aviation sector how it can claim to be the Greenest Government ever is beyond us.” It is hoped a process of due diligence on the bids will be open to full public scrutiny.

Tax cuts for the most under-taxed??!!

I was amazed to find Jerry Blackett calling for airport taxes to be cut in the Birmingham Post on March 14. How unfortunate it is that at a time when people are losing their jobs and facing tax rises on everyday items he should be defending the already under-taxed aviation industry.

The figures he quotes for losses to the economy are dwarfed by the subsidies the aviation industry already receives and the money that is taken out of the economy by people flying abroad.

VAT has just gone up to 20%, as people must be very aware, yet how much VAT does the aviation industry pay? None on anything! They don't pay VAT or any other tax on fuel, they pay no VAT on buying aircraft, servicing of those aircraft or meals served on aircraft. With this lack of taxation, public money being proposed to be put into paying for Birmingham Airport's runway extension and no suggestion that the industry is liable for the environmental damage it causes, in fact they get a very good deal indeed.

Compared to car travel, aviation benefits from an annual tax subsidy of around £9 billion and how many people actually benefit from this? The country suffered from an annual tourism deficit of over £15bn in 2009, down significantly due to the recession. Perhaps a further adjustment is needed for people to spend more money in this country and bring more money into the treasury.

At a time when people are losing their jobs because of cuts to public services, we should not be giving any further money to activities that benefit so few people. The majority of people don't fly and would rather that those who do pay their fair share of tax.

See Fair Tax on Flying for more info

Joe Peacock

Aviation Biofuels – Better in Theory Than in Practice?

The use of biofuels in the Aviation industry seems to be a hot topic right now. So why use biofuels in commercial aircraft? And is there an assumption that using biofuels will have less of a detrimental environmental impact than conventional fuels?

The Aviation industry accounts for almost three percent of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. In light of this there is an ever present need to reduce emissions, particularly reducing fossil fuel use. With Aviation’s output of greenhouse gas emissions set to grow due to airport expansion and travel service increases, it is argued that biofuels provide an answer to reducing these emissions. The reason biofuels are being pushed through so fast is the industry’s need for ‘zero carbon growth’. Effectively, biofuels are seen by the industry as their best means of achieving sustainability in carbon emissions yet still allowing for expansion and growth.

But is this true? Well firstly the Aviation industry is aided by the fact that all biofuels are classed as carbon-neutral despite any environmental impacts. While greenhouse gas savings are assumed by using biofuel as opposed to fossil fuels, Almuth Ernsting of BiofuelWatch for Airport Watch argues this not to be the case, pointing out that many scientific studies have shown that the full climate impacts of biofuels have in some cases been even worse than the fossil fuels they look to replace.

While Airlines are looking into a variety of different biofuel feedstocks, there are still large technical hurdles, and even with the mass planting of Jatropha, commercial yields are hard to produce. Plus when we take into account that its mass planting over 4 years has forced the eviction of many farmers and indigenous communities, with no commercial scale yields produced, it is hard to argue in favour of it.

All other feedstocks are in the research and development stages, and a long way from any commercial value. In light of this it seems set that for the foreseeable future, palm oil is the best source for commercial yields as it is not only the cheapest feedstock, but also the one most capable of higher yields. But still to produce commercial yields will take hectares upon hectares of land, and while aviation companies and biofuel producers talk of palm oil as being temporary until other feedstock sources can be fully developed, it still does not reverse the environmental damage done to rainforest and peatland, and indigenous communities, all of which will be destroyed for palm oil.

As of March 2011 we will begin to see the first passenger flights using biofuels. As Rainforest Rescue note, Lufthansa Germany has recently published plans to provide the world’s first commercial flights using a biofuel blend that includes palm oil. Neste Oil will be the providers from their Singapore biodiesel refinery, which is the world’s largest, and runs exclusively on palm oil. As Ernsting notes, their main supplier is the Malaysian IOI Corporation, who is responsible for large-scale destruction of rainforests, peatlands and fields being cultivated by local farmers in large parts of South East Asia, such as Sarawak and Kalimantan.

IOI is one of the main companies investing in a 1 million hectare oil palm expansion programme that was recently announced by the Government of Sarawak and which will primarily convert forests which belong to indigenous peoples. And so the damage risks are large in terms of the displacement of peoples, deforestation and destruction of grasslands. This will hurt not only indigenous communities, but also inhabiting species. In fact, Biofuel Watch note that if just one British airline, Ryanair, was to replace all kerosene with biofuels, they would require at least 407,500 hectares of oil palm plantations – or 1.25 million hectares of camelina ones.

The environmental damage from such a move would be immense for reasons I have stated. On face value biofuels may seem like a good idea, but right now with palm oil the only possible source, the environmental impacts outweigh any benefits.

FoE has campaigned against Biofuels targets without proper research into the effects and has shown that they actually increase carbon emissions: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/biofuels_double_carbon_emissions_15042009.html

Rainforest Rescue has begun an email action against the Lufthansa plans, if you would like to get involved please visit: http://www.rainforest-rescue.org.

Tom Hulme

A Weekend of Cycling Events

I have now gone from being a critical mass virgin to doing 2 in a weekend and then a charity bike ride on Sunday, too. I was hardly out of the saddle, although the three were quite different.

On Friday evening at 6pm I turned up at St Phillips Square for my first Critical Mass ride ever. The Birmingham event has been going (on and off) for a couple of decades now (first Friday of the month) and I have been intending to do it for a while, but always seem to forget or have something else on. The weather was fine this week, though, and there was a good turnout of happy, positive people. We wheeled around the normally intimidating big roads which are usually dominated by cars and lorries with our message that we are traffic too.

There were around 20 of us at the Friday night critical mass and lots of them said they would be out the next day for the ride to the airport, so I left very optimistic. There were no major incidents of drivers getting overly aggressive (which I'm told can happen) and it was a good chance to meet some other cyclists, although I didn't stick around for the post-ride pint, as I was hungry for tea.

They have a facebook group if you want to see what's going on and an email list if you want to receive information.

Saturday was the Ride Down the Road and the weather was foul. Almost as cold and wet as you could think of the weather being in May. I suspect that largely due to this the numbers were not as high as we were hoping they would be. The people travelling in to Brum were already committed and so all turned up, but the more local people saw the rain and understandably had second thoughts. Look at the aviation section of the Birmingham Friends of the Earth website for more information on why we were doing this and what the council is doing to prop up Birmingham International Airport.

Even so, it went pretty well, despite the more aggressive nature of some of the drivers along the A45. After a while, we went down to just the one lane to ensure nothing unpleasant happened. A report of the day and picture can be found on the bfoe website. Plane Stupid, Indy Media and the University of Warwick Students' paper all did reports, too.

On Sunday a friend of mine was doing a charity bike ride to mark the anniversary of a horrific crash she had when cycling that left her with a broken back and needing a lot of care from a specialist spinal injuries clinic. The weather for this was almost perfect and we rode from Canon Hill park along the Rea valley cycle route to Kings Norton and back. Over 120 people took part and it was great to see so many people on bikes having a good time and supporting a good cause at the same time.

If we could get the same number of people who came along on Sunday to do a critical mass and show that we want cyclists to be treated better on the roads, that'd be truly great, so anyone who can, please come along to the next one on the first Friday of next month. Also, support our 20's plenty campaign to make the roads safer all over the city.

Extremist? Moi?

The Birmingham Post ran an editorial yesterday attacking our position on the runway extension at BIA and stating, amongst other things, "how out of touch they are with the real world" and asking us to come clean about our agenda.

Now when I was on the radio recently, airport chief Paul Kehoe uttered the legendary phrase "I don't know what planet Friends of the Earth are on" and this seems a remarkably similar line of attack.

The accepted "wisdom" around making economic policy in the West Midlands all seems to be based on there being limitless resources that we can carry on exploiting regardless. What kind of real world is that, exactly?

The real world is the one in which recently the High Court ruled that the Aviation White Paper of 2003, on which all current expansion is based, was obsolete because it does not comply with the Climate Change Act of 2008. It is also based on oil costing $10 a barrel, which is never going to be the case again and the Stern report 2006 also indicates that the economic case for dealing with climate change should be re-examined so as to mitigate now and not allow business as usual.

The concerted efforts by those driven by ideological opposition to government intervention in markets to tackle climate change or short-term business interests to find some real evidence of collusion or fiddling the figures in "climategate" have all failed, so we now have to get on with dealing with this problem. With consensus shown by the leaders of the three main parties on this (if not all the solutions), we are not saying it is time to ground all flights, but that expansion is not the answer when resources are limited and the business case does not stack up.

Localise West Midlands have also blogged on this in support today and their points about "a fuel-scarce future" are as key as any on the impacts of climate change. Prices will only go one way, whether through taxes or demand outstripping supply in the near future, so to rely on affordable oil for air travel is unwise to say the least, as is thinking that biofuels can replace oil without having a devastating effect on the world's eco-systems and capabilities to grow sufficient food.

Unless aviation plays its part in cutting CO2 emissions, other sectors will have to make much deeper cuts, so where would you choose to make those cuts? Also, aviation is currently massively subsidised and ticket prices have fallen compared to the cost of living over the past decade, whereas trains and bus ticket prices have gone up considerably and are among the highest in Europe.

The economic benefits of aviation are wildly exaggerated, as we have pointed out on many occasions. Even Heathrow's claims to make the economy money have been debunked and London is the one place that doesn't have a tourism deficit from aviation. To say only areas that have a large international airport from where people can fly non-stop to destinations all over the world can be successful econmically is also to ignore data from all over the country.

Therefore, our agenda is simple - don't subsidise high carbon polluting forms of transport, such as aviation and give local people a fair deal by spending money from the public purse on projects that have a real benefit.

This doesn't mean we are being extreme, but we want the real story behind the claims on economic benefits to be examined more carefully. If we are to build a long-term sustainable economy that is not dependent on a fast-disappearing resource, we should not be looking to increase airport capacities now, but be planning to use the skills of people in the region to build local markets that are not dependent on aviation.

Once new government guidance is drawn up that relies on the latest scientific and economic data around climate change, oil supplies and low-carbon alternatives we can decide how to best manage demand for aviation. Rushing into decisions to fund extra capacity now would be foolish and waste valuable financial resources at a time when the public purse is being squeezed hard.

Aviation is not the way forward for our nation

We've recently had to step up our aviation campaigning as the issue has stormed back into the headlines.

We ran a high-profile campaign against the runway extension at BIA called flyagra which highlighted the many problems with extending the runway, while trying to use an amusing comparison with the type of dodgy extensions one is often suggested may be a good idea in spam emails. Unfortunately, the planning application was approved by Solihull Council, so until recent events it looked like there was nothing more we could do.

Firstly, there was the high court ruling on Heathrow's 3rd runway stating that the aviation white paper from 2003 is now obsolete (which we've been arguing to be true for a long time).

Then came the scandalous news that BIA are asking for state aid from the local councils to get the A45 moved and make the runway extension possible after AWM pulled out of financing it.

It emerged that Birmingham City Council and Solihull MBC are planning to stump up £16m each at a time of cuts in public expenditure and job losses, especially in Birmingham. However, after seeing that we and the local press are looking at the legality of such a move, the council has made all reports on the matter and all discussions private. Yesterday I attended the cabinet meeting where the ridiculous decision to fund this was approved, but members of the public were excluded from hearing any of the debate around it or seeing any documentation about the route of the road, which we understand will not now be in a tunnel under the runway, but going around the perimeter of the runway.

Obviously, the council are concerned about public scrutiny of this decision as they feel they are on shaky ground so we now need to look into the legality of it, especially when taxpayers in the West Midlands could be getting so much better value for money by the council investing money in more low-carbon job creation schemes that would help tackle fuel poverty, meet climate change targets and improve the area's economy.

We've alway argued that the economic forecasts for the expansion of aviation are flawed and this has been borne out by more recent reports on the loss to the economy potentially resulting from building Heathrow's 3rd runway. There are very well-researched figures showing the tourism deficit from aviation to be very substantial indeed and if the industry's projections of continued growth are correct will lead to £41bn being lost from the West Midlands economy from 2004-2020.

The volcano currently erupting in Iceland has given many people a different view on aviation, even if it is causing problems to many. We should not mess with Mother Nature, as she'll always win and the fragility of our plans involving flying people and good across the planet as the default system for doing business, leisure activities or feeding ourselves has been shown and this cannot be the best way forward.

I agree with this blog post arguing that we can largely live without flying so planning ever-expanding aviation is wrong for everyone. It is essential that we keep up the pressure to ensure that this carbon-hungry white elephant of a scheme is not given the go-ahead.

Press release on BIA's announcement on delaying the runway extension

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AIRPORT SHOULD COME CLEAN OVER EXPANSION ASPIRATIONS

Environmental campaigners have welcomed this morning's announcement by BIA chief executive Paul Kehoe that the runway extension will not be built for at least 5 years, but are calling for more clarity over what work is to be completed and who will pay for it.

Recently both Birmingham and Solihull councils have offered to put in £16 million of “state aid” to allow the runway extension to go ahead by paying for work to move the A45, but the details of this have remained private. Birmingham FoE is now calling for all relevant documents to be made available for public scrutiny and for the case to be completely reviewed with regards to the legislation now in place.

Friends of the Earth won huge public support for the 2008 Climate Change Act which has made the aviation white paper of 2003 (on which all runway plans were based) obsolete, and they are now calling for more transparency and a complete review of the plans for expanding aviation in this country.

Joe Peacock from Birmingham Friends of the Earth stated “We now know that aviation expansion plans do not add up for the planet or the people of the West Midlands. New government guidance due next year must take into account the science of climate change that is recognised in law and this will mean expanding aviation can no longer be justified.”

“The airport should now tell the public exactly what their plans are and stop asking for state subsidies for damaging work to be carried out on the greenbelt.”

“Birmingham City Council have recently announced some green measures to get the economy moving, so these should be the focus of investment from the public purse, as the financial return for the area will be far higher.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors

1) Birmingham City Council recently passed the Climate change action plan to cut its £1.5 billion energy bill and generate investment in green jobs http://birminghamnewsroom.com/?p=8336

http://www.birminghampost.net/birmingham-business/birmingham-business-news/environmental-and-sustainable-industry/2010/03/30/climate-change-action-plan-aims-to-slash-1bn-off-birmingham-s-fuel-bills-65233-26134021/

2) The Big Ask Campaign resulted in the climate change act 2008 http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/big_ask/

3) Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of aiport expansion plans across the country - is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/626.html

4) Birmingham Friends of the Earth campaigns on many environmental issues, including the promotion of sustainable transport.

For more information contact: Joe Peacock (Birmingham Friends of the Earth)

Airmiles Allowance : time for some blue skies thinking?

‘Airmiles’ is still taken by most people to refer to be a good thing : vouchers for extra ‘free’ air travel, as a reward for having paid for previous flights. With growing awareness of global warming, however, some individuals have begun to restrict their personal air travel, to limit the damage they do.
The airline industry plays down its greenhouse impact, of course – but as far as it does recognise a need to limit, for example, CO2 emissions, it directs attention overwhelmingly to improvements in the fuel efficiency of planes, per mile flown, rather than reduce the number of miles flown. And indeed, if a ‘zero carbon airline’ could exist, then “the sky’s the limit” might ring truer!


As we’re nowhere near fuel efficient flight, however, perhaps we do have to ask ourselves : How many miles per year can we sustainably travel by air?

We can arrive at a figure, but this will be based on certain assumptions, as well as firmer information.
First, let’s for the sake of argument suppose that each mile travelled by air will continue to have the same greenhouse impact as now. Then, let’s remind ourselves that global greenhouse emissions must be reduced by 80% by the year 2050 after the Climate Change Act was passed last year. Let’s therefore assume that the contribution from airmiles must reduce by that amount too.

So, what is our current air mileage? According to IATA (2009), a global total of 2.218 trillion miles (3.578 trillion kilometres) were flown on scheduled flights in 2008. They only have figures for scheduled flights, but estimate that this accounts for 95% of commercial air traffic (for the purpose of this discussion, let’s ignore military and private mileage). So, 100% of these current flights would be about 2.335 trillion miles.


Most of the world’s 7 billion population have never flown, of course, and our current airmiles are flown by perhaps just the richest 10%. So, ‘rich world’ citizens seem to be averaging about 3340 miles each per year (with most intensive use being made by people such as frequent business fliers).

In keeping with the principle of ‘Contraction & Convergence’, however, whatever amount of fossil fuels etc that we use in future, we can only do so sustainably if it is shared out equally amongst all the world’s citizens (greenhouse pollution to date has, of course, come overwhelmingly from the ‘rich minority’).
So, an equal allocation of our airmiles would mean that on average each global citizen’s share would currently be 334 miles per year (something that most of the world might dream of).
Furthermore, if we give an extra allowance to members of migrant diaspora communities (in order that they can occasionally visit their family/heritage home overseas), and people living in isolated areas, this would reduce most citizens’ allowance further, to maybe 300 miles.

Finally, recalling that we must also make allowance for essential (hopefully greatly reduced) military & other state use, this would further reduce most citizens’ allowance to perhaps 280 miles in 2009. By 2050, this would reduce to just 56 miles per year per person (2% per year on average over these next 40 years).

In the meantime, what does this mean for us in the ‘rich minority’? Anybody currently exceeding 280 airmiles per year might be accused of ‘carbon theft’, ie. taking more than our fair share. In reality, most of the world’s citizen’s are not going to make use of their share in the next 40 years – this might be taken to mean we have some ‘elbow room’, to steadily and drastically reduce our consumption, without eliminating it overnight. The financial cost of air travel will clearly have to increase drastically, however, partly to compensate the majority who don’t fly, but require investment in other areas of their social development.

So, perhaps we could start by saying that :

Most individuals in the ‘rich minority’ should at least not exceed the current average of 3340 miles in the next year.


In keeping with the ’10:10’ campaign (run by Franny Armstrong, the director of Age of Stupid and aiming for people to cut their cO2 emissions by 10% in 2010), our personal allowance should be reduced to no more than 3000 miles by the end of next year.
The personal allowance should further reduce by at least 70 miles per year for the next 40 years, to bring us down to the global average allowance.

… Unless by some miracle (don’t hold your breath!) air travel becomes carbon-neutral, or following other less unlikely changes, in which case we recalculate again.

Comments are invited, eg on the assumptions I’ve made, or alternative figures we might use.

A workshop activity could be run on this, part of which could include participants working out their own actual airmile total for last 12 months, and what the 10:10 reduction would mean for their immediate future.

Please reply directly by email to aldomussi@hotmail.com

Aldo Mussi December 2009

High Speed Rail - Our Position After Monday's Discussion

The topic of High Speed Rail has been much in the media recently and this Monday a group of Birmingham Friends of the Earth's campaigners got together to have a wide-ranging discussion on this issue. We looked at the advantages, disadvantages, possible routes and alternatives to creating a network of High Speed Rail lines in the UK.


In the media the impression is being given that HSR is undoubtedly the greenest option for getting people around quickly and that by building this network we will be saving huge amounts of carbon from flights. Green groups have generally given qualified support to plans, but in most of the articles I've seen in the press, there hasn't been much real discussion of certain aspects of the plan that should be key.

In terms of carbon emissions (reducing them is often given as a major reason for building HSR), there should be a full independent analysis of the impact of building and running this network compared to other scenarios before it is given the go-ahead. If this doesn't show an overall cut in greenhouse gases emitted as a result of having High Speed Rail, there is no point in spending all that money and using all that carbon doing it.

We must ensure that we use the most energy efficient models possible. Apparently, the Japanese bullet trains have the same energy efficiency as Pendolinos, but travel twice as quickly. Speed should not be seen as the only factor in what choices people make when they travel. This can be seen in the numbers of people who currently take coach or slower trains to London rather than the 85-minute Virgin service, which is prohibitively expensive for many.

In terms of social and environmental justice, we must ensure that when public money is invested, it is beneficial for all members of society, not just the affluent few and that those who live in areas near the proposed sites of the lines will also not suffer. Just because it is a rail rather than a road-building project doesn't mean we will apply any less rigour in assessing its environmental impact.

£50 billion is an awful lot of money to spend when there are many other projects that could make a significant difference to the everyday lives of people in their travelling to and from work, study or social events. Currently the carbon costs of transport are not properly reflected in what the consumer has to pay, with large increases in rail and bus fares, but decreases in the costs of air fares and driving in real terms. This should be addressed and would possibly have just as big an impact on the choices of transport modes people make.


As you can see from this map, Europe has some good coverage by High Speed Rail and getting people to these destinations by rail rather than air should be the main focus. That means having a hub that connects the UK to the continent easily and conveniently (London Stratford was designed for this) and not stations at Heathrow or other airports. A station at Birmingham International would also put more pressure on greenbelt land being used for development in the M42 corridor rather than encouraging regeneration of areas in central Birmingham.

In the UK the biggest carbon savings could be made from longer routes, such as up to Scotland, where air has the largest market share. However, all development of transport should be done as part of an integrated strategy, not as a stand-alone project. If we do not consider door-to-door journeys, people will still either travel by car to stations or be forced to rely on unreliable public transport (which rather defeats the object of High Speed Rail) and stations without proper cycling facilities.

Overall, we should be encouraging less travel (as it all uses carbon) not more, so HSR should only be used to shift people from more polluting modes, not create new journeys. That means we also need to encourage more investment in economic development of places outside the South East, so that less commuting is necessary. Providing jobs in places such as the Black Country, Stoke and the more deprived areas of Birmingham through economic development and planning measures would ensure that existing infrastructure can be utilised more effectively and local transport networks will work more efficiently and profitably. Video conferencing should be the preferred option to travelling whenever possible as it has a much lower carbon footprint.



There is an existing network that is being and can be further improved, so there must be conclusive proof of the need for new lines over and above what is already available. Also, if new conventional rather than high speed lines are built, will this not result in just as much benefit at a much lower cost.

So, while High Speed Rail has been shown to work well in reducing the need for air travel on the continent, we have many reservations as to whether it is the best use of resources now. All of the above points need to be looked at very carefully before committing to such a scheme.