Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign - SSE News Archive

Prime Minister Tony Blair answers questions posed by readers of the East Anglian Daily Times

Q: Why is it necessary to build a second runway at Stansted Airport? How do you defend the destruction of the landscape and the environment?
L S Johnson, Braintree

A: Demand for all kinds of travel is growing rapidly and trips which were once considered a luxury for the rich only are now enjoyed by everyone. That's a good thing but the downside is, for example, that our airports are getting busier.

There are no easy answers to these problems. I wish there were. But the truth is that unless we are going to stop people flying – which would hit business travel and our future prosperity as well as people going on holidays or breaks - then we need more capacity at our airports. It was to look at how we could do this that we published our Aviation White Paper 18 months ago to look at our response to air travel over the next 30 years. Among the proposals to cope with the expected growth is a new runway at Stansted as well, if local air quality issues can be solved, at Heathrow.

Stansted's existing capacity will be full by 2012 which is why an additional runway has been proposed. I accept that this will result in new development around the airport. But the decision was made after a long and thorough assessment of all the possible options and the risk to economic growth in the south east if we did nothing. In the end, it will be for BAA to come forward with firm proposals for the new runway which they will only do if it they are confident that air travel - and particularly the short haul market - will continue to grow. Their proposals will, of course, be subject to local planning decisions so residents will have their chance to have their say.

Carol Barbone, campaign director for Stop Stansted Expansion, last night denounced Mr Blair's comments as "hypocritical".

She said: "As the Prime Minister knows only too well, aviation is the fastest growing source of global warming emissions and his comments about expansion at Stansted are hypocritical in the extreme given his recent declaration that global warming represents a bigger threat than international terrorism.

"Tony Blair quite clearly lacks the political will to face up to the long-term damage which his air transport expansion plans would create for future generations."

She claimed that, despite Government and industry "spin", air travel statistics give no indication the less well off are travelling by air more frequently but instead show a decline in the overall percentage of those on low incomes travelling by air as the rich snap up cheap flights.

"If the Prime Minister really wanted to do something to help society as a whole he should consider charging airlines the same amount of tax as the motorist pays on fuel," she added.

Alan Line, chairman of the South Suffolk Air Traffic Action Group, which is opposed to the airport expansion plans, said: "I think the key thing Mr Blair is forgetting is whether we should be allowing this pace of aviation growth to carry on at the same level when it is doing so much danger to the environment.

"Our organisation does not have anything against anyone flying but not when the growth of air travel is to an extent that it becomes detrimental to the environment.

"I don't think a second runway is inevitable as I think current projections over numbers are just pie in the sky."

Airport operator BAA announced plans to build a second runway at Stansted by 2012 following the publication of the Government's Aviation White Paper 18 months ago. It intends to submit a detailed planning application in spring 2006.

HAS MR BLAIR READ THE LATEST REPORT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE?

Para 1. While some scientific uncertainties still remain in relation to some aspects of the global warming process, the time for querying the science is long past. Nor should policy makers still hope that science can come up with a definitive "safe limit" to global warming. Governments must act as a matter of urgency and on an unprecedented scale: a Marshall plan for climate change is now required. (Paragraph 13)

Para 2. The world will, in the absence of urgent and strenuous mitigation actions in the next 20 years, almost certainly experience a temperature rise of between about 0.5°C and 2°C by 2050. The fact that the tipping point for the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet is now thought to fall well within this range is a matter of extreme concern. Indeed, in the light of such findings Sir David King has suggested that the UK's 60% carbon reduction target which the UK Government has set for 2050 may need to be increased to 80%. (Paragraph 14)

Para 12. We see no possibility of the UK Government achieving its objective of incorporating aviation in Phase 2 of the EU ETS, and we continue to think that a mixture of other policies including the scope for taxation and emissions charging should be pursued. (Paragraph 48)

Para 13. We would support the inclusion of aviation within a rigorous emissions trading system only on the basis that our concerns over allocations and global warming impacts were addressed. In such circumstances we accept that, as there is currently no possibility of achieving significant reductions in aviation emissions, emissions trading would act on aviation as a demand management tool and this would be reflected in very considerable increases in the price of air travel. If the Government is really concerned about the impacts on social equity, it should explore other avenues to address this including, for example, the concept of Domestic Tradable Quotas. (Paragraph 52)

Para 27. We take issue with the Prime Minister's view, expressed in his recent speech at Davos, that science and technology provide the means to tackle climate change. Whilst we understand the desire to adopt such an approach in an effort to bring the US Government on board, it is simply not credible to suggest that the scale of the reductions which are required can possibly be achieved without significant behavioural change. In focussing on science and technology, the Government is creating the appearance of activity around the problem of Climate Change whilst evading the harder national and international political decisions which must be made if there is to be any solution. (Paragraph 102)

Para 28. In our view the challenge of climate change is now so serious that it demands a degree of political commitment which is virtually unprecedented. Whether the political leaders of the world are up to the task remains to be seen. Leadership on this issue calls for something more than pragmatism or posturing. It requires qualities of courage, determination and inspiration which are rare in peacetime. In according priority to climate change, the Prime Minister has set himself and his Government a mighty challenge and we must hope they rise to it. (Paragraph 103)

PLANE FACTS SPELL OUT DISASTER

Comment from David Begg

Ben Webster - The Times - 22 March 2005

As chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, David Begg has championed city congestion charges, but he now has his eyes on the skies

DAVID BEGG is the first to admit that he does not always practise what he preaches.

The chairman of the Government's Commission for Integrated Transport believes that strict limits must be imposed on how far we drive and fly in order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change. While he has not owned a car for 10 years, Begg is a frequent flyer and recently went to New Zealand. Ironically, he made the 24,000-mile trip to advise the Kiwis on "sustainable transport".

Begg, who steps down from the commission at the end of the month, is a recent recruit to the ranks of the global warming doomsayers.

He spent most of his six-year chairmanship arguing that the Government's top transport priority should be to reduce congestion. His was the loudest voice calling for London-style congestion charges to be imposed in cities across Britain. But last month Begg suffered the humiliation of seeing his home city, Edinburgh, reject tolls in a referendum by a margin of three to one.

Begg is determined to be remembered not for that failure, but for daring to speak the unspeakable about transport and climate change. His parting message to ministers is to urge them to take radical steps to cure us of our addiction to travelling further and faster.

"The fight is going to have to switch from congestion to climate change, on which transport is the worst offender," he says. "The public are like junkies when it comes to mobility. They just can't get enough of it. We must stop feeding the habit by building more roads and runways. There is going to have to be some form of restraint."

Transport is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse-gas emissions, accounting for 24 per cent of emissions in 2002. Advances in fuel efficiency are being outstripped by growth in traffic.

Begg says that the Government's policy of reducing the need to travel will deliver too little too late. To hit its target of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, he believes, it will have no choice but to impose substantial increases in the cost of motoring and flying.

"I want to see a move towards a tax on the pollution and noise that aircraft cause," he says. "The Government's proposal to allow air travel to more than double by 2030 is just not sustainable because the aviation industry has no alternative to burning fossil fuel.

"But I recognise the danger of alienating the public by putting restrictions on their mobility. It will be very difficult to persuade people to drive and fly less when the Americans are doing sod-all about climate change."

Begg says that the first step should be to make people aware of how much pollution they cause. He wants airline tickets to display the tonnage of CO2 emitted carrying each passenger. Excluding aviation, each person in Britain contributes 10 tonnes of CO2 per year. Begg points out this must be cut to four tonnes by 2050 to hit the Government's target.

He proposes that each individual should receive a "carbon allowance". Those who wanted to exceed the allotted level, say by flying to New Zealand, would have to buy allowances from others who had been more energy efficient. "If the system were introduced internationally it would address global warming and poverty in the Third World, where people could sell their allowances."

Begg's fear is that no political party will dare to confront the junkies. "We may take action only when it's too late, when we see on our TV screens the horrendous consequences of rising sea levels engulfing cities. Then the public will say 'what have the politicians been doing?' "

BAA will this week unveil proposals for a new runway at Gatwick, Britain's second busiest airport, as part of a 25-year master plan for the southeast hub. The airports group is barred from building a second runway at Gatwick until 2019 by a legal agreement with local councils. But last year ministers asked it to investigate construction as part of a white paper on airports policy.

BAA is expected to identify a range of options for a new runway in a consultation document to be released on Tuesday.

The proposals are likely to enrage anti-airport protesters and local residents. The company will stress it has made no commitment, and is complying with the government's request for detailed proposals.

But BAA is also expected to reveal that it has increased the maximum number of passengers Gatwick will be able to accommodate with the current single runway.

The upper limit had been set at 40m and is likely to be raised to 45m. This increase will be achieved by a rejig of terminal buildings and the adoption of new technology that will all but eliminate check-in queues.

It is understood that BAA wants to use Gatwick to try out a number of new technologies and working practices that could greatly speed passenger throughput.

The release of the consultation document is likely to reignite the debate over runways in the southeast. Last year a long-awaited government white paper on aviation chose Stansted, another BAA airport, as the first site for a new runway in the congested region.

Another could be built at Heathrow, provided that air-quality concerns are addressed, with BAA directed to examine options for Gatwick after 2019, and to safeguard the necessary land if the Heathrow plans prove impracticable. Airport protesters have tried to overturn the white paper's findings, but the government fought off a string of judicial reviews in the High Court this year.

One of the grounds for the challenge was the financial viability of the Stansted project. Protesters argued that the low-cost carriers that dominate Stansted would refuse to pay the prices necessary to fund a new runway development.

The housebuilders Laing and Persimmon mounted a legal challenge specific to Gatwick, saying that expansion of the airport could jeopardise plans for hundreds of new homes near the airport.

TAKELEY Parish Council chairman Trevor Allen has this week pledged to continue the fight to have all property owners in his community compensated for the blight which hangs over them as a result of proposals to expand Stansted Airport.

He said: "BAA's claim, last week, that the judge's comments at a provisional hearing about a judicial review into their HOSS scheme means our parish council's legal proceedings have finished is not true. We have consulted again with our lawyers and have agreed to submit papers to the High Court to look at the whole issue at an oral hearing. We shall be fixing a date for this later in the year."

Judge Sullivan had initially commented that since the HOSS scheme was voluntary not obligatory it was "illogical" to introduce variations.

Cllr Allen said: "The judge said that our case was "arguable" and Takeley parish council agrees so we will be taking the matter further."

"BAA's comments about our desire to quash their HOSS scheme are completely misleading. We have never wanted to abolish compensation what we have sought to do is to extend it so that all property owners in our parish and other neighbouring parishes who are unable to move house or whose property has lost value can be compensated by BAA. At present neighbours in our village are divided by the 66 decibel noise contour, and this cannot be fair."

Residents in Great Easton and Duton Hill are in a similar position to those in Takeley, only eligible for compensation if they live inside the 66 decibel noise contour of the published runway site. Like Takeley, Great Easton Parish Council campaigned to have the HOSS scheme extended to the whole community.

Dennis Parker, a Great Easton parish councillor living in Duton Hill has recently received a letter from BAA assuring him that it will honour the existing HOSS scheme. Dennis said: "I would be eligible for help if I decided I needed to move but I am very unhappy that neighbours will not. In the White Paper the government placed an obligation on BAA to address general blight and this should mean helping all who live in our parish not just a few."

FLIGHT PATH ANGER LEADS TO LEGAL ACTION

Craig Robinson - News Standard - 28 March 2005

ANGRY campaigners have launched legal action against aviation bosses claiming that plans to redirect a flight path away from an area of outstanding natural beauty have not worked.

The Dedham Vale Society and barrister Tom Hill, from the nearby village of Bentley, have started civil proceedings against the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) following the change of the Suffolk flight paths in March last year.

The new paths were introduced when NATS earmarked a spot two miles east of Claydon for a new stack to be used to hold planes approaching Stansted Airport.

The area acts as an overflow site for the main Abbot Holding Stack above the Sudbury area with planes following a flight path from the North Sea.

In addition a new flight path north of Ipswich was created in order to increase capacity for air traffic controllers directing flights over southern East Anglia, with the beneficial side effect of relieving the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

However a year on some residents claim that very little has changed since the new paths came into operation.

They claim that if anything the Dedham Vale is experiencing more air traffic intrusion than ever before and that the new paths have simply been ignored.

Mr Hill said: "I have to confess I didn't know a lot about the flight paths until this time last year because living in Bentley it really wasn't something that affected me.

"However over the summer months I noticed a lot more aircraft activity so decided to investigate what was going on.

"When I looked into it I discovered about the airspace change and it was suggested that it would be places to the north of Ipswich that would be affected not places such as Bentley.

"That's when I thought something must have gone wrong. What was happening just didn't seem to accord with the plans.

"One of the alleged advantages of the new plans was that it would take air traffic away from the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but this doesn't seem to have been the case.

"There were people who expressed support for the new paths at the time that wouldn't have done so if they knew what was going to happen."

Meanwhile chairman of the Dedham Vale Society Wifred Tolhurst said that if anything the number of aircraft entering the Vale had actually increased.

"We have suffered more intrusion in the past year than there ever was before," he said. "There has been more intrusive flying than in the past. It appears we have been misled over the original plans."

Katherine Blake, manager of the Dedham Vale and Stour Valley Countryside Project, added: "I don't actually live in the Vale itself so cannot comment directly but in terms of what I've been told it does seem that there is more air traffic over the area than before.

"In the initial consultations we were told that it would improve the situation but as far as I'm aware this hasn't happened."

The action has been brought primarily against the CAA because they authorised the final plans suggested by NATS.

A spokesman for the CAA said: "I can confirm that there is a civil action but as yet no date has been set. We will however be contesting the claim."

A spokesman for NATS added: "We cannot comment on the civil action because we are not the primary party concerned however I will say that in terms of airspace management the re-sectoring has been extremely successful.

"The new flight paths have reduced aircraft delays and holding in that area by more than 90%."

MORE PR TALK?

Stansted rep claims BAA will engage with community

Dunmow Broadcast - 24 March 2005

RALPH Meloy, head of public affairs for Stansted Airport, was at Dunmow's annual town meeting last Tuesday evening to outline plans for airport expansion and answer questions.

He stressed that BAA was aware that there was an information vacuum at present regarding the second runway but was very keen to enter into dialogue with the communities about the future.

He said :"The specific location of the proposed second runway will be announced in the summer. Looking for sites is enormous and complex work and we are prepared to listen and take on board views once the preferred site is suggested."

Dunmow town and district councillor John Murphy pointed out that a poll conducted by Uttlesford District Council had resulted in 89 per cent of those taking part opposing a second runway and said: "How can you convince us that you will listen in future when the 89 per cent have been ignored?"

Mr Meloy countered this by saying that a MORI poll for BAA conducted in 2003 had revealed that 57 per cent supported a second runway and refuted suggestions by councillor Murphy that the questions for that poll had been biased.

He then made the apparently contradictory statement: "We may not get planning permission but we are confident that we will". This provoked district councillor and town crier Richard Harris to say: "What we say or think does not matter because in your pocket you have influential friends."

"I suspect that if Uttlesford rejects the plans they will be passed to a higher authority where your friends will give permission."

Despite the generally hostile reception he received Mr Meloy said BAA was determined to engage with the community on the question of expansion and would be bringing a roadshow to the town once a site for a second runway had been suggested.

A Green Party report (www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk) published today shows how noise levels from aircraft over London and the South East have risen relentlessly under Labour and are set to get much worse as the Government continues to promote the growth of aviation.

The Government is accused of fiddling statistics on noise from jets by failing to use the World Health Organisation recommended noise level criteria and by failing to carry out up-to-date social surveys to ask people if noise bothers them

The Report by Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas and Green London Assembly member Darren Johnson highlights problems from Heathrow jets, but the conclusions apply to the South East in general which is being overflown by ever more jets from Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and other airports. Although some jets have become less noisy, the huge increase in flights has more than offset any benefits.

Mid-Essex is now under the path of traffic not just from Stansted, but from many other airports. Residents are complaining about disturbance during the day, late into the evening, and in the small hours due to Stansted having one of the highest night time flight quotas.

The Report calls for a ban on night flights, no further airport expansion and the appointment of an Independent Regulator to monitor noise and pollution. Cllr. James Abbott, Essex Green Party Co-ordinator said:

"This welcome report confirms what many people know from experience - the skies are getting ever more noisy and this anti-environment Labour Government does not seem to care."

"I have been trying to get detailed information from airports and statutory authorities about jet numbers and noise over Essex. What information that is available is very limited and incomplete."

"The Government's support for the rapid and unsustainable expansion of aviation, with another runway planned for Stansted, guarantees that the environment over Essex will get much more noisy in years to come. But Essex faces a double whammy because not only are hundreds of thousands of more jet flights per year going to cross Essex, the level of road traffic is set to soar as the Labour Government and Tory Essex County Council build more major roads through open countryside, bringing traffic noise close to more communities."

"The main parties will no doubt barely cover these important quality of life issues during the elections. But the Greens will."

Tony Blair is "wantonly squandering" Britain's leadership in the fight against gobal warming in order to pander to President Bush, a powerful cross-party committee of MPs reports today.

The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee says it is "profoundly concerned" by the PM's approach to what he called "the single most important long-term issue we face".

It comes at a particularly embarrassing time for the government, which this week had to admit that Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide - the main cause of global warming - are rising.

The committee - one of the only two in Parliament with the power to summon ministers from across Whitehall - says that the G8 and EU presidencies presented Britain with a "unique opportunity to provide leadership internationally on the issue of climate change" which poses a "potentially catastrophic effect".

But, it concludes, "the government is creating the appearance of activity while evading the harder national and international political divisions which must be made if there is to be any solution."

It takes issue with the Prime Minister's declared aims on global warming - "to further explore" the science of climate change, and develop techniques to address it - which closely reflect President Bush's own declared priorities, and calls them "dismally unambitious."

But it reserves its harshest judgement for an attempt by Mr Blair to increase the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted by British industry over the next three years, in defiance of a European Commission ruling that this is illegal.

It says that the Prime Minister pressed for the increase after lobbying from industry, in order to save electricity generating companies £33m a year. But it reveals this saving "pales into significance compared to "windfall profits" of £500m a year that generators stand to make.

Instead, it urges the government to base its policy on a scheme for sharing out permitted carbon emissions fairly among the world's people, proposed by the tiny London-based Global Commons Institute, a policy that is now backed by both the main opposition parties.

Peter Ainsworth MP, the chairman of the Commons committee, said last night: "The words and actions get wider and wider by the week. He is abandoning Britain's leadership on global warming at the behest of President Bush".

The Prime Minister has declared that combating climate change is one of his top two priorities for the United Kingdom's presidency of both the G8 group of advanced industrialised countries and, from July, of the European Union. But, this week's edition of Analysis asks, how can radical steps to halt degradation of the environment be made consistent with our expectations of getting ever richer?

At the moment, our environmentally damaging activities are not widely priced. Economically, we assume the future will take care of itself. So our attempts to manage climate change are limited. But these sticks are having only some effects. Carrots are needed if radical changes in the behaviour of individuals and companies are to be achieved and environmental catastrophes are to be minimised. But can the economic growth we want be made globally sustainable?

Western democracies currently expect annual growth of around three per cent each year. In rapidly industrialising economies, such as China and India, the figure can reach as high as nine per cent annually. But this fails to take account of resource depletion - whether from burning fossil fuels, cutting down trees or changing water courses.

We continue to proclaim our concern for environmental protection and for averting further degradation while the economic success which we expect exacerbates the very problems which give rise to biodiversity crises and climate change. President George H.W. Bush perhaps spoke for all rich countries, and not just the United States, when he declared at the Rio Earth summit in 1992 that "the American way of life is not up for negotiation".

In Analysis this week, Dieter Helm asks: can we go on getting richer and richer, simply assuming future generations will have the technology to solve the problems which we leave to them? But where would be the equity in our generation paying the costs which our ancestors have bequeathed to us? Do we nevertheless have to contemplate some costly and unpleasant options - such as sacrificing our addiction to cars and cheap holiday flights - to safeguard the planet?

The conservatives intend to put brakes on Britain's boom in low-cost air travel by pushing for a Europe-wide tax on aviation fuel, which could lead to as much as £7 being added to the cost of airline tickets.

In an interview with the Guardian the shadow transport secretary, Tim Yeo, outlined environmental measures that will alarm airlines.

He questioned the justification for flying between London and Scotland, and said he would impose stringent financial obstacles to the construction of a new runway at Stansted airport.

Environmental organisations have long argued for a tax on aviation fuel in order to force airlines to pay for the damage they cause in harmful emissions and climate change.

Ministers from France and Germany last month suggested a Europe-wide tax of £208 per tonne of aviation fuel, which would add between £3.50 to £7 to every fare, with the proceeds to be channelled towards aid for Africa. Tony Blair opposed the measure, telling MPs he would not "slap some huge tax on cheap air travel".

In his first detailed comments on aviation policy, My Yeo said: "If I was in office on May 6th I would want to straight away talk to my colleagues in Europe about how we could make progress towards a fuel tax. Aviation has to take account of its environmental impact to a greater extent than it has done in the past."

His remarks were attacked by EasyJet, which said a tax would disproportionately hit travellers on a tight budget. Its spokesman Toby Nicol said passengers already paid £5 air passenger duty on every short haul flight, which was roughly equivalent to a 1005 tax on fuel. "The idea that airlines don't pay an environmental tax already is ridiculous", he said, "going out to the public 6 weeks before an election saying "I want to make air travel more expensive" is a surefire vote looser."

British airways and other big carriers argue instead for an emissions trading scheme, under which airlines would trade "permits" for pollution. They say this would be a better incentive towards less polluting fuel and they add that the objectives of a fuel tax could be foiled by airlines filling up with vast quantities of cheap fuel in the US and emitting more pollution as they carry it across the Atlantic.

Environmentalists privately suggested that the conservatives wanted to reach out to voters in rural areas around airports who were worried about the government's plans for runway development. Mr Yeos's South Suffolk constituency is close to Stansted. He said he would make it difficult for BAA to expand the airport by preventing it from "cross subsidising" using funds from Heathrow and Gatwick.

But Friends of the Earth aviation campaigner Paul de Zylva said: "I think the public is increasingly recognising that it is absolutely absurd for airlines to get away with paying less than 20p a litre for jet fuel". The group wants the duty to be set at the same rate imposed on motorists, which, if translated to ticket prices, would put £20 on a short haul journey and up to £120 on a transatlantic flight.

Passenger numbers on flights between Britain and the rest of Europe went from 51m in 1993 to 97m in 2003.

Mr Yeo said he wanted airlines to print information about environmental emissions on every ticket. He said: "No one can say they are serious about being interested in addressing climate change without addressing aviation. If you are going to go from London to Glasgow, the environmental impact is, often less if you drive".

MR YEO YESTERDAY DENIED A NEWSPAPER REPORT THAT
HE HAD CALLED FOR A EUROPE WIDE TAX ON AVIATION FUEL

Financial Times - 22 March 2005

He said he had been misquoted and was instead talking about how to bring aviation within the EU's emissions trading regime.

OUR COMMENT: A pity - he was apparently talking rather more positively than recent government pronouncements. Such policies are badly needed in view of today's news.

Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose by 2.2% in the year 2002-2003, according to new government data just released.

Environmental groups have accused ministers of failing to control greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions in 2003 were higher than when Labour came to power. But the output of other greenhouse gases is falling, meaning that Britain is still on course to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets - just.

One reason behind the rise in emissions was the changing cost of basic fuels; the price of coal fell by 8% during the year, while gas rose by roughly the same amount. But data also show that emissions from certain sectors - notably housing and transport - have been steadily rising for years.

"In overall terms, the figures are encouraging and put the UK ahead of most developed countries," said environment minister Elliot Morley in a statement.

"It is disappointing that there has been an increase in carbon dioxide emissions."

The various greenhouse gases vary widely in their "global warming potential" - the relative amount of warming produced by a given amount of the gas.

Comparing the volume of various gases would be meaningless; instead, scientists combine the volume with the global warming potential and express it in units called MtC - million tonnes of carbon equivalent.

Between 1997, when Labour came to power, and 2003, Britain's output of the three most important greenhouse gases has been:

Emissions of greenhouse gases in total are now 13.4% below 1990 levels, the baseline against which Kyoto Protocol targets are measured; Britain's target is 12.5%.

But carbon dioxide emissions have fallen by only 5.6%. The government admits it will fail to meet a unilateral target, contained in Labour's manifesto for the 1997 election, of reducing CO2 by 20% from 1990 levels by the year 2010.

According to Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK, efforts to tackle climate change are "a disaster". "Government failure to tackle climate change is even worse than feared," said the climate campaigner for FoE UK, Bryony Worthington.

"Unless the government takes control of UK emissions and starts delivering substantial year-on-year reductions, its 20% target will be impossible to reach."

The heart of the problem is that although CO2 emissions from industry have fallen - partly as a result of measures like the Climate Change Levy, a pollution tax - they are rising from other sectors.

Since 1990, residential emissions have risen by 11%, while the road transport contribution is up 8%.

The government is currently reviewing its climate change programme and is expected to announce new measures in the summer. These may include the introduction of renewable energy into the transport sector.

OUR COMMENT: What should also have been included is the fact that between 1990 and 2002 CO2 emissions rose by 7% from road transport and by 35% from domestic air transport. Greenhouse gases from domestic aviation also rose by a similar amount.

Europe and the United States politely but firmly disagreed Friday on the best way to deal with worldwide calls for airlines to cut emissions and noise, although both sides agreed that government action has the potential to harm aviation while doing little practical good.

The first worldwide conference on aviation and the environment covered a wide range of issues, including some that the industry considers more emotional than real.

The conference, which brought together major airline and airport groups with government officials, produced no solutions to growing popular and official pressure to do even more to cut emissions and noise. The only agreement seemed to be that something must be done.

"The pressure for improving environmental issues is not going to change," said Andrew Sentance, chief economist for British Airways. "We have to do more in managing the tradeoffs."

Many speakers said airlines were subject to irrational public perceptions, and that those perceptions sometimes guided government decisions. And there was general agreement that the industry was worried that perceptions rather than facts may guide public policy.

"I am concerned that the tide of public opinion is running against our industry," said Robert Aaronson, director general of the Airports Council International, one of several groups that sponsored the two-day meeting.

It was clear from conference sessions that public pressure is now greater in Europe than in the United States, although U.S. and European governments received rare words of defense from the chief executive of British Airways, Rod Eddington.

"Europe is the most energetic center of action, and the U.S. appears to be the home of the skeptics," Eddington said. "And yet when we probe beneath the surface, this is something of a caricature. When it comes to practical steps to tackle climate change, many European policy makers share business concerns that we will be put at a commercial disadvantage.

"Meanwhile, in the U.S., there is much more action on climate change at the state level, and businesses are starting to develop programs of voluntary action in anticipation of future policy decisions," he said.

Carl Burleson, director of the Office of Environment and Energy at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, said he was encouraged by some of the talk he had heard at the conference about being careful in taking sweeping actions. But he said that differences remained between the two continents.

Burleson also said that new information indicates that the natural tendency of the Earth may be toward greater swings in climate change than many had thought.

"It is difficult to make rational decisions when there is such uncertainty," he said. Sentance said comments by Burleson and others made it clear that the greatest danger of irrational decisions was in Europe rather than the United States.

"The airlines in Europe are caught in the middle," Sentance said. "Change won't come fast enough for European policy makers."

The conference also made clear that the United States has much greater control over air traffic and airport decisions than do the countries of Europe. Although there is now a Europewide air traffic management body, Eurocontrol, it does not yet have the power over national and local decisions that the U.S. agency has.

"The regulator is also the air traffic services provider" in the United States, Burleson said. "Our system works fairly well."

Stansted only works because flying is cheap: today Budget passenger flights succeed because it is a cheaper form of transport than road or rail and not because it's a pleasant experience.

Air freight operates at a distinct advantage over any other form because the fuel isn't taxed. Budget airlines now carry freight in preference to baggage because it is a lucrative business and costs them nothing extra.

We have high and unstable oil prices, but priced in US Dollars which is weak against the Pound, and OPEC have an interest in keeping the price high to preserve it's trading position in Europe. Oil is a diminishing resource that will cost more and more to extract. When oil gets more expensive in real terms, and the Dollar recovers, I wonder what will happen to cheap flights and budget airlines?

More expensive flights means fewer passengers, and half empty aircraft means higher ticket prices. A vicious circle begins leading to fewer flights, and with less freight which will cost more leading to competition from surface carriers. When flying is seen as expensive Stansted will rapidly decline.

£3 surcharge forced by record high oil price · Branson's Virgin Atlantic likely to follow suit

British Airways is set to lead a fresh round of fuel surcharge increases on air fares in the wake of the recent surge in oil prices.

BA's move, expected this week, is likely to be followed by similar measures by Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic, which has ratcheted up surcharges in step with the Heathrow-based airline.

News of the increases comes after a week in which oil prices hit a record $57 high, despite Opec's decision to pump half a million more barrels a day. It is widely expected to add another half million as soon as this week.

Britain's businesses, which faced inflation-busting increases in their energy bills in 2004, are also warning that high crude prices will hit their bottom line. 'UK industry is already paying higher energy costs than other countries in the EU,' said Mark Swift, spokesman for the Engineering Employers' Federation.

BA introduced a £2.50 surcharge per flight in May last year, increasing it to £6 for long-haul flights in August and £10 for long-haul and £4 for short-haul in October, when oil was at $53 a barrel. A further increase of about £3 is expected. Virgin's charge is £10 for long-haul flights.

An industry source said: 'With prices this high another increase in the surcharge is unavoidable. British Airways is likely to lead the way on this, and it is likely to be promptly followed by Virgin.'

BA told investors earlier this month that higher oil prices would push its fuel bill up by some £300 million to close to £1.5 billion in the coming financial year. In November BA said surcharges would recoup some £160m of costs.

It has hedged 60 per cent of its fuel requirements at $36 a barrel from April to June, 50 per cent at $37 from July to December and 30 per cent at $40 from January to March next year.

Opec's failure to mitigate the price spike indicated its weakening grip on global oil markets, said Ray Holloway of the UK-based Petrol Retailers' Association. 'It shows you that Opec as a cartel is neutered - they're at the peak of their production output,' he said. Holloway predicted that Britain's motorists would see petrol pump prices soar to 87p a litre this summer, as rocketing crude prices were exacerbated by strong demand for petrol products from the US.

Kevin Norrish, oil analyst at Barclays Capital, said prices could decline over the next few weeks, but would pick up again later in the year, as demand accelerated. 'The fourth quarter looks quite scary.'

But Digby Jones, director-general of the CBI, said he was confident that UK Plc could withstand the oil spike. 'If this had happened in the 1970s, we would have had the IMF at the door by lunchtime.'

Benchmark West Texas Intermediate closed at $57.04 a barrel in New York on Thursday, finishing the week at $56.85 after speculators cashed in profits.

OUR COMMENT: And, why not air fares? Motorists have to pay extra. No one suggests that this is hard on low earners. Oil is a limited commodity and is and will be responsible for many more extra costs from increasing climate change, unless the government initiates effective action on rising transport emissions, action that is fair to all but curbs the use of fossil fuels. Start by discouraging the building of new runways! That will actually save money!

REGIONAL Assembly chiefs have sent a united message to John Prescott 'Give us the cash to build roads, schools and health centres or we will refuse to build houses'.

The East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) met yesterday at Cambridge Science Park for an emergency meeting to discuss a growing rift with the Government over funding for infrastructure.

EERA is currently working on a regional structure plan for the East which includes nearly half a million new houses. It has asked the Government for 1.5 billion to provide infrastructure such as roads, railways lines, doctor surgeries, schools and other community facilities.

But the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has only offered to pay around 450 million for a variety of projects so the assembly has temporarily withdrawn its support for the regional strategy.

Since the last assembly meeting in December last year the Government has announced some extra funding for infrastructure including the upgrading of the A428 between Cambridge and Cambourne and money for growth areas around cities but members say it is still not enough.

EERA chair Sue Sida-Lockett said: "People are very grateful for the money the Government has pledged but there are a lot of concerns that there is a huge infrastructure deficit across the whole of the region and not just in growth areas.

"We have made an infrastructure bid which is based on our needs; the money we have received is going towards those needs but it is not adequate.

"We will continue to lobby our MPs to try and make sure that the infrastructure deficit is addressed. If the Government doesn't come up with the funding and the jobs don't turn up then we will not build the houses. The regional assembly is standing firm and is insisting we can't go ahead with the plan unless we get the funding, that is a cross party decision from all local authorities in the region."

Alan Moore, the head of regional planning for EERA, said: "Our message to the Government has always been that we recognise the pressures on them but unless we get the funding we can't deliver the houses.

"We can't have a 10-year lag between development and the infrastructure coming behind it. We would have chaos.

"There would be increasing congestion, delays and accidents on the roads and if the schools and health centres weren't there it would just be an impossible situation.

"The Government has shown us that it is starting to listen and it has increased its funding but it's still not enough we will fight for the best interests of the region."

WATER RESOURCES REINFORCE THE PROBLEMS THAT WOULD ARISE IF TOO MANY HOUSES ARE BUILT - AND TOO MANY RUNWAYS AS WELL

Water firms threaten hosepipe ban

BBC News - 22 March 2005

Hosepipe bans may have to be introduced because the winter has been unusually dry, gardeners have been warned.

The Environment Agency said in the past four months southern England had had just three quarters of normal rainfall.

With the peak gardening season about to begin, the Agency is urging restraint in watering lawns and flowerbeds.

It said a dry April would make restrictions in the South West, the Midlands and East Anglia more likely.

Some reservoirs are just 56% full, compared with a usual 95% for this time of year.

Meyrick Gough of Southern Water said it had been one of the driest winters on record.

"We do need about another four to six weeks of rain before our reservoirs really respond and come back up to full water level," he said.

"We're really asking our customers to be aware of the dry winter and to use water wisely and not to waste it. It's not a renewable resource."

A spokesman for Thames Water said there was a strong possibility it would have to impose its first hosepipe ban since 1990.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England has called for "across the board" efficiencies to tackle shortages, particularly in light of plans to build thousands of new homes in the south.

"There's a lot that can be done with regulations to try and improve water efficiency, especially with new developments," spokesman Edward Dawson told BBC News.

"We could introduce much lower flush toilets, lower flush showers and lower flush taps - they all help to try and reduce the consumption that we have from our customers."

A spokeswoman for the Environment Agency said that while rainfall had been relatively low all over England and Wales, the drop in reservoir levels had not been seen everywhere.

It was unlikely that restrictions would have to be imposed in northern parts of England or Wales, she added.

OUR COMMENT: The East of England is the driest area in the UK. Concerns have been expressed in the Sustainability Appraisal of the draft East of England Plan about water supplies for all the houses in the Plan. Concerns have also been expressed about the requirements of an expanded Stansted airport.

The outgoing chief executive of British Airways, Rod Eddington, is to advise ministers on long-term sustainable transport policy in Britain - while commuting from Melbourne, Australia.

When he retires from BA in September, Mr Eddington will live in Australia but will travel to London regularly to counsel the Department for Transport and the Treasury on the impact of transport decisions on Britain's productivity and stability beyond 2015.

His appointment was greeted with raised eyebrows among transport experts, who pointed out that the prime minister already gets advice on "blue-sky" transport thinking from the former BBC director-general Lord Birt. Senior fig ures in the transport industry suggested that Gordon Brown and the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, were keen to build an alternative policy power base to rival the Downing Street strategy unit.

In his budget speech, the chancellor said transport expenditure had doubled since 1997 and would rise by a further £2.4bn this year. Against this background, Mr Brown said it was "right to examine Britain's long-term needs and priorities" with the help of Mr Eddington.

During his five years running BA, Mr Eddington has made unfavourable comparisons between transport infrastructure in Britain and in his previous homes, Australia and Hong Kong.

In a speech to the Aviation Club he attacked Britain's historic culture of "managed decline" and asked why the high level of public debate was not matched with decisive action.

Speaking at BA's annual results presentation last month, Mr Eddington said Britain's transport infrastructure was in urgent need of investment: "If businesses are to survive here, if the quality of people's lives is to improve, the hard and soft infrastructure in the UK has to be maintained and advanced.

"In terms of hard infrastructure that means road, rail, ports and airports. In terms of soft infrastructure, the health system, the education system and the rule of law."

The Freight Transport Association said it was difficult to see what Mr Eddington could bring.

The association's chief executive, Richard Turner, said: "He seems to be being asked to look at what industry might need at some indeterminate time in the future. However, the whole of UK industry is wrestling with the weaknesses of our transport system here and now."

Environmentalists expressed dismay at the government's choice of an airline boss as an adviser. Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Commuting between Melbourne and London is hardly a shining example of a green travel plan.

"If his personal arrangements are to be an example of government policy, we're deeply worried."

A GLIMMER OF BLUE SKIES

Airline boss urges responsibility on climate

Environment Daily 1843 - 17 March 2005

British Airways chief Rod Eddington has called on the global aviation industry to cut its climate change impacts or risk governments imposing new taxes. Speaking in Geneva, Mr Eddington said his company supported emissions trading as "the most economically and environmentally effective" way forward. Not all airlines support this view.

Only if the industry defines and promotes such a response will it avoid "damaging and punitive" tax proposals, such as French president Jacques Chirac's call for an aviation tax to help fund African development, he said.

Tim Yeo, the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, launched the Conservative Party's Action Plan to tackle climate change and detail a Conservative road map to achieving a low carbon economy for Britain.

A Conservative Climate Change Policy would focus on two challenges. Firstly, getting Britain back on track to meet it's targets . Secondly, securing international agreement on the way forward post Kyoto. The strategy will mix targets and trade, focusing on:

* Increasing the Accountability of Government. Long term targets will be broken down into shorter term milestones. The role of the Environmental Audit Committee will be strengthened. The Government will be required to publish an annual report on progress in reducing Carbon emissions.

* Giving much greater prominence to energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Committment will be expanded and transformed from a closed shop into a dynamic market based mechanism Existing regulatory standards will be more rigorously reinforced. A road map towards zero emissions on new homes will be developed with industry.

* Rewarding millions of environmentally responsible motorists by cutting Vehicle Excise Duty for low pollution cars. The first budget of a Conservative Government would reduce Vehicle Excise Duty in Band C (C02 range 166-185) from £145 to £135. Band B (Co2 range 151-165) would be reduced from £125 to £110. Band A (Co2 range 121-150) would be reduced from £105 to £85. Band AA (CO2 range 101-120) would be reduced from £75 to £10. The least polluting band AAA (Co2 range below 100) would pay no Vehicle Excise Duty compared to £65 today.

* Doubling of Grants programme to reward purchase of the least polluting cars and the fitting of emission reducing equipment.

* Introduction of colour coded car tax disks to make clearer link with impact on environment.

* Support for inclusion of aviation into an EU emissions trading scheme as stepping stone towards a global scheme.

* Pursuit of an EU voluntary agreement to give air passengers the same level of information on emissions per journey as car buyers get on emissions per car model.

* Encouraging the EU to seize the opportunity to shape and sell a post Kyoto framework.

Speaking of his personal commitment to the Environment and real concern with the growing evidence of the impact of global warming, Mr Yeo called for an end to warm words and criticise the Government for its addiction to rhetoric and targets without a coherent and credible plan of action. Conservatives 'will not fall into the same trap'.

He denounced the Prime Minister for allowing carbon emissions to rise under his watch, for undermining the European Emissions Trading System, and most importantly, for failing to provide crucial leadership by example and damaging Britain's credibility at international level.

"The Conservative party wants Britain to put its house in order and, together with the EU, seize an historic opportunity of leadership on climate change."

"Reduced Carbon emissions need not come at the expense of economic development . We must become more efficient in our use of energy and develop the markets for technology that can transform our use of natural resources. To engage business and consumers we must talk less of cost and sacrifice and more of benefits and opportunities."

Poor quality air is thought to result in more than 32,000 premature deaths in the UK each year alone. Experts say many of these deaths could be avoided if measures were put in place to cut pollution levels.

The figures show every European takes on average half a day off sick a year due to illnesses linked to air pollution - costing the economy more than 80bn euros (£5.5bn).

The main threat to health is posed by tiny particles known as particulate matter, which can penetrate deep into the respiratory tissue, and even directly into the bloodstream. They are emitted by traffic (particularly diesel engines), industry and domestic heating.

Ozone produced when sunlight reacts with pollutants emitted by vehicle exhausts is also a major cause of respiratory disease.

There are major variations between member states in terms of air pollution. The situation is the worst in Benelux area, Northern Italy, and new member states such as Poland and Hungary.

Lost life expectancy is worst in Belgium, where on average people lose 13.6 months of life, and the Netherlands, at 12.7 months.

The Finns are the least affected, losing just 3.1 months on average, followed by the Irish at 3.9 months.

The European Commission is to try to reduce the threat to health by adopting a new strategy on air pollution from May. Barbara Helfferich, an environment spokesperson for the Commission, told the BBC: "There are number of ways of doing this. We can reduce burning of fossil fuel, we can use alternative energy sources, we can restrict traffic in inner cities."

Professor Andrew Peacock, of the British Thoracic Society, said: "We have known for some time that high levels of air pollution have a direct link to respiratory illnesses."

"We would urge for this subject area to be looked into further and for the government to continue working with others to minimise pollution levels in this country."

A spokesperson for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs said: "The government takes air pollution very seriously and we monitor air pollution levels very carefully.

"Local authorities now have action plans to tackle pollution hotspots, and we have tighter controls to cut industrial emissions."

"In general the long-term trend shows air quality is getting better, but there is still a lot to do to achieve even cleaner air, requiring local, national, and international action."

The spokesman said four Air Quality Strategy targets - for lead, carbon monoxide, benzene and 1,3-butadiene - had been met. The UK climate change programme was also being reviewed. This is intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, but will also impact on levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and particles.

OUR COMMENT: Aviation emissions are one of the main causes of air pollution round airports, notably Heathrow, but any airport is at risk and regular monitoring is required. Nitrogen dioxide is the main hazard and, together with other volatile organic chemicals will , especially in summer, combine to produce ozone. This may be a desirable gas in the outer atmosphere, protecting the earth from too much ultra violet radiation, but down below, where we live, it acts as an irritant, like nitrogen dioxide.

To date, Stansted levels of nitrogen dioxide have kept below statutory levels outside the airport, but they have been predicted to rise as traffic increases. The government is confident that better management and technological improvements will prevent this from happening. Soon we shall find out what BAA's predictions are for full use of the present runway when their environmental impact assessment for their application to expand to 35/40 mppa is published.

Within the airport levels at various places will be higher. However, for the public, maximum exposure levels are based on a year long exposure, and for employees, work levels are higher, based on an 8 hour day. These levels are meant to allow for the fact that some individuals may be especially sensitive, or may already suffer from chest complaints.

The Commission's study puts the blame mainly on particles, which are emitted more by HGVs and diesel cars. However, the chemistry of the formation of particles and their relationship with the other emissions from fossil fuel engines needs more analysis, especially around airports and in particular those in the country such as Stansted. Recent work has shown that secretions from plants and trees can increase the amount of ozone formed, especially in the summer. Our Local Authority is monitoring ozone and the levels reached will be important this summer as the number of flights increases.

As we have maintained, there is a limit to the size of any airport that can be tolerated both by the local environment and by the health of those living around the airport. We are reaching that limit with Stansted - many consider the limit has already been reached.

ESSEX County Council's consultation on the East of England Regional Assembly's draft plan for the London -Stansted -M11 corridor has revealed that more than 90 per cent of those taking part are against the proposals for 123,400 new homes to be built in Essex.

Parish and town councils and a number of other stakeholders were asked for their views which are included in Essex County Council's response which was sent to the East of England Regional Assembly this week.

The greatest concerns expressed were about pressures on public services, the road network and hospitals closely followed by fears for the environmental impact of such development, particularly the loss of open space and the impact of building on flood plains.

The ten per cent who supported the development wanted to give the highest priority to affordable homes particularly for key workers.

County councillor Peter Martin, spokesman for Planning, Enterprise and Regeneration, said: "In all of our public meetings there has been great and frankly very justified concern about how the public sector could cope with the impact of the level of development that the government is proposing. We already have massive underfunding of public transport in this county and I don't want to see that level of under funding spreading to other services."

Leader of Essex County Council Lord Hanningfield said: "One of the key reasons for Essex's economic growth in recent years is that the county really is a great place to live and work. I'm concerned that the level of development proposed by government, particularly without the dramatic investment in infrastructure needed, will harm the quality of life in Essex and could make the county less appealing to inward investment."

As the EU has formally recognised growth in air transport is now outstripping environmental improvements from new technology and the industry's considerable own efforts. From 1960-1970, an annual technology induced fuel efficiency improvement of 6.5% was achieved. This rate fell to 1.9% during the period 1980-2000. Looking ahead, as the industry itself has acknowledged the scope for further improvements in fiel efficiency continues to diminish.

Against this technology background, air travel has seen substantial growth in the EU over the last twenty years, growing at a faster rate than any other transport mode. In terms of passenger-kilometres, traffic increased by an average of 7.4% a year between the year 1980 and 2001, while traffic at the airports of the EU-15 Member States increased five-fold since 1970. Despite the impact on air transport of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack, the trend rate of air traffic growth is expected to make a robust recovery.

Across the EU, the aviation industry is seeking a "license to grow". In the UK, the government has recently published its UK Aviation White Paper, proposing substantial growth in UK airport capacity, including 2 new runways in the South East of England over the next 30 years. Across the EU, proposals for airport growth sit alongside highly ambitious environmental challenges, notably on noise, local air quality, and climate change:

Climate change in particular poses major challenges to the aviation sector. The EU's publicly stated long-term climate change policy objective is: "a long-term objective of a maximum global temperature increase of 2° Celsius over pre-industrial levels… In the longer term this is likely to require a global reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases by 70% as compared to 1990, as identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"v. Building on this, the UK and Swedish Governments have already made commitments to a target of 60% CO2 emissions reductions against 1990 levels by 2050, and have called on other EU member states to follow suit, to help shape the post-Kyoto international climate negotiations.

In the year 2000, UK aviation already accounted for approximately 11% of the UK's total climate impact. As the graph below shows, without policy action, aviation is projected - on mid range estimates - to grow to occupy about 50% of the UK's entire climate budget by 2050viii. Considering the EU as a whole gives a similar picture. Finally, recent scientific developments indicate that aviation's climate impact needs to be revised upwards, heightening the challenge still further.

The SERA seminar discussion is to consider the role of EU leadership in furthering sustainable aviation. The seminar is aimed at 20 high quality decision-makers and opinion-formers, including:

This proposal is timely, given that addressing aviation's climate impact is a declared priority of the UK's EU presidency in the latter half of 2005. As yet, there is no consensus across the EU on the best way of tackling aviation's climate impact. The UK government's public position is to prioritize bringing intra-EU flights within the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), with blunter instruments the fall back approach if progress with EU emissions trading proves too slow.

As our name suggests, SERA - the Labour Environment Campaign - seeks to ensure economic, social and environmental concerns are addressed together. We have an established track record of bridging the environmental and social justice movements - and, more specifically, in chairing seminar discussions and facilitating seminars that bring together industry, government, and NGO representatives at the highest level.

Our core membership includes several MEPs, UK Government Ministers and over 100 MPs which, together with our Executive Committee, maintains our reputation for technical expertise and political insight, and as a valued "critical friend".

Mr Deputy Speaker, having doubled transport investment since 1997, and with the railways carrying more than 1 billion passengers last year, it is right to examine Britain's long term needs and priorities. And the Transport Secretary is announcing today that the outgoing Chief Executive of British Airways Rod Eddington will work with his Department and the Treasury in this task.

So having announced decisions on investment I come to my decisions on tax. I have examined rates of corporation tax and capital gains tax. I have no need to raise them so I propose to freeze rates.

I will maintain the duty differential for rebated oils as we continue to tackle oils fraud and tax evasion but because of the sustained volatility in the oil market, for the third successive budget I will this year defer this and the usual inflation increase for fuel duty until September 1st.

For environmental reasons, I will continue, for three years, the lower duties planned for natural gas, bioethanol, biodiesel and liquified petroleum gas.

While implementing the normal inflation rise for vehicle excise duty, there will be no increase for medium sized and small cars which are more environmentally efficient -

OUR COMMENT: More talk, more promises, but no action , just future hopes of technological fixes, as yet unproven plus the help of BA's Rod Eddington!

The Chancellor today warned a roundtable of international energy and environment ministers that economic growth cannot ignore the environment. He called for international action on climate change, which he described as " the most far-reaching - almost certainly the most threatening - of all the environmental challenges facing us " and said it should also be an issue for finance and economic ministries.

Friends of the Earth welcomed today's speech, but warned Gordon Brown that the UK must do more to show international leadership on the issue, including meeting the Government's own targets for cutting carbon dioxide levels. CO2 levels have not fallen since Labour came to power and the Government is not on track to meet its promise of cutting carbon dioxide by 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2010. The environmental group challenged the Chancellor to demonstrate his commitment to tackling the problem by putting global warming at the heart of tomorrow's Budget.

"This speech by Gordon Brown is crucially important. The world cannot afford to continue to ignore environmental issues in its pursuit of economic growth . Unless we take urgent action it will be too late. The Chancellor must now seize the initiative by announcing measures in his Budget to tackle global warming and establish the UK as genuine leader on fighting this issue.

"Climate change is the biggest danger the planet faces. The world must embrace the opportunities offered by renewable energy, energy efficiency and new technologies and move away from coal, oil and gas . If we don't adapt to the challenges we face , the terrible consequences will be felt by generations to come."

Gordon Brown's promise to explore how Government and business can remove barriers to the development of energy services markets in the UK;

His challenge to industry to put in place a long-term framework to meet our climate change goals in the most cost-effective way .

TAX INCENTIVES PLAN TO BURY CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

Charles Clover, Environment Editor - Dailty Telegraph - 16 March 2005

Gordon Brown said yesterday he was considering tax incentives for firms to capture their carbon dioxide emissions and store them underground.

The Chancellor told a meeting of energy and environment ministers from 20 countries, organised as part of Britain's presidency of the G8, that accelerated climate change was a threat to the global economy and tackling it should be central to economic policy.

Mr Brown said new technologies such as the capture of carbon dioxide emissions in used oil and gas wells were likely to be crucial to tackling climate change, particularly for economies such as China.

The Treasury would now be examining economic incentives to encourage carbon capture, which he said had the potential to bring about a "step change" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Britain has pledged to reduce them by 50 per cent by 2050.

Oil companies in Norway have found that pumped carbon dioxide can be used successfully to "wash" remaining deposits of oil and gas out of the rock strata in which it is held but there is controversy over whether the gas remains in the rock strata long term.

There are also difficulties involved in pumping the carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations out to sea.

James Connaughton, an environmental adviser to President Bush, who attended the meeting, said America was committed to dealing with the "serious" issue of global warming but that work was still required to determine to what extent it was caused by human activities.

He said: "The President, working very closely with Tony Blair and other leaderships around the world, has been working to lead a dialogue in addressing this very important issue of climate change. The science is serious enough to treat the issue as seriously as we are now treating it. That's why the US has stayed at the table, working to design new strategies to address the issue."

His remarks on Radio 4's Today programme were criticised by Lord May, chairman of the Royal Society, who said: "The Bush administration appears to be out on a limb on climate change and in disagreement with its own scientific advisers."

Mr Brown did not mention nuclear power, which many believe the Government will be forced to act on if it wins the election, possibly building new power stations.

He did, however, make two references to "energy security", which many experts believe is the same thing.

Liu Jiang, the Chinese energy minister, was less coy, promising his country would soon be one of the world's biggest markets for nuclear power, which it would satisfy with its own new design of pressurised water reactor.

Takeley Parish Council has applied to the High Court for an oral hearing to consider its application for Judicial Review of the BAA compensation scheme relating to generalised blight around Stansted which has resulted from airport expansion proposals and the publication of the Air Transport White Paper.

If successful at the oral hearing for which no date has yet been given, Takeley Parish Council will then be allowed to proceed to full Judicial Review of BAA's Home Owner Support Scheme (HOSS).

The application follows the court's initial refusal to allow the original claim to proceed based on a perceived illogicality in asking the legal system to compel changes to what it saw as a voluntary compensation scheme.

However, barristers for Takeley Parish Council which is aiming to secure an extension to the HOSS to the wider catchment affected by generalised blight - some 12,000 homes compared with the 500 covered by BAA's Home Owner Support Scheme - say that to focus on the voluntary nature of the code is to ignore the reality of the case. They have therefore asked for the opportunity to put their grounds for application to the High Court in person.

Charles George QC and James Pereira, acting for claimants Takeley Parish Council, Trevor Allen and Michael Mew, make clear in the Grounds for Renewal of Application for Judicial Review submitted to the High Court on Friday (11 March 2005) that in order for BAA to acquire consent to the runway it will be required to comply with Government policy. This in turn requires the airport developer to adopt a compensation scheme that meets the requirements of the White Paper. If BAA fails to do so, there is no real prospect of the runway being approved.

It follows, say the parish council's legal advisers, that in practice the adoption of a compensation code is not optional, but an essential requirement if the runway is to proceed. If the existing code were quashed, there are only two possible consequences. Either a lawful code will be adopted so that the generalised blight caused by the runway proposal can be compensated. Or no code will be adopted, the runway proposals will not proceed and the blight will subside. Neither consequence is illogical. Both have a real practical value for the claimants and others whose property is currently blighted.

BAA has so far sought to minimise compensation payments by refusing to entertain claims from home-owners whose properties lie outside a very tightly defined 66 dBA Leq (decibel) noise contour, despite clear evidence of property blight over a much wider area. Many householders beyond the HOSS perimeter have been unable to sell their homes despite repeated viewings because of fears about the impacts of airport expansion amongst prospective purchasers. Latest Land Registry statistics for example, show that the volume of property sales in the vicinity of the airport is at its lowest level for 14 quarters.

Takeley Parish Council has been spearheading the fight to extend the HOSS to ensure the needs of its own parishioners are addressed as well as those of people from other communities who are suffering from exclusion from the scheme. Financial support from a number of other affected parishes towards the legal challenge has already been forthcoming, with further offers of help expected.

Trevor Allen, Takeley Parish Council Chairman, made clear that his parish would continue to do everything in its power to secure an extension of the compensation scheme to those who were affected by generalised blight.

"It is wholly unacceptable for BAA to crow with delight at the prospect of having to compensate a mere scattering of families when it is patently clear that thousands more are affected by the company's self-interested plans. I'm surprised that Stansted Airport's management can sleep at night when their firm's selfishness is causing such hardship and anxiety to so many local people. BAA's actions are clearly out of step with those of a company which takes its responsibility to the community seriously."

The UK government has announced tougher limits on greenhouse gas emissions following pressure from the European Commission.

The announcement will enable UK firms to join fully with the fledgling European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a key component in EU plans to combat global warming.

It may also allow the government to avoid a damaging political row at an electorally sensitive time.

Under the ETS, every EU member country has to set a limit - a National Allocations Plan (NAP) - on the amount of carbon dioxide which its industrial plants can produce during the next three years.

Each government must then divide up this limit between the companies involved, each company receiving an 'allowance', which it can trade with other companies at a rate set by the market.

Britain published what it called a 'draft' figure in April; the government calculated that during the period 2005-7, UK companies involved in the scheme should produce no more than 736 million tonnes of CO2.

Then, in October, the government revised its limit upwards, to 756 million tonnes; the reason, said Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, was that forecasts of Britain's energy demand had changed - the country would need more energy in the next three years, and so would need to produce more CO2.

Environmental groups accused the government of caving in to demands from big business, and the Commission was clearly not convinced that the UK, alone among EU countries, had a case for raising its emissions cap.

The result has been a stand-off, which the Commission has clearly won; the government has gone back to its original figure of 736 million tonnes, though it aims to take legal action against the Commission.

Environmental groups have welcomed the move. "We are delighted that the Government has re-introduced proposals for sensible cuts in UK carbon dioxide levels," said Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Bryony Worthington.

"Tony Blair has promised to put climate change at the top of the international agenda; and undermining EU plans to cut carbon dioxide is the wrong way to go about achieving this."

The electricity industry will be most affected by the change to the NAP - it will have to cut all of the extra 20 million tonnes of CO2.

"We are naturally disappointed, but not surprised," the Chief Executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, David Porter, told BBC News.

The government has made much of its stated commitment to combatting climate change, and has won plaudits from environmental groups for its stance.

It may have been unwilling, at a time when a general election is anticipated, to see the UK cast as the country obstructing European attempts to tackle global warming.

INDUSTRY PROTESTS AT THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTION

Industry fury as Beckett retreats over UK carbon allowances

Michael Harrison, Business Editor, and Stephen Castle in Brussels - News Independent
12 March 2005

The government was forced into a humiliating climbdown yesterday over the amount of carbon British industry will be allowed to produce under new European Union emission trading rules.

Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, announced that the UK would proceed on the basis of a lower carbon allowance than ministers had wanted after the European Commission refused to permit an increase in the allocation.

The move represents a victory for Brussels, after the heavy-handed tactics used by Mrs Beckett to force it to agree to more generous carbon allowances. However, Commission officials sought to play down its pleasure at the Government's U-turn for fear of appearing triumphalist.

The climbdown was also welcomed by the environmental lobby, which had accused ministers of reneging on their commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. But it will pile extra cost on industry.

Mrs Beckett said the UK would now take the Commission to court in an effort to get the higher carbon allocation reinstated. She hopes for a ruling from the European Court of First Instance in the first half of next year.

But Commission officials and MEPs were convinced that the legal case stood little chance of success. Chris Davies, the leader of the British Liberal Democrat MEPs described the threat of action as "no more than a fig leaf designed to protect the Government from attacks by the Confederation of British Industry before the general election".

Under the new EU-wide trading system, British industry will be allowed to emit a maximum of 736 million tonnes of carbon over the next three years. In order to emit more than that, industry will have to buy permits from other countries which have undershot their carbon allocation. The permits are trading at about £10 per tonne of carbon.

The allowance of 736 million tonnes was what the UK applied for when it submitted its draft national allocation plan to Brussels last April. In July, the Government asked for an increased allocation of 756 million tonnes after discovering it had underestimated the amount of carbon produced by the UK because of higher electricity demand and increasing use of gas and coal-fired power stations.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it was "disappointed" at the Commission's refusal to allow an higher allocation. Defra also pointed out that the extra 20 million tonne allowance asked for amounted to only a 3 per cent increase in the UK's national allocation when it now estimates that UK emissions will exceed the allocation by 56 tonnes or 7.6 per cent.

David Porter, the chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, said it was essential that the Government got the UK's allocation right for when the second phase of the emissions trading scheme begins in 2008. "That's when investment in new power stations will come into play. It is imperative that the Government gives clear guidance about Phase 2 as soon as possible. Time is short. New power stations require serious finance and they take years to plan and build."

Stavros Dimas, the European Commissioner for the Environment, said: "It is important that companies based in the UK have the opportunity to trade in the EU emissions system from the start and I warmly welcome their participation. UK-based installations represent 11 per cent of the EU system so their active involvement in trading will contribute to its success and help them to meet their climate change obligations in a flexible, market-friendly way."

Officials in Brussels were concerned that, if they set a precedent by allowing the UK to change targets that had been approved, other nations would be certain to follow suit.

OUR COMMENT: So much for leading the world in action against climate change! Fortunately someone is acting more positively about climate change.

The European Commission on Friday launched an eight-week consultation on how to tackle rising climate change impacts of aviation. The results will feed into a strategy due this summer, focusing on possible use of economic instruments.

The leading contender is to bring aircraft emissions into the EU industrial greenhouse gas emission trading scheme. The consultation canvasses opinion on this plus other options including aircraft fuel taxes, VAT on air transport, departure/arrival taxes, en-route charges or taxes on emissions. Details are on the website.

The Prime Minister today said the Government would lead by example in promoting sustainable development. The Prime Minister said:

"By joining up thinking and action across all levels of government, and by setting long term objectives, the Government is dedicated to securing the future for all. I want to use this new strategy as a catalyst for action."

Launching the cross-government strategy in London today, Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the aim was to show how people can be involved in making more sustainable choices. Mrs Beckett said:

"Sustainable development is vital to building a decent future for everyone. The Government is leading by example but the strategy can't be delivered by the Government alone."

"The Government wants to ensure everyone has the opportunity to get involved - for local or global benefit."

* A new task force under Sir Neville Simms on sustainable public procurement will draw up a national action plan to make the UK a leader in the EU by 2009.

* A new scheme to enable Government departments to offset the carbon impacts of their air travel by April 2006. When there is no alternative to flying, Government will compensate for carbon dioxide released from our flights by investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

* Community Action 2020 - Together We Can - will launch in the autumn. It will give local groups support, information and training to influence what goes on where they live. They will be given specific support to help influence local authorities' Sustainable Community Strategies and local development plans.

The Government is giving the independent Sustainable Development Commission, chaired by Jonathon Porritt, a new role as the watchdog on the performance of government in delivering sustainable development. This will help drive action to ensure delivery of our sustainable development goals.

The new UK Strategy was launched today alongside a new Framework for Sustainable Development across the UK, shared between the UK Government, the Devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland Office.

OUR COMMENT: Is this how the emissions from air travel are going to be mitigated? Invest in low carbon technologies to compensate for the CO2 produced? An excellent idea within reasonable limits. Tony Blair jets to the USA (or to Tuscany for a holiday) and plants a few trees or orders an electric car, or even invests in research into the technology of pumping waste CO2 into underground storage. Will it include investment into renewable energy technology? The scheme has all sorts of possibilities and if this really means that the government becomes a leader of actions rather than a producer of words it is to be welcomed.

However, as a remedy for dealing with all aircraft emissions it is hardly adequate, and certainly could not compensate for the massive increase in air travel proposed in the White Paper. It is a beginning, an admission that air travel is very polluting and should not be the first choice for the traveller if other ways of travelling are available. This applies to low cost holidays as well as to the government.

THE day before 9/11, a satellite photograph of the United States showed the country covered by a white grid. Straight lines going up. Straight lines going across. Straight lines clustered thickly over cities such as Washington, New York and Atlanta. Straight lines more sparsely distributed over less populated states. Straight lines, thin and sharp. Straight lines swelling and going fuzzy. Jet-trails, every one of them, tracing the flight path of a passenger jet.

Two days later, the satellite view showed the continent clear and visible. No grid. No planes in the sky, creating jet trails. With one single solitary exception. A lone trail going up the east coast: Air Force One, taking President George W Bush to New York.

When planes were airborne again, the received wisdom was that it would take years to get back to the days before 9/11. It didn't take years - 1.6 billion passengers will travel by air this year alone. That figure is set to double by 2010. Where I live, the growth's visible. Because my home's directly under the flight path to Britain, by breakfast time this morning, my sky was filled with jet-trails: the underside of that satellite photograph. Very fetching, the display.

That's the oddity about aircraft. They're top of the industrial beauty parade, while incinerators are at the bottom. People say "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) about incinerators because of bad stuff they might send out through their chimneys, notwithstanding the number of licences they have to get before they send anything at all out through their chimneys, and disregarding the fact that if they look crooked at a dioxin, the EPA can close them down quick as look at them. Nobody says "Not OVER My Back Yard" although what comes out of the exhaust pipe of a jet-plane obeys the law of gravity like everything else. Ergo it comes down in our back yards. Do we get upset about it? No.

Because we use and love planes, we buy into how the aviation industry describes its plans. Sustainable growth. That's what they say they're aiming at. Ask them to define "sustainable" and they tell you about tourism, about how everybody can afford to fly, these days, and how they're working to reduce emissions.

Once upon a time, "sustainable" was the mantra of the Greens. Now, it's been nicked and co-opted, not just by aviation, but by every industry. It's comforting but imprecise. De-natured. Its essence has been dissipated, like chewing gum, post-mastication. Does your chewing gum lose its flavour on the bedpost overnight? Too right, it does. And your sustainability, likewise.

What's happened to 'sustainability' as a meaningful contribution to public debate is similar to what happened when Mark Twain's wife, mortified by his swearing, began to use his swear-words back at him to show him how bad they sounded. It didn't work. He said she had the words right, but didn't know the tune.

We've lost the tune of the future. According to Professor Jared Diamond's book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, a brilliant new study of the way societies disintegrate and become extinct, we've now put in place all of the key factors which destroyed many of those societies. The only difference between us and the people who died in places such as Easter Island is that we have state-of-the-art rationalisations for doing the same crazy things they did.

One of those rationalisations is the happy delusion that technology will rescue us. Technology is developing all the time and in no time at all, we believe, some scientist will come up with a way to sort everything out. Sure, weren't there dire predictions back in the late 19th century that Cork and Dublin would soon be impassible, due to the horse droppings donated by the dominant mode of transport at the time?

The local authorities of the day counted the horses, worked out how many more of them were going to arrive on the streets, multiplied that by the volume of waste material each animal pooped, and forecast that traffic would get slower and slower, as it waded through knee-high manure.

DID that happen? Not quite. New technology came along, and guys such as Henry Ford pioneered ways of making that technology cost-effective. We can now buy cars that can go from zero to 90 kilometres in 60 seconds for the pleasure of sitting in them while they do three kilometres an hour.

The manure they generate is largely invisible and doesn't smell quite as vividly as the horse-generated alternative. In fact, as you sit in your air-conditioned car, talking on your hands-free, listening to the radio or to a CD, you might even kid yourself that you're making progress.

Prof Diamond says it was ever thus; people destroying their future with actions that make perfect sense at the time. Like chopping down trees to plant crops, thus ensuring that the topsoil blows away, there's nothing to hold the crops and the local population has to flee the resultant dust storms. Or insisting on eating one particular foodstuff (think fish, at the moment) long after the signs of impending extinction are clear.

Several of the societies he studied eventually ended up eating each other, so that the killer line in any argument became "The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth."

Precious few societies seem to apprehend the truth hammered home in business courses: if you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you always got. Take roads, for example. They figure in both by-elections, but particularly in the one in Meath. The local Chamber of Commerce has found that many people from the county spend 120 working days a year in their cars. That's more than someone living in Los Angeles spends in their car, but nearly as much as endured by commuters in Bangkok, where the latest must-have item (unlikely to be stocked in the new shopping Mecca in Dundrum) is a small portable chemical toilet, for use mid-journey. Whatever about men employing such a gadget unseen, it's difficult to imagine women in business suits in the middle of gridlock doing so.

Back in Meath, the candidates lashing around the constituency - interestingly enough, on their feet - are understandably eager to prevent this trend taking hold in Trim, Navan or Kells, never mind Nobber.

So they are promising to join up unjoined roads, build new and bigger roads, bypass the bypasses. Nay-sayers have been drowned out by the hugely popular message that roads are the delivery-systems of sustainability.

We could, of course, change our individual and corporate behaviour, like those few societies in history which made radical changes in order to survive. We could kick life back into the 'sustainability' concept.

There's two chances of that happening: slim and none. What we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. Instead, we'll opt for more roads, cars, planes, congestion and environmental destruction, excusing it all as "sustainable."

If advanced societies in the past ended up eating each other, then, a few years hence, we may celebrate Mother's Day in a quite new way.

The UN economic commission for Europe (Unece) announced this week that the protocol will be effective from 16 May.

The protocol sets limits for emissions of sulphur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia (NH3). It will not have a great effect on EU member states since all 25 are already subject to equivalent or stricter emissions standards under Europe's national emissions ceilings directive.

Ryanair won a "victory for small print" yesterday in a test case for internet advertising when a court decided that it was legal to advertise flight costs without taxes as long as that was made clear.

But the budget airline was fined £24,000 after the jurors at Chelmsford crown court concluded that a page of its website, which did not immediately explain that tax would be added, breached consumer protection legislation.

Ryanair had been prosecuted by Essex county council's trading standards department. The council's lawyers argued that the legal position in relation to internet advertising should be "the price you see is the price you pay", as it is for newspaper, billboard and television adverts.

Ryanair was accused of breaking the Consumer Protection Act by advertising a flight as "London-Stansted - Pisa £4.99 one way excluding tax", because the offer did not immediately spell out the full cost, which would have been £11.87 when £1.88 for insurance and £5 for UK airport duty was added.

But the jury disagreed. They found the Dublin-based company guilty regarding six other website adverts which did not feature the words "excluding tax". Judge Charles Gratwicke fined the firm £4000 for each charge. But he did not order Ryanair to pay any costs, so that the £32,000 cost of bringing the prosecution will have to be met by the council.

Ryanair denied the offences. It said its policy was to always add the phrase "excluding tax". The words had been missed off the six flight advertisements in error, it claimed.

Mike Hill, Head of Essex county council trading standards department, said the council would lobby the government for a change in consumer legislation.

"We have tested the law and it has been found wanting" he said. "In newspapers and on billboards, companies have to advertise the true costs of goods. If a petrol company advertised a litre of petrol at 25p - excluding tax, it would be illegal. It should be the same for internet advertising for flights."

"We thought that by bringing this prosecution we would be able to show that the Consumer Protection Act also applies to internet advertising. But the jury's verdict shows that it doesn't, and we will now lobby the government for change. Ryanair advertises in this way because it makes their flights look cheaper."

Caroline Green, head of consumer services at the airline said: "Ryanair's internet banner headline advertising - e.g. £4.99 exclusive of tax - was not misleading to customers. 98% of our customers book via the internet. We have 30 million customers a year and we have not had a single complaint about our advertising."

Mr Hill said trading standards officers around the country had received complaints about the way in which airlines advertised internet prices.

MAD March Hares will be able to live in peace, thanks a new project to protect their habitat.

The brown hare - nicknamed mad because of the bizarre boxing ritual it displays during courtship in March - has been found to thrive at Stansted Airport.

The project, run in conjunction with Biffa Waste Services, The Game Conservancy Trust, The Mammal Society, Middlemarch Environmental Ltd and The Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, aims to double the population of the brown hare by 2010. Stansted Airport is one of seven sites across the country chosen to take part.

A £39,690 grant from Biffaward - a fund managed by the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts - will pay for the three-year project, which includes recruitment of a brown hare officer.

BAA Stansted has also committed itself to providing an extra 20 hectares of land for brown hare and skylark management if further airport development takes place.

Garry Cornell, environment manager at Stansted, said: "The airport land provides a refuge for brown hare populations from some of the problems that the surrounding agricultural practices has on the species.

"I am really pleased that we can be involved with this project to learn more about the populations at the airport. Brown hares are an historic part of the landscape in this area, and I hope we can contribute to its wellbeing."

Brown hares thrive in grassland and arable fields. Unlike rabbits, they do not dig burrows and need undisturbed areas for cover and raising their young. Martin Bettington, chairman of Biffaward, said: "The brown hare is a valuable part of our countryside and everything must be done to safeguard its future.

"Hopefully this project will be able to expand across the country and greatly contribute to increasing brown hare numbers."

The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts estimates there are currently 800,000 to 1.25 million brown hares across the country.

It did not know the number living at Stansted Airport but said they were regularly seen there.

Defra today announced a £12m package of funding over three years as the first part of a new climate change communications initiative to change public attitudes towards climate change.

The announcement follows a report from consultants Futerra, who were asked to develop an evidence-based strategy, addressing public attitudes as a key step towards achieving the UK's climate change targets.

The initiative will focus strongly on communicating at a local and regional level, where the evidence suggests is can be most effective.

Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: "Evidence suggests that we need to engage people close to home if we are going to succeed in changing attitudes to climate change."

"We need people to understand that climate change is happening here and now, that it will affect all of us, and that there are things we can each do to help reduce our personal contribution to climate change."

"It is essential to deepen popular understanding and support for action on climate change, to complement the work we are doing at a national and international level."

"Climate change is a key priority for our G8 and EU Presidencies this year. Recent media coverage makes this an ideal time to launch a programme to raise public awareness of everyone's role in limiting climate change," she added.

The report includes a number of recommendations, many of which will be taken up by the Government over the coming months. Among the proposals being taken forward today are:

* The announcement of at least £12m to support a new climate communications initiative, with £4m in financial year 05/06 and at least as much in the following two years.

* The establishment of a new fund, starting next financial year, to support climate change communications at a regional and local level.

There will be a high-level workshop after Easter to discuss the Strategy with key stakeholders as part of an informal consultation process.

The communications initiative is designed to complement the work of Defra's key climate change delivery partners - the Devolved Administrations, Carbon Trust, Energy Saving Trust, the Environment Agency and the UK Climate Impacts Programme.

Note: Final statement of press release - "Defra's aim is sustainable development"

High Court Ruling
The judicial review against the Government proved successful on two counts. First it enabled us to force Government documents into the open. These included the Treasury documents which question the viability of the runway and highlighted the financial risks. These documents had been withheld by the Government before the case. Indeed the Judge censured the Department of Transport. He said:

" Government Departments should remember that their obligation to tell the truth to the Court does not mean that the Court need only be told so much of the truth as suits the Department's case, and that inconvenient parts of the truth may be omitted from their evidence. In Court, a witness is not merely obliged to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but also to tell the whole truth. A statement that is only partially true is as capable of being misleading as a statement that is untrue."

Coming from a High Court Judge this is a serious criticism. He also found that the Government had acted unfairly and may have prejudged the planning situation.

This ruling means that the full planning process must endure, something which the Government hoped to avoid. All options must be considered at any inquiry. Indeed that inquiry will also have to bear in mind both this case's outcome and the previous judicial review in which the consultation was found to be flawed. This will help our case.

Holding Darling to account
The Government avoided making an oral statement to the House about the case, and so avoided our questions. I have therefore complained to the Speaker about this. In addition, I have now written to the Secretary of State with a series of questions about his Department's actions. I shall press him if I get the chance in Transport questions or in any debates before the likely General Election. Feel free to write to him to ask him why his department withheld this information (and copy me in).

Do the sums add up?
I have always believed that the Achilles heel of this scheme is its finances. Stansted is the least profitable airport in BAA plc., and to build this runway they would need to seek cross subsidies from Heathrow and Gatwick, from higher landing charges. The airlines there have said they will contest this in court and there are also anti-competitive laws which may prevent such cross subsidies.

To that end, I helped with Stop Stansted Expansion's Briefing to City experts last week. The purpose was to highlight why BAA plc's shareholders should question the viability of this scheme and the risk it poses to the company as a whole. The briefing was well received and will help SSE's case immensely.

What next?
Media commentators and aviation experts are now calling the second runway unworkable. There is a growing recognition that it doesn't stack up financially and that therefore BAA should think again. This has taken a lot of effort and SSE deserve our thanks.

I am continuing to work closely with the team and my Parliamentary colleagues to ensure that we keep battling against this scheme.

Charles Kennedy said he advocates introducing taxes on aircraft to help tackle air pollution. The current U.K. government plans to introduce regulations encouraging airlines to cut pollution. If enacted, the measures would require companies including British Airways Plc, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Air France SA to pay for curbing emissions.

"We're not trying to prohibit people from travelling abroad or taking short breaks,'' he said. "The aircraft that cause the big problems of pollution are those that are travelling half empty on long-haul flights.''

Global airline traffic is predicted to increase by an average 5 percent a year through 2008, according to the International Air Transport Association.

All sides are claiming a victory after a High Court judgement over a proposed second runway at Stansted airport.

Mr Justice Sullivan said plans set out in Government White Paper for airport development were lawful, but upheld a challenge brought by Essex and Hertfordshire Count Councils and Uttlesford and East Herts District Councils.

He said the location of a planned second runway should be a matter for the local planning authorities and its communities, not the result of a government directive.

BAA had geared its plans to developing a second runway on a line running from Bambers Green to the edge of Great Easton and Broxted, one of three possible locations suggested by the Government in its consultation documents and the one leading to the greatest take-over of land.

The Reporter continues: "Transport Secretary Alistair Darling accepted the High Court ruling. He said: "I am pleased that the High Court has upheld the case for two additional runways in the south-east of England at Heathrow and Stansted, and rejected calls for that part of the White Paper to be quashed. The Government has always accepted that the exact positioning and capacity of the runways at Stansted will be decided by the normal planning process."

(OUR COMMENT: This interpretation might not be recognised by the Judge himself as a fair summary of the judgement!)

The Reporter reports: " Lord Hanningfield, the leader of Essex County Council, said he was "delighted" with the result. "This is yet another example of the Government being caught adopting a consultation report and ignoring an approach to planning. The Government has attempted to exercise its will irrespective of procedure and the democratic process and BAA was hiding behind that. The verdict represents a great victory for local government and local democracy. The Government and BAA can no longer view the expansion of Stansted as a fait accompli and we can now be sure that the planning process will examine all expansion options in a more comprehensive, robust and open fashion."

The Reporter continues: Terry Morgan, BAA Stansted's managing director, also claimed victory from the judgement. He said "This judgement is very good news, and I welcome the clarity it has brought. The ruling gives the green light to continue with expansion for the next 30 years. It upholds the government's policy for extra capacity and the location of the first new runway here at Stansted. We will continue with our project on track and on schedule." He is later reported as admitting that the ruling demanded that BAA consider other options for the runway.

He also promised that the BAA HOSS scheme would go ahead and would be extended if another area was selected for the runway.

OUR COMMENT: The judgement made no reference to the effects of aviation expansion on the environment. Neither did the White Paper except in