SSE NEWS ARCHIVE - April to June 2005

Any savings in average emissions per flight will be eclipsed by the huge growth in air travel

GREENHOUSE gas emissions from aircraft will double by 2030 even if airlines invest in new fuel-efficient planes, the industry predicted yesterday. Any savings in average emissions per flight will be eclipsed by the huge growth in air travel forecast for the next 25 years. British airlines, airports and aerospace manufacturers yesterday published a strategy for improving efficiency, which included an ambitious target for halving emissions per trip.

The Sustainable Aviation group, which includes British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Airbus UK and BAA, the airports operator, has been set up to lobby against environmental taxes on aviation.

The European Commission is investigating the feasibility of a tax on aviation fuel or an emissions charge as an alternative, or in addition, to extending its emissions trading scheme to airlines.

The group aims to introduce new aircraft by 2020 that will produce 50 per cent less carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, than equivalent new aircraft did in 2000. Other targets include reducing nitrogen oxides by 80 per cent and noise by 50 per cent.

The group admits that improvements in efficiency will not keep pace with the rising number of flights. Roger Wiltshire, the chairman of the group, said: "Growth in demand for air travel may well exceed growth in technology's ability to offset emissions."

The Government estimates that passenger numbers will more than double, from 200 million in 2003 to 470 million in 2030. Aircraft carbon dioxide emissions, even assuming that fuel efficiency targets are met, are predicted to increase from 8.8 million tonnes in 2000 to 18 million by 2030.

The group admits that emissions of greenhouse gases at cruising altitude are far more damaging than emissions at ground level. Environmental groups say that the impact is three times greater. At this rate, a passenger on a return flight from London to New York would contribute twice as much to global warming as the average driver does in a year.

The group pledged to cooperate with scientists in investigating the impact of emissions at altitude. It also gave a commitment to report each airline's fleet fuel efficiency by the end of 2005. This will expose those airlines which have failed to invest in new aircraft.

Airlines will also encourage passengers to make voluntary contributions to offset their carbon emissions. Several projects, including Future Forests and Atmosfair, already offer air passengers the opportunity to pay for carbon-reducing measures such as planting trees.

British Airways is going further by working with customers from large corporations to help them to offset all their carbon dioxide emissions. Andy Kershaw, BA's environmental affairs manager, said that the airline would calculate the emissions from all flights booked by a company and then jointly invest in sustainable projects around the world.

The group hopes to persuade the Government that aviation can best help the environment not by reducing its own emissions but by paying for other industries to cut theirs.

Mr Wiltshire rejected calls for environmental taxes on flights, describing them as a "blunt, inappropriate and ineffective weapon". But the group admitted that airlines were unlikely to find an alternative to fossil fuels to power aircraft for several decades.

The GreenSkies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups opposed to the growth of aviation, said that the targets in the strategy were merely commitments to conduct research and that there was no guarantee they would be met. Jeff Gazzard, the alliance's co-ordinator, said: "The best that can be said is that this strategy, if it happens - and it's a really big if - will make things a little less horrible than would otherwise be the case."

The thorny issue of climate change has left most airlines bending over backwards to sound green. But Europe's largest low-cost carrier, Ryanair, has dismissed its environmentally nervous rivals as "lemmings".

Ryanair's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, has refused to support an industry-wide effort to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Asked yesterday what he would say to travellers worried about the environment, he replied: "I'd say, sell your car and walk."

This week, airlines including British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, easyJet, Flybe and First Choice, formed a sustainable aviation group aimed at cracking down on pollution, noise and harmful emissions.

Mr O'Leary said Ryanair would not be joining: "A lot of members of the sustainable aviation group won't be around in 10 years' time - that'll be their main contribution to sustainable aviation."

He described the coalition as an example of "high-fare airlines getting together to pursue policies blocking competition," adding: "The sustainable aviation group, God help us, is another bunch of lemmings shuffling towards a cliff edge."

Aircraft account for about 5% of carbon dioxide emissions and air travel is forecast to double within 25 years. There are fears that cheap flights could hamper efforts to fulfil Britain's commitments agreed at the Kyoto summit in tackling climate change.

The aviation industry favours an emissions trading scheme, allowing airlines to buy and sell carbon dioxide allocations. But Mr O'Leary said such a scheme amounted to a plot by airlines such as British Airways to punish rapidly growing rivals.

"British Airways won't be growing its existing emission levels because it's going nowhere - it's shrinking," he said. "We will be increasing our emissions over the next few years simply through growth in traffic."

Roger Wiltshire, director general of the British Air Transport Association, said: "They obviously don't want to engage in a debate over the environment, which is rather sad."

Environmentalists were less circumspect. Jeff Gazzard, of the GreenSkies Alliance, said: "Michael O'Leary is a recidivist, serial polluter and he should be arrested for crimes against the climate."

Mayor Ken Livingstone said Britons should take less cheap holidays

A third runway at Heathrow for masses of cheap holiday flights is "completely out of the question", London mayor Ken Livingstone has said. The mayor promised to pour official funds into any public investigation of plans for the airport's expansion.

Heathrow can cope with core business traffic, but not with endless cheap holiday flights, Mr Livingstone told the London Assembly during question time yesterday.

The mayor condemned the lack of taxes on jet fuel that allowed people to fly to Europe for just £6. "It is absolutely ridiculous that if you drive down to Devon for a holiday, you will make a substantial contribution to the exchequer by the petrol you buy. But if you fly to Marbella, you won't." Taxes on energy use should be fair, he added.

Assembly member Geoff Pope pointed out tha 700 houses would be pulled down to create a boundary zone for a third runway. About 2,500 people live within 500 yards of the knocking down area, he added. Another 37,000 residents would lose their air quality, and six schools in the area are at risk.

The measures were "completely unacceptable", Mr Livingstone answered. "I do not support the construction of a third runway at Heathrow."

Last month new maps by the Civil Aviation Authority showed for the first time that aircraft noise over areas as far as Wandsworth, Clapham Common and Lambeth exceeds 57 decibels over 16 hours - the official level at which residents are annoyed.

The mayor, who has given two grants of £20,000 to local residents fighting the proposed extension, said he saw "no case" for increased night flights at Heathrow.

Britain should also make its own holiday resorts more attractive to keep people from flying to Spain "just because it's a bit sunny", he added. "We have to change the way we live. Whether it is driving a car, going off on too many cheap holidays or letting the sprinkler run all night to keep the lawn nice and green, there is an energy cost and a global warming cost to all these activities."

Swedish children are healthy, but some environmental factors still pose risks, according to the latest annual report from Sweden's Environmental objectives council.

The council was set up to monitor implementation of 15 national environmental quality objectives, adopted in 1999. This is the first time it has focused on children's health.

The report identifies air and noise pollution as key threats.

It recommends Sweden should focus on greening transport, chemicals, forestry and agriculture, and push for the EU chemicals legislation reach to be "rigorous and effective".

See press release: www.miljomal.nu/las_mer/infomaterial/pressmeddelande/press/050602e.php

The aviation and aerospace industries sought yesterday to combat the growing campaign against the rapid growth in air travel by launching a comprehensive programme for long-term reductions in aviation's impact on the environment.

The initiative received a strong endorsement from the government, which is backing a big increase in airport capacity, including the building of at least two new runways in the south-east of England, but it was attacked by environmental groups.

Jeff Gazzard, co-ordinator of the GreenSkies Alliance, said: "As usual, the air transport sector believes that spin is the answer to its climate crimes. The wish list they've tried to present today as fact is simply a smoke and mirrors illusion."

The targets set by the "sustainable aviation" strategy include limiting the impact of air travel on climate change by improving fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions of new aircraft by 50 per cent per seat kilometer by 2020 compared with 2000 levels.

It is also seeking to improve air quality by reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 per cent over the same period and to lower the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50 per cent.

The programme was launched by a group of leading airlines, airports, aerospace manufacturers and the air traffic control service.

They are aiming to establish a common system for reporting total carbon dioxide emissions and the fuel efficiency of the aircraft fleet by the end of 2005 and are pressing for the inclusion of aviation in the European Union's emissions trading scheme as early as possible.

Noise limitation at airports could include landing and take-off restrictions.

Meeting tough environmental conditions, in particular for air quality, is a pre-condition already set by the government for building a third runway at Heathrow.

In a foreword to the strategy document, Tony Blair, the prime minister, says that "by working with government and society to tackle the environmental issues associated with aviation, the industry can demonstrate that economic success, social progress and respect for the environment can go hand in hand".

However, Mr Gazzard said the fuel efficiency research targets had been taken into account by the government when it produced the 2003 aviation white paper. "Carbon dioxide from aircraft is forecast by the Department for Transport to grow from 8.8m tonnes in 2000 to 18m by 2030. That's 25 per cent of the entire UK output of this dangerous greenhouse gas, a staggering figure that already assumes these very optimistic and questionable fuel efficiency improvements will be made. We already know that today's 'targets' will not reduce air transport's carbon dioxide below these dangerous and worrying levels," he said. The gap between technology and growth was increasing, not shrinking, and it needed to be closed. The efficiency gains were misleadingly presented as reductions, but this was wholly unacceptable without the context of the aviation sector's unrestrained growth.

Rod Eddington, British Airways chief executive, said: "The whole industry must accept global warming as a reality and galvanise its efforts to limit generation of greenhouse gases. This is what the sustainable aviation process is about."

Polish plumbers have struck again. The hard-working, low-cost tradesmen blamed for the No vote in the French referendum, and lauded by the British middle class for unblocking drains cheaply are now helping out Ryanair.

Michael O'Leary: claims high oil prices will not affect Ryanair profit forecasts

The airline said yesterday that three months after launching flights between London Stansted and Poland, 80pc of passengers are Polish citizens coming over to the UK to work or popping back home. Announcing two new destinations in Poland, Lodz and Poznan, chief executive Michael O'Leary said he expected to fly 800,000 passengers to and from Poland in the first 12 months.

After the first year, the routes will start becoming more popular with tourists, according to Ryanair, but the initial flyers are those that would otherwise take a 48-hour coach trip to the UK.

The Home Office estimates that about 120,000 workers entered the UK from the new member countries of the European Union between March 2004 and March 2005 - a fact cited earlier this month by the Governor of the Bank of England to explain why wage inflation was so low. However, Mr O'Leary said: "I've been speaking to the Polish ambassador. He reckons that there are closer to 450,000 Poles in the UK."

Mr O'Leary, alongside announcing the new routes including Kaunas in Lithuania, insisted that oil at $60 a barrel would not force Ryan-air's to cut profit forecasts. Oil prices surged to $59 a barrel on Monday, forcing airline shares to fall. "The bloodbath in Europe is continuing. If fuel stays at $60 this winter, you'll see a lot of competition going bust or increasing their fuel surcharges... We'd like to see $60 for the rest of the year," he said.

He also took the opportunity to take a swipe at the "sustainable aviation" initiative launched earlier this week by a consortium of rival airlines and airports, designed to reduce aeroplane carbon emissions. ''Their major contribution to sustainable aviation will be by going bust," he said.

New taxes on road and air travel are needed if the UK is to meet greenhouse gas targets, a watchdog has warned.

An immediate emissions charge on domestic flights should be followed by a levy on international travel, says the Sustainable Development Commission. It also suggests increased road taxes to cut pollution from vehicles and measures to cut building emissions.

The SDC said such action would help the UK meet an annual shortfall of at least 10 million tonnes in carbon reductions.

"The UK has a massive gap to fill if we are to get back on track in meeting our 2010 target of a 20% cut in carbon dioxide emissions and the signs at the moment do not look good," said SDC chairman Jonathan Porritt.

'Real test'

The SDC urged ministers to meet domestic emissions targets in order to encourage international action on climate change.

It said the UK should not neglect "its own backyard" when climate change is discussed at the G8 summit.

"This is the real test of the UK government's leadership in this area, whatever may or may not emerge from the G8 Summit," said Mr Porritt.

The body also called for more household energy saving and a "carbon neutral" public sector by 2020.

The report is a summary of a full submission into the government's Climate Change Programme Review which is expected to report later this year.

The SDC recommendations include:

* Immediately impose an emissions charge on all internal air travel, followed by a charge on all aircraft leaving the UK
* A 50% cut in carbon emissions from buildings (over 1990 levels) by 2050
* A 50% cut in carbon emissions from road transport by 2025 (over 1990 levels)
* Radical new levels of Vehicle Excise Duty to tackle road transport emissions (currently 24% of total emissions) and encourage the take up of lower emission vehicles
* Review road charging proposals to ensure they dramatically reduce emissions as well as tackling congestion
* Not seeking to fill the 10m tonne carbon gap by buying up carbon savings from other countries

OUR COMMENT: A sensible programme that could easily be initiated and would not cause any undue hardship. These are today's effective measures. Improved technology is needed, but this will take time - it is a long term measure when action is needed now.

Pat Dale

EU greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.5% in 2003, and 1.3% in the old EU-15 members, the European environment agency (EEA) reported on Tuesday. The bloc's environment commissioner Stavros Dimas called the increase disappointing, but said he remained confident the EU could still meet Kyoto emission targets.

The 2003 data have dashed hopes that a small cut in emissions in 2002 might mark the end of what is now five-year rising trend that started in 1998. EU-15 emissions are now just 1.7% below 1990 levels, compared with their Kyoto target of -8% by 2008-12. EU-15 emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas, are now 3.4% above their 1990 level.

From here, for the EU-15 to achieve its Kyoto commitment, it will have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by virtually 1% every year from 2004 to 2012. It is already known that emissions actually rose last year in two key countries: Spain and the UK.

Mr Dimas insisted that new EU policies would help to bring emissions back down post-2003. He highlighted the EU's industrial carbon emission trading scheme, directives on the taxation of energy products and the promotion of biofuels in transport and still draft proposals to control emissions from fluorinated greenhouse gases (f-gases).

The EEA identified higher coal burning as the main driver for the rise in 2003 greenhouse gas emissions. In the EU-15, energy industries emitted an extra 24m tonnes of CO2-equivalent. Household and services emitted 18m tonnes more and industry an extra 17m tonnes. Transport emissions rose by a comparatively modest 6m tonnes. The waste and agriculture sectors cut releases.

Thirteen of the EU-15 countries reported rising emissions. Only Ireland and Portugal bucked the trend. Italy recorded by far the largest absolute increase at +15m tonnes. Next came Finland with an extra 8m tonnes, which was a huge 11% year-on-year rise.

In the EU-15, emission levels now range from 41% above the 1990 baseline (Spain) to nearly 19% below (Germany). Performance across the EU-10 is spread even more widely. Emissions in Cyprus (which has no Kyoto target at all) are 72% up on 1990. In the three Baltic states they are over 50% down, the most extreme case being Lithuania at -66%.

Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers aim to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced by new aircraft over the next 15 years. Companies want aircraft built within that period to produce half of the carbon dioxide they currently emit.

Air travel is expected to triple over the next 30 years, amid concerns about its impact on the environment. The new objectives have received the backing of most of the UK's aviation companies. There will also be similar targets to reduce the noise pollution caused by passenger aircraft in future.

BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds said environmentalists were likely to criticise the plan for not seeking to reduce the amount of aircraft in Britain's crowded skies. They had wanted larger taxes imposed on air travel, he said. "But the companies behind the strategy say its radical - and will deliver improvements to the environment."

Air travel is set to become the world's largest contributor to climate change, but governments around the globe are refusing to deal with this. In aviation, Britain, after the United States, is the world's worst climate change culprit. The government's policy of trying to get aviation into the EU emissions trading scheme won't solve the problem.

These conclusions - directly relevant to the main themes of the G8 Summit and Britain's presidency of the EU – are contained in a new study written by Brendon Sewill, a former Treasury adviser.

'Fly now, grieve later', published by the Aviation Environment Federation, also draws on academic analysis to show that the external cost of UK aviation (what the polluter should pay) is in the range of £6 billion to £12.5 billion a year. These figures, far higher than previous estimates, will increase the pressure on the government to tax air travel.

International treaty obligations are reviewed, with the conclusion that - given the political will - tax on aviation fuel, VAT on air tickets, or an emissions charge, are practicable, and would be far more effective in tackling climate change than including aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. Such action - even if negotiations succeed - is likely to prove ineffective: for example, it is shown that British Airways would only need to buy permits to cover 0.25% of the damage caused by their CO2 emissions. "No wonder the airlines like the emissions trading scheme so much" says Sewill.

Brendon Sewill was responsible two years ago for persuading the Department for Transport to re-run their computer forecasts on the assumption that by 2030 air travel would pay the same tax as car travel, proving that no new runways would be required.

Claims that taxes on air travel would harm the poor are rebutted; and suggestions that the aviation industry is of such economic importance that it should be exempt from normal tax are disproved. "No one is suggesting that people should stop flying, merely that with fair tax, the soaring growth in air travel would be slowed down."

The excuse that it is necessary to wait for international agreement before governments can act, is shown to be false. Immediate measures which could be taken by the UK include increasing air passenger duty, imposing VAT on air tickets, abolishing duty-free sales and amending the planning system to discourage airport expansion. "Only if action on these lines is taken," says Sewill, "can Britain have any claim to lead the world on climate change issues."

Jeff Gazzard, co-ordinator of the GreenSkies Alliance, said: "As usual, the air transport sector believes that spin is the answer to its climate crimes. The wish list they've tried to present today as fact is simply a smoke and mirrors illusion."

"The fuel efficiency research 'targets' for example have already been taken into account by the Government when producing the 2003 'predict & provide' White Paper. CO2, the main greenhouse gas from aircraft, is forecast by the Department for Transport to grow from 8.8 million tonnes in 2000 to 18, yes 18 million by 2030. That's 25% of the entire UK output of this dangerous greenhouse gas, a staggering figure that already assumes these very optimistic and questionable fuel efficiency improvements will be made."

"So we already know that today's 'targets' will not reduce air transport's CO2 below these dangerous and worrying levels at all."

"We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for fuel efficiency and operational improvements - the best that can be said is that this 'strategy', if it happens - and it's a really big 'if' - will make things a little less horrible than would otherwise be the case."

The GreenSkies Alliance points out that these targets are fundamentally flawed because:

* They are simply a research menu: there are no guaranteed R&D or production or in-service dates attached to them

* The strategy completely lacks any tighter international regulatory framework that could help drive any such research into production, like tougher emissions and noise standards at ICAO

* The research aims will probably be backed by a call for yet more millions of R&D subsidies to the aircraft and aero engine manufacturing sector

* Efficiency gains are misleadingly presented as reductions - this is wholly unacceptable without the context of the sectors unrestrained growth which even the DfT admits will happen

* The DfT "Future of Aviation White" Paper has already included ALL these assumptions in ALL its forecasts; ALL environmental impacts from greenhouse gases, local-to-airport NOx air quality and aircraft noise numbers ALL rise by orders of magnitude

* Efficiency and operational gains of 1-2% p.a. will not offset the emissions growth of 3-4% between now and 2030

Jeff Gazzard added: "Our reaction to these cynical claims is one of cold fury. Before Tony Blair had the cheek to endorse these wildly overblown claims in his foreword to the document, perhaps he should have at least asked his independent advisors at the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission, for their expert advice and comments."

"We've written to the Prime Minister today asking him to get both the RCEP and SDC to review this aviation industry strategy; comment on whether the aims are achievable; and most importantly, place them in the context of the White Paper, to identify what else needs to be done to control and reduce the worrying unsustainable environmental impacts of unrestrained aviation growth."

"The gap between technology and growth is increasing, not shrinking, and it needs to be closed - fast! This so-called sustainable aviation strategy completely fails to address this issue at all."

Europe is failing to tackle climate change, putting further pressure on Tony Blair to come up with a fresh initiative at the G8 summit and embarrassing the European commission, which is floundering over budget cuts and the constitution treaty.

The latest figures for Europe's greenhouse gas emissions, seen by the Guardian but not due to be released until next week, show that the 15 countries who were EU members in 2003 increased their overall emissions by 1.1% in the year up to 2004.

Under the Kyoto agreement, which came into force earlier this year, EU countries must reduce emissions by 8% by 2012 - something which looks increasingly unlikely.

Figures from the European Environment Agency show that only France, Germany, Sweden and the UK have any hope of cutting their energy use in time to meet their targets and that most countries are now falling well behind.

They also show that Britain increased its total emissions more than all other EU countries except Italy and Finland in 2003/4. The 1.3% increase, equivalent to 7.4m tonnes of carbon, was mainly because people drove more.

Britain is expected to only just fulfil its Kyoto obligations but not the government's more ambitious target of a 20% cut in emissions by 2010.

In the EU only Ireland and Portugal have cut their emissions. But both are expected to exceed their future targets following years of economic expansion. Finland, Denmark and Austria burned more fossil fuels than in previous years.

Yesterday, the commission played down the figures, blaming a harsh winter for the increases. "It was very cold across Europe. The number of days that people needed to hear their homes was much higher," said a spokeswoman.

But the figures are embarrassing for Britain, which is chairing the G8's discussions on climate change and assumes the presidency of the EU in less than two weeks. The statistics may weaken Britain's negotiating hand with the US by suggesting that wealthy countries' policies to curb the use of fossil fuels are not working.

One reason the US gave for not joining the Kyoto treaty was because the US administration said it would not deliver the cuts needed to avoid serious climate change.

Chris Green, the Lib Dems' environment spokesman in the European parliament, said: "The upward trend in European emissions is very worrying. These figures put in doubt the EU's commitment to fighting climate change."

"The commission must seize the initiative and give a stronger lead."

Catherine Pearce, global climate change spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth, said: "If Britain and the rest of Europe cannot get it right, then how can anyone expect the US or developing countries to?"

Leaked papers showed yesterday that the Bush administration officials working behind the scenes in advance of the G8 summit have weakened key sections of a proposal for joint climate change action by the G8.

In the past few weeks, negotiators have deleted language which set ambitious targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions and stricter environmental standards for World Bank-funded power projects.

Next week the government's Sustainable Development Commission will propose radical new vehicle and aviation taxes, greater household energy efficiency and a carbon neutral public sector to save at least 10m tonnes of carbon.

The UK's emissions are increasing mainly because rising traffic levels are eliminating the small gains being made in fuel efficiency.

Transport is responsible for about a quarter of all British emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

OUR COMMENT: The intentions of the aviation industry to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% should be part of any effective climate change programme, and not only to reduce CO2, but also Nitrogen dioxide, and what about the effect of contrails? The big question that the industry has not answered is how soon and how can airlines be persuaded to buy these new greener aircraft? The latest models, the Boeing Dreamliner and the new super airbus 380 only offer a 20% relative reduction in CO2. They will be around for the next 30 years as will many of today's more polluting models. Action is needed NOW and the aviation industry must contribute NOW . Their immediate action could be very simple - do not plan for any overall increase in the number of flights until these green planes are in sight of a production line. If more passenger accommodation is needed, organise the planes and schedules better. As for taxes, what is fair for the motorist is certainly fair for the air traveller.

Pat Dale

Letter from Dr Andrew Sentence, Chief Economist and Head of Environmental Affairs, BA - The Guardian - 16 June 2005

As your Leader says (June 14th) an international tax on aviation to fund extra development aid would be illogical and confused. But there is no evidence that your suggestion of increasing taxes on air travel as a means of combating climate change would achieve the goals you rightly seek.

At British Airways, we agree that aviation needs to address its contribution to climate change. But the way forward is through emissions trading, not further taxation. Emissions trading provides companies with a financial incentive to invest in cleaner technologies and improve their environmental performance within a gradually reducing emissions limit. It is the most effective and efficient way of dealing with carbon emissions from aviation.

Additional tax is simply a levy that airlines must pay (or pass on to passengers) no matter how old or polluting their aircraft. The extra financial burden will make it more difficult for them to invest in a newer more fuel efficient fleet.

Letter from Mike Gwilliam, Director of Planning and Transport, South-East England Regional Assembly - The Guardian - 16June 2005

Recently published research by independent consultants for the south-east regional assembly very much supports the message in your editorial. Our consultants analysed the implications and impacts of the government's aviation White Paper. Their conclusions were unequivocal.

They state: "The available evidence base does not provide any reason why either the general recommendations of the White Paper… or its specific recommendations in relation to Heathrow and Gatwick, should be supported. Indeed the evidence indicates that the aviation White Paper is at variance with many national policies and is inherently unsustainable." In essence, the massive increase in aviation proposed by the government would create such growth in levels of pollution as to undermine its new climate change targets and its sustainable development, energy and transport strategies.

Yet there is a way forward. Our consultant identified a five point package that would still accommodate substantial, albeit lower, levels of aviation growth. One of the essential components would be to raise the costs of low-cost flying. The government is now committed to such a policy for surface transport, water, waste and some forms of energy. Why should aviation be different?

OUR COMMENT: On Tuesday 14th June those invited to present oral evidence at the Examination in public of the Plan met to discuss the proposed programme. This has been published and comments are welcomed during the next few weeks. The programme suggested by the examining panel is satisfactory, with one major exception, Stansted Airport.

Apparently, as the Aviation White Paper is regarded as government policy it cannot be objected to in the usual way. However, as was pointed out in the document itself, although an airport strategy was formulated, it had to pass through the Planning system for approval, and, it would not be implemented by the government, but by the relevant airport operators. This raises a number of issues which need to be further discussed.

We remember that at the Judicial Review a senior government spokesman gave his view that at an Examination in public procedure was governed by PPS11 which says (para 2.4) "national policy will apply unless a regional justification for not doing so is supported by the panel following an examination in public and accepted by the Secretary of State."

If this is so, with due respect to the Panel's apparent views at the preliminary hearing on June 14th, arguments against the development of Stansted Airport should be admissible provided they are based on regional considerations.

Pat Dale

The Examination in Public starts at the Maltings, Ely, on Wednesday 14th September 2005 and is set to end on 16th December 2005. See: http://www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/rss_eip_panel_sec

Taking part in the Examination in Public is by invitation only – no one has a right to be heard – and the hearings which are presided over by an independent panel of inspectors, are open to the public to observe.

A useful sideline from the finance ministers meeting was that the world's leading industrialised economies are still willing to consider a Franco-German proposal that additional development aid be funded by an international tax on airline tickets. The suggestion that less than one pound should be added to every ticket, has drawn strong if predictable criticism from airlines. BA called it "illogical", easyJet called it "confused" while Ryanair said it would strongly oppose such a scheme - and no doubt Ryanair's chief executive Michael O'Leary has more earthy views.

The airlines are right, the scheme is illogical and confused. Placing a tax on airline travel is a good idea – but the plan being considered on the G8 agenda would be the right move for the wrong reasons. The underlying concept is certainly a worthy one, placing a small tax on international transactions in order to fund international aid. One alternative way to do that would be a small tax on foreign exchange transactions.

Airline travel, on the other hand, is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. If a tax is to be placed on flight - both passenger and cargo - it should be as a means of combating climate change rather than the inappropriate, although admirable cause of increasing international aid. The time has come to seriously get to grips with changing the tax treatment of air travel. International air travel currently gets a free ride, in that aviation fuel is not taxed. That is a legacy of the antiquated structure that governs international air travel, a structure that is now growning under its own weight.

Two things could be done. First, the UK air passenger's duty could be scrapped and replaced with a levy based on distance flown, and the money used to directly offset the effects of greenhouse gases by planting trees or funding energy conservation measures. Second, duties should be applied to aviation fuel similar to those on other fuels to remove the implicit subsidy that aviation currently receives. Climate change is important enough that it deserves to be tackled in its own right.

ESSEX residents have delivered a snub to those pushing for expansion at Stansted Airport, insisting that protection of the environment is far more important than any financial benefits.

The verdict of county council's citizens' panel, commissioned to ensure that council policy remains in tune with the feelings and concerns of the local community, was welcomed last night by campaigners opposed to growth at the airport.

But airport operators BAA have also said they welcomed the findings of the survey, which found the drive to increase capacity at the airport was both "needed and wanted".

Although half the 1,300 residents questioned agreed that expansion of the airport would benefit the economy of the county, 69% said the "protection of the countryside, environment and Essex communities are more important than increasing the number of flights from Stansted".

A bigger Stansted Airport is also expected to generate more car and rail journeys and most residents questioned were concerned that the current transport infrastructure would be insufficient to cope with increased usage.

Nearly four-fifths (79%) agreed with the statement that: "An expanded Stansted would require more road and rail links to allow passengers to travel to and from the airport."

Lord Hanningfield, the Conservative leader of Essex County Council, welcomed the results of the research carried out by MORI.

He said: "This shows just how much people in Essex value quality of life available here. We have been determined to protect our environment from excessive development and I am delighted that the county council's actions have been so closely in tune with the wishes of Essex people."

"Over coming years, the county council will be fighting to ensure a proper balance is struck between economic development and the protection of one of the most attractive environments in England."

The survey was one of a series, funded jointly by Essex County Council and Essex Police, with each individual survey costing about £30,000. In this latest one, 1,300 people of all ages and backgrounds and from all parts of the county were quizzed. As well as questions about Stansted, they were asked about more general themes such as waste disposal and policing issues.

The findings were welcomed by protest group Stop Stansted Expansion, although it queried even the economic viability of expansion.

Campaign director Carol Barbone said: "The economic case for expanding Stansted is highly dubious, resting not only on the need for cross-subsidy from Heathrow and Gatwick but also a raft of tax exemptions for the aviation industry."

"Also in doubt is the likelihood of proper funding to put in place the rail links which would be needed to cope with a fourfold increase in airport passengers if expansion went ahead. It is little wonder that the people of Essex regard BAA's plans with such suspicion."

Last night a spokesman for BAA at Stansted Airport said: "Our initial reaction to the survey results is good news."

"The people of Essex, whose opinions matter, agree that expansion is needed and wanted."

"We clearly recognise our responsibility to the environment and economy and very shortly will be talking to the community on this very subject."

A Government aviation White Paper published last in December 2003 supported the idea of a second runway at Stansted Airport.

Regional businessmen and industry have broadly welcomed the move and earlier this year Prime Minister Tony Blair stressed the second runway was vital to ensure economic growth. But many residents are opposed to the plan, claiming it would have a devastating impact on the environment. They claim scores of homes would be lost and swathes of countryside destroyed.

Residents of Essex place greater importance on the protection of the environment than the financial benefits of an expanded Stansted Airport. That is the finding of research from the Essex County Council's citizens' panel.

Although fifty per cent (50%) of residents agreed that expansion of the airport would benefit the economy of Essex, sixty-nine per cent (69%) said the "protection of the countryside, environment and Essex communities are more important than increasing the number of flights from Stansted."

Given that an expanded Stansted could generate more car and rail journeys than any other airport in the world, it is not surprising that Essex residents felt strongly that: "An expanded Stansted would require more road and rail links to allow passengers to travel to and from the airport". Seventy-nine per cent (79%) of residents agreed with this statement.

Lord Hanningfield, Leader of Essex County Council, welcomed the results of the research: "This shows just how much people in Essex value quality of life available here. We have been determined to protect our environment from excessive development and I am delighted that the County Council's actions have been so closely in tune with the wishes of Essex people.

"Over coming years the County Council will be fighting to ensure a proper balance is struck between economic development and the protection of one of the most attractive environments in England."

OUR COMMENT: We note that BAA welcomes these results. Does this mean they are modifying their expansion proposals to take account of both local and national environmental concerns?

Pat Dale

Britain's most senior scientist, Lord May of Oxford, has lambasted the Government's environmental record, labelling some of its policies as "gutless" and saying it needed to do "a hell of a lot more".

The outspoken president of the Royal Society fired off a series of broadsides when commenting on the five-yearly "report card" on the state of the environment in England and Wales, published yesterday by the Environment Agency.

The report, which draws together the latest information on eight green sectors from air quality and waste management to wildlife and climate change, shows a mixed picture of improvement and deterioration, presented in measured terms.

But in an uncompromising speech at the launch of the report, Lord May hit out at the Government's recent green record in terms which will cause ministers to wince, not least because he knows what he is talking about, from the inside - he was the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser from 1995 to 2000.

Only two days ago, Lord May led an unprecedented call for the leaders of all the G8 rich countries to take action on climate change, from all the scientific academies of the G8 nations. He openly and fiercely criticised the Bush administration.

Yesterday he turned his attack on Britain. In uninhibited language, the Australian-born ecologist and mathematician was fiercely critical of official action - or lack of it - on waste, car pollution, fish stocks, protection of wildlife sites and climate change.

On waste, he characterised the Government's actions to increase recycling, as "great - but displacement activity".

What we ought to be doing, he said, was regulating the creation of waste in the first place, pointing out that some countries had already taken steps such as banning plastic bags.

He added: "What we have is a totally gutless avoidance of introducing legislation that tries to reverse the trend to ever-more wastefully elaborate and environmentally damaging over-packaging of stuff. And there's not much sign we're going to do much better."

On pollution from cars and lorries, he said: "Maybe things have got slightly better but there's still a hell of a lot more to be done, compared for example to certainly California and most parts of the US whom we're accustomed to slagging off whenever we walk about environmental things. We're much worse."

On depletion of fish stocks, he lashed out at the Government's failure to turn scientific advice on overfishing into policy, in the EU's council of fisheries ministers.

"In the EU, again a marked example of gutlessness, Britain backed off defending its more conservative and scientifically based position on setting fisheries quotas, and just folded its hand and left the table to a continuation of rapacious stupidity, in the interests of political comfort," he said.

He said that the continuing degradation of Britain's own wildlife sites, small though it was, undermined any criticism we might make of tropical countries allowing deforestation.

"We agonise over the loss of something of the order of 1 per cent of tropical forests each year, but the significant damage to our sites of special scientific interest in this small, hand-crafted wealthy island, is of the same magnitude," he said. "If we can't keep our own house in order, who are we to be lecturing tropical countries as they cut down their forests?"

On climate change, he welcomed the fact that Britain had made global warming one of the key policy issues for its forthcoming G8 presidency.

But he added: "We need to recognise that our own Government should be doing more in terms of its own domestic policy, if it's to turn its ambitions to be a world leader on climate change into a reality."

He welcomes the actions and promises on "Making Poverty History" but regrets that as much publicity has not been given to climate change. He reminds us that those who will suffer most from both rising sea levels and more droughts will be the world's poor.

He criticises political leaders for failing to take action and emphasises that it cannot be left to the market to reduce the level of carbon emissions.

He comments that "Unfortunately there is a similar problem in the separate decision making of the departments along Whitehall. It may seem rational within its own objectives for the Department for Transport to multiply runways round Britain to match increased demand for air travel, but it makes no sense at all in the context of the government's commitment to cutting greenhouse gases, among which aviation fuel is the most damaging."

He goes on to say that Margaret Beckett has shown a commitment to tackling the issue but while DEFRA has the targets, the DTI has the power stations, the DfT the cars and the airlines and John Prescott has the domestic houses.

He wants to see this summer's review of climate change policies establish that they must be a priority for every department. He then lists all the likely consequences of failure to act and criticises President Bush for his attitude which comes from an administration "saturated in US oil interests".

He finishes with some words of praise for Tony Blair's efforts to persuade George Bush of the need for action, and for selecting climate change as one of his top policies both for his G8 and EU presidencies.

Plans to expand enormously Heathrow and Gatwick airports will receive a major blow this week with the publication of a report which will describe them as "unnecessary" and a serious threat to the environment

Gridlock in the skies should be tackled by persuading people to take fewer flights, not building more runways if greenhouse gases are to be curbed, according to the findings of the public body in charge of planning for south-east England.

The report will increase pressure on the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, to abandon the airport expansion plans which include a third runway at Heathrow and major expansion at Stansted. Land near Gatwick is also being made available in case a second runway is needed when current curbs on building there expire.

"Our view is that it is environmentally unsustainable, inconsistent with international policy and they have got to change it if the Prime Minister is serious about climate change,' said Mike Gwilliam, director of transport and planning for SEERA, the South East England Regional Assembly."

"I know it's very difficult - people love their cheap flights and I use them myself sometimes - but that's not the point. I think our view is we can't go on with this sort of 'as much as you like on aviation' policy."

He did admit, though, that there was a possible case for expanding Stansted.

The report commissioned by SEERA from independent consultants will be welcomed by campaigners who have fought a ferocious legal battle to halt Heathrow's expansion, which Darling deems necessary to cater for the south-east's economic boom.

SEERA is also due to publish a report this week warning that a massive new housebuilding programme in the Home Counties, for up to half a million new households - essential to help first-time buyers as well as to fuel growth in the engine room of the British economy - is under threat unless the government finds up to £37.6 billion to fund better transport and public services.

This study calls for a national congestion charge to be paid by drivers not only in cities but suburbs and rural areas. This would help pay for more than £12.5bn of transport projects up to 2026. Without it, Gwilliam argues, SEERA would have to prune its housing plans - jeopardising the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's drive for more homes and potentially strangling growth.

Water bills will also have to rise to pay for new reservoirs. All of this means that people will have to make crucial changes in their lifestyles, with families using their cars less and throwing away less rubbish if newcomers are to be accommodated. "It is about us as individuals adapting, not suddenly abandoning growth or living in caves, but adapting," Gwilliam said.

The Treasury is completing its own review of the implications of the housebuilding programme. Senior officials are to be briefed tomorrow on its impact, ranging from transport to the demand for extra school places and GP surgeries. SEERA is expected to adopt plans this week to build an average of 28,900 new homes a year until 2026 across a swathe of the Home Counties from Brighton to Milton Keynes.

Gwilliam said there had been "pretty near universal concern" about infrastructure, and the cost would be more than could be met by the government. "The scale of what we really need to get ourselves up to the standards other Europeans are used to probably requires government to be thinking of additional sources of funding for transport. One is the possibility of a national congestion charge that could potentially raise a lot of revenue."

Forcing northern commuters to pay extra for southern services would risk triggering huge resentment. However, Gwilliam said the whole country would suffer if economic growth in the south-east collapsed. The region "contributes £18 billion per annum in net terms to the exchequer, of which quite a lot goes to the north-east."

Without investment in the infrastructure, he said, the assembly would be unable to build the right number of homes "and that would mean probably fewer jobs and less economic development".

He said it was impossible until the government finalised its own spending plans to calculate an exact shortfall, but a report from independent consultants Roger Tym and Partners - backed by the 10 councils in the south-east and seen by SEERA - estimated a gap of at least £8bn.

Final decisions on the broader South East Plan are not expected until as late as 2007.

Meanwhile, the airports owner BAA will publish details later this month of how the Heathrow expansion could go ahead without breaking new targets for carbon dioxide emissions to be introduced in 2010. The Department for Transport is studying air pollution around Heathrow to see whether the project can succeed.

John Stewart, of the Hacan group, which campaigns against Heathrow expansion, said it welcomed the report: "The local authorities are the people on the ground and they are actually saying that they don't want any more development. Their problem is not lack of development, it's over-development."

OUR COMMENT: Not in my back yard? All the arguments that apply to the south-east apply equally to our region.

Pat Dale

The big issue: transport and the environment

Mark Gwilliam from the South East England Regional Assembly needs some basic lessons in climate change ('Cheap flights spark runway chaos', News, last week) if he thinks that airport expansion is any more acceptable at Stansted than at Heathrow or Gatwick.

While he rightly acknowledges that it is environmentally unsustainable to go ahead with new runways at the latter, shifting the problem on to Stansted or any other community is not going to 'save' his region from the effects of global warming, particularly when significant numbers of people often travel more than 100 miles by car to get to and from Stansted for their 'cheap' flights.

Carol Barbone
Campaign Director
Stop Stansted Expansion
Bishop's Stortford, Herts

Note: The provisional programme for the Public Examination into our own draft East of England Plan has now been published. It will commence on 14th September and those invited to attend and contribute in person have already been notified. They include representatives from all the Councils concerned, the major environmental groups including CPRE and Friends of the Earth, Stop Stansted Expansion and a variety of other local groups, businesses and official Agencies.

The provisional programme appears to be fair and well thought out. Anyone can attend - it will be held in the Maltings, Ely, and a library of documents will be established for all to consult (on appointment) at the Secretariat, Westbrook, Cambridge and anyone can make new submissions on any new points not covered in their original submissions. One of the issues will be the expansion of Stansted airport, both the full use of the existing runway (up to over 35 mppa, probably round 40) and the building of a second runway.

ESSEX and Herts could disappear into a black hole - if money for vital roads and affordable housing is not sorted out first.

A report has identified that the two counties, plus Beds, need £6billion worth of capital investment for infrastructure to meet the demands of thousands of extra homes proposed for the region up to 2021.

Millions of pounds will also be needed for community and leisure facilities - health, schools, libraries, play spaces, even cemeteries.

Herts and Essex and eight other authorities known as the South East Counties group commissioned planners and development economists Roger Tym and Partners to evaluate the costs and funding of growth. It does not include sums for the potential expansion of Stansted Airport, motorways or mainline rail upgrades.

The Tym report, published on Monday, concludes "our infrastructure is creaking" and vital questions about managing future development cannot be fudged. "This is a wake up call to policymakers," it says.

Herts, Essex and Beds need £18.5bn by 2021, of which £15.6bn is for transport and affordable housing.

Allowing for known or expected funding from the public purse and private sector (mostly developers' contributions), there is a £6.1bn "black hole", it concludes.

Saffron Walden MP Sir Alan Haselhurst said: "Nothing surprises me in all that. We all know there's no money for improving the infrastructure." Tym was putting figures on what was in unquantifiable form before.

"It gives us politicians, particularly those in local authorities, a stick to beat Government with," he added

Essex leader Lord Hanningfield said the council would continue to fight against development without infrastructure.

"We also have to look at the timing gap in funding." In particular, capital for transport links would be needed up front.

Essex highways supremo Rodney Bass said at present rates of government funding, it would take 100 years for its transport infrastructure to catch up.

Herts stategic planning leader Councillor Derrick Ashley said: "The headline figures, which could be underestimates, are extremely worrying." He added: "Public sector costs of £4bn in Herts would mean an average cost to the taxpayer per new house of over £50,000. We need to know how this money is to be made available."

Tell Herts & Essex Observer news your views on this issue. Just go to our message board and have your say.

The Government is to keep existing controls on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, it announced today. The measures, aimed at easing the misery of householders whose sleep is disturbed by planes flying late at night, were unveiled in a consultation document by Aviation Minister Karen Buck.

The first stage of the consultation took place last year amid a clamour of protests from lobby groups urging a total ban on night flights into the west London airport, as well as into Gatwick in Sussex and Stansted in Essex.

The Government says it intends to maintain existing controls until October 2006. It also sets out detailed proposals for night restrictions covering the six-year period from the end of the summer season 2006 to the end of the summer season 2012.

Environmental and specific noise abatement objectives for each of the airports are also set out. Views will be sought on whether or not to extend the length of the night quota period and there will be specific proposals for the movements limits and noise quotas in each season.

Ms Buck said: "We have concluded that it is necessary to continue the existing controls for a further 12 months. This will give us time to consult widely over the next three months about the measures we are proposing and to consider the responses to the consultation before taking decisions about the next six-year period."

"I urge everyone with a view about night flights at the three London airports to read the consultation document and send us their comments."

"We have identified key questions to help people focus their responses and the document goes into some detail so that those who wish to can explore the issues in depth."

"We will consider all the responses very carefully and we will welcome views in as much detail as possible, especially from those most closely involved, to help the Government come to a fair and balanced decision on the package of controls."

"I look particularly to the industry to provide any evidence supporting the economic case for night flights.''

The consultation proposes that night flying restrictions should continue to be based on movements limits and the quota count classification system, as at present.

Among the questions asked is the possibility of extending the night quota period to cover the whole night from 11pm to 7am though the Government's provisionally preferred option - subject to consultation - is to retain the current six-and-a-half-hour night quota period.

On the basis of a six-and-a-half-hour night quota period, the consultation also sets out the following suggested noise abatement objectives at the airports:

* At Heathrow, to limit the six-and-a-half-hour 48-decibel scale continous sound level contour (for the winter and summer seasons combined) to 55 square kilometres by 2011-2012. In 2002-03 the contour implied by maximum usage of the limits would have been 55.7 square kilometres while the actual contour covered 53.9 square kilometres;

* At Gatwick, to limit the six-and-a-half-hour 48-decibel scale continous sound level contour (for the winter and summer seasons combined) to 40 square kilometres by 2011-2012, representing a reduction of about 3% compared with 2002-03;

* At Stansted, where the average quota per aircraft (in the limit and in actuality) is currently low to allow for expected growth in the average size of aircraft flying at night as the airport develops, while taking advantage of the gradual replacement of noisier by quieter aircraft, weight for weight.

The Government said it believes it will be possible to keep within the night quota period contour implied by the 2002-03 noise quota while allowing for growth, so it is proposed specifically to limit the six and a half hour 48-decibel scale continous sound level contour (for the winter and summer seasons combined) to 38 square kilometres by 2011-2012, comparable with what would be expected from maximum usage of the present noise quota.

Equivalent objectives are also suggested in the consultation document for the airports on the basis of an eight-hour night quota period.

Once in place, the new arrangements are expected to apply until the end of summer 2012. At present 16 night flights are permitted on a typical night at Heathrow.

Residents under the flight path won a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in 2001 to halt the flights, but the decision was later overturned.

John Stewart, chairman of the campaign group Hacan Clear Skies said: "Residents under flight paths will settle for nothing less than a complete ban. All other options to minimise the impact of night flights are unacceptable and irrelevant."

"The UK Government has got to wake up to the fact that the problem is not going away until night flights are a thing of the past. It is much bigger than a few people in West London losing their sleep. During the last year there have been major demonstrations in Paris and Brussels over night flights.''

Interested parties will have until September 16 to respond to today's paper.

UK prime minister Tony Blair failed to secure a shift in America's position on climate change policy on Tuesday following a meeting in Washington with US president George Bush. Just before the meeting, science academies from 11 countries attempted to put further pressure on Mr Bush by issuing a joint statement demanding "prompt action" on climate change.

The statement was signed by science academies from all member countries of the G8 group - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the USA - plus those from Brazil, China and India. It calls on G8 nations to identify steps "that can be taken now" to achieve "substantial long-term reductions" in global greenhouse gas emissons, and to recognise that delaying will increase both risks and costs.

Mr Blair's travelled to Washington in preparation for the summit of G8 leaders he will host in Scotland in July. Along with African development, Britain has made climate change a priority for its G8 presidency, hoping to heal the divisions caused by America's 2001 decision to reject the Kyoto protocol and its underlying basis of greenhouse gas limits for rich countries and none for poor (ED 17/05/05 http://www.environmentdaily.com/articles/index.cfm?action=article&ref=18793).

At a joint press conference between the two men, Mr Bush stuck to a general commitment to developing "clean and efficient technologies" to "address global change". In direct contrast to the case being made by the UK and the G8 science academies he again insisted on the need to know more about global warming. He also said that nuclear power would be essential to any movement away from hydrocarbon energy.

Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South) (Lab): May I wish the Prime Minister well in his attempts to make climate change the centrepiece of the G8 discussions? Will he take the opportunity to remind the leaders who fly in there that, despite all the laudable gains that are being made by countries in terms of reducing carbon emissions, the one Achilles' heel that we share is that they are being overwhelmed by the growth in carbon emissions from aviation fuel? Will he take the opportunity to say that we have to set global targets and global caps on aviation fuel growth, which will wipe out all the other gains that we would hopefully achieve?

The Prime Minister: First, may I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes? Thus fortified, I will take on the negotiations. In respect of climate change, he is right to say that aviation is an important part of any overall deal, and I hope that at the G8 summit it is possible to put together a plan of action for change that includes not merely issues to do with some of the more traditional things, such as motor vehicles, but also in respect of aviation. It will obviously be a hard challenge, for reasons that my hon. Friend understands, but I think that it is important that we make progress on it.

The Civil Aviation Bill is published today to fulfil a number of commitments contained in The Future of Air Transport White Paper.

If approved by Parliament, the Bill would:

* Clarify and strengthen the measures available to airports for dealing with aircraft noise. This includes a greater ability to introduce and enforce noise control measures beyond airport boundaries and to impose financial penalties if aircraft stray from routes designed to minimise noise.

* Clarify airports' ability to set charges which reflect local emissions from aircraft. The Secretary of State would also be given powers to direct them to levy such charges.

* Provide powers for a levy on the aviation industry to replenish the Air Travel Trust Fund which, along with the ATOL scheme, protects customers of failed tour operators.

The Bill would also:

* Authorise local authority airport companies to undertake specified activities - such as making their expertise available to other airports and taking part in joint ventures - which at present are outside their powers. It would allow local authority airports to be more competitive with privately owned airports.

* Enable the Civil Aviation Authority to recoup the costs of its Aviation Health Unit, which offers advice to the aviation industry and its customers and to Government, by a levy on the industry.

* Remove airlines' existing right of appeal to the Secretary of State in aviation route licensing cases decided by the Civil Aviation Authority. By eliminating a layer of bureaucracy and speeding up the process this will contribute to better regulation.

Secretary of State Alistair Darling said: "The Bill aims to implement commitments we made in our White Paper on the future of air transport on protecting the environment and safeguarding passenger interests.''

Information on the history of the Bill

1. The Bill will be introduced in Parliament for the first time today and is now subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

2. The Future of Air Transport White Paper was published in December 2003. It sets out a measured and balanced approach providing a strategic framework for the development of air travel over the next 30 years.

3. Paragraph 3.14 of The Future of Air Transport states that:
"The Government intends that new legislation should be introduced, when Parliamentary time allows, to strengthen and clarify noise control powers both at larger commercial airports and at smaller aerodromes. There are two main measures:

* An amendment to section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 so that controls such as night restrictions could, subject to public consultation, be set on the basis of noise quotas alone, without a separate movements limit. This would mean that the primary control at an airport regulated by the Government could be related more directly to the noise nuisance, providing a more effective incentive for airlines to acquire, use and develop quieter aircraft. The amendment does not signal any intention to make the controls any less stringent than they are currently; and

* New powers to extend these controls so that they can relate to overall use of the airport, thereby enabling clearer environmental objectives to be set. At present, overall contour or similar controls may only be set voluntarily or through the planning system, which means that generally they must be directly related to a specific development, such as in recent years for the Manchester second runway and around the Heathrow fifth terminal."

Further details about these proposals, and other issues were covered in Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft, Department of Transport, December 2003.

4. Paragraph 3.31 of The Future of Air Transport states that:
"The Government intends to bring forward legislation, enabling the Secretary of State to require an emissions-related element to be included in landing charges at airports where there are local air quality problems.''

OUR COMMENT: This Bill has the potential to improve conditions round airports and also to encourage airlines to purchase aircraft with the lowest emissions, whether noise or fuel emissions. It will only be effective if the government actually requires airports to institute charges and insists that the levels at which charges are made are sufficient to make a difference. There also needs to be a level playing field so that airlines cannot shop around looking for cheaper airports.

Pat Dale

MORRIS Men have vowed to carry on dancing - despite aircraft noise overshadowing one of the major Morris festivals in Britain.

Every year Morris Men from all over the UK and abroad gather in the ancient town of Thaxted, near Saffron Walden, to dance in front of the mediaeval Guildhall.

But the village, which is directly under the London Stansted Airport flight path, has been forced to cope with increasing aircraft noise - and this year many visitors said it ruined the event, especially the Abbots Bromley Horn Dance, performed late at night in the main street in what should be complete silence.

Daniel Fox, a member of the Thaxted Morris Men, said: "We have been holding these meetings in the town since 1927. Morris Men come here from all over the world because Thaxted is their spiritual home."

"We were aware of the noise of the planes going over and our fiddle player had to delay the start of the Abbott's Bromley Horn Dance because of it."

"However, we shall battle on. We were here before even the present runway was built, so we take precedence as far as I'm concerned."

Spectator Caroline Scott, 27, of Thaxted, said: "I have noticed it getting worse for the last two or three years, but this time it was really terrible. Lots of people were sighing and looking up at the skies."

Sanjukta Ghosh, of Saffron Walden, said: "I have been coming for the last five years and I will definitely be here again next year. Thaxted is a very special place and the Morris festival is a wonderful event. However, just two years ago I did not notice any planes.

"This time it was ridiculous. Five planes flew over in just that one 10-minute dance. I know planes are not going to be redirected because of a dance, but it does show how the character and traditions of our local community are being destroyed by the airport."

Councillor Alan Dean, leader of Uttlesford District Council, urged people to write to him if aircraft noise was affecting their community, and said he would ensure their comments were considered at the time of any new planning application.

Stansted Airport had no comment to make.

Rod Eddington, the departing chief executive of British Airways, believes the UK's transport infrastructure is 'near the point of no return' with regard to its negative impact on business.

The BA boss has been asked by the government to produce a strategic review of the UK's crumbling roads, rail and airports infrastructure. His report, which is expected to be delivered to the Transport Secretary Alistair Darling early next year, will be a no-holds-barred critique of the failure of successive governments to invest in transport.

Speaking in China's financial centre Shanghai yesterday, where BA last week launched a new service, Eddington said the failure was a blow to the ambition of British business to attract foreign investment into the UK. "There comes a point at which the lack of decent infrastructure is a deterrent to foreigners seeking to site businesses in Britain. We've nearly reached that point of no return," he said.

His report will be all the more authoritative coming at the end of his five-year reign at BA. He is generally reckoned to have turned the airline round in the face of the greatest crisis to have hit global aviation in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the US.

The government, which commissioned the review under the auspices of the Chancellor Gordon Brown and Darling, may not like what Eddington has to tell them. Transport has been a recurring problem for the Blair government, with road and rail services suffering a series of catastrophes that have undermined public confidence.

The air industry too has been bedevilled by the failure to complete projects such as the fifth terminal at Heathrow, which has taken 20 years to get under way. "In Shanghai they've built a new airport in a fraction of the time," said Eddington.

The new Chinese service will enable BA to compete with Virgin Atlantic on the route to Asia's fastest-growing city. A third carrier, Chinese Eastern, has also been allowed to fly the route under the deal with the Chinese communist government.

Martin Broughton, BA chairman, said the service would be profitable in three years' time. It is the first expansion of BA routes since the 'future size and shape' strategy was introduced to deal with BA's huge cost structure.

Executive travellers flying across the Atlantic will soon have a choice of business class-only carriers as another luxury airline gets off the ground.

A former director of strategy for British Airways, David Spurlock, is behind the latest venture, Eos, which has raised $185m (£100m) to begin flying business class-only from London to New York twice a day. Using Stansted and JFK airports, the inaugural flight is due to take off in September, after approval from aviation authorities.

Eos has a fleet of three Boeing 757 aircraft, whose 200-plus seats will be ripped out and replaced with beds for 48 travellers. Each customer will get 25 sq ft of personal space and Eos is promising 20 to 25 per cent lower prices than business class tickets with mainstream airline rivals.

Mr Spurlock said: "This is the third phase for aviation. We've had the big airlines that serve all routes to all people. Then we had the birth of low-cost carriers. We are launching a speciality airline dedicated to premium travel. It will be a similar experience to flying on a corporate jet but at a fraction of the price." He is promising customers faster check-in times and a loyalty programme.

Eos has raised its funds from a group of US private equity investors, including Golden Gate Capital, which has £2.5bn of assets. Mr Spurlock said the prospects for high-end corporate travel were strong, and growth in the sector could reach double digits.

The launch follows the announcement of another business class-only service from London to New York. Hamish Taylor, who was head of brand management at BA, is raising funds for the launch of Fly First. It plans to begin flying daily from Luton to Newark airport in November. Its two Boeing 757s will also be kitted out with 48 beds.

Noise is a physical hazard so ubiquitous that its sudden absence can be unsettling. Our hearing perception evolved in a quieter era when a soft rustling in a forest could signal danger or potential gain. Today, our sensitive cochleae experience sounds at levels many times greater from amplified music, lawn machinery, highway traffic, and many other sources. But whilst noise might be annoying, is it bad for our health?

Clearly prolonged exposure to excessive noise levels in the workplace can cause permanent high frequency hearing loss. But less is known about the health risks of exposure to lower levels of noise in the environment.

Communities living near airports are increasingly concerned about the psychological and physical effects of aircraft noise. In today's Lancet, Stephen Stansfield and co-workers report a cross sectional study of over 2800 children aged 9-10 years, attending schools located near three major airports in Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK. The investigators assessed noise levels around the school from airport and traffic, and compared these levels with the results of cognitive performance testing and health questionnaires.

They found chronic exposure to aircraft noise had deleterious effects on reading comprehension and reported annoyance, even after adjusting for socio-economic differences between high-noise and low-noise schools.

Stansfield and co-workers' study adds to a developing literature about the negative effects of noise on learning. Schools located near airports have come under particular scrutiny. In one study 326 German schoolchildren matched for socio-economic status were followed up prospectively as the old Munich airport was replaced by a new international facility. Children attending schools near the old airport improved their reading scores and cognitive-memory performance when the airport shut down, while children going to school near the new airport experienced a decrease in testing scores.

How could environmental noise from aircraft be interfering with the children's acquisition of reading skills? Stansfield and co-workers postulate that children react to noise stress by "tuning out" unwanted noise stimuli, in the process also paying less attention to other inputs, such as a teacher's speech.

There are also other basic issues to consider. For children to adequately hear a teacher, the background noise in a classroom should be at least 10dB below the level of the teacher's voice. Children with hearing loss (a condition more common in lower socio-economic groups) require an even greater signal-to-noise ratio. Schools themselves might be poorly designed for hearing, with noise from ventilation and air-conditioning units or students themselves causing more interference than outdoor noise.

Noise could also have an impact on reading performance by negatively affecting health status. Children attending schools near airports may also return to homes located in aircraft flight-paths of noise, which might interfere with sleep patterns and consequently impair learning. Surveys of populations near airports report an association between exposure to aircraft noise and self-rated sleep disturbance, and use of over-the-counter sleep medication. Noise may act in concert with other environmental factors, such as crowding and housing quality, to increase catecholamine and cortisol markers of physiological stress.

Stansfield and co-workers findings might have important implications for health-care professionals. Is the rising incidence of attention deficit disorders related to environmental noise stress? Could environmental noise be contributing to the disease burden of sleep disorders and cardiovascular disease in the general population? In the health care setting, is excessive noise on hospital wards interfering with communication between staff and patients, and disrupting patients' sleep patterns? These are rich and relatively unexplored areas for further inquiry.

Whilst Stansfield and co-workers theorise that living in a noisy environment leads to "learned helplessness" there are encouraging signs that noise can be reduced and its ill-effects prevented. Switzerland has placed a night time curfew on aircraft departures, except for unusual circumstances. The American National Standards institute has published a standard for class room acoustics, stipulating that noise levels in an empty classroom should be less than 35db(A) and that reverberation and echoes should be controlled. In the future, such efforts to identify and reduce sources of potentially harmful environmental noise might become a routine part of environmental medicine.

OUR COMMENT: The full text of the paper is available on www.thelancet.com. We learn that the maximum noise level that was considered was just under 70dB and that annoyance began to appear at 50 dB.

The excellent commentary in the Lancet Leader collects the evidence already available that aircraft noise is not only more disturbing than traffic noise, but it does have a measurable effect on educational performance. The suggestion that preventive measures should be considered as a routine part of environmental medicine can be implemented now in Stansted as part of the application by BAA to expand. A Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment are statutory, and a Health Impact Assessment virtually obligatory. Both should take this work of Stansfield and his co-workers into consideration as well as the German study carried out in a similar situation to Stansted, when considering the environmental effects of the old and the new Munich airport.

Is it desirable that any group of children should suffer for the doubtful economic benefits of an expanded airport, or even for the pleasure of those taking cheap flights. It should be possible to determine the environmental limits of all airports and keep them within a size that did not cause adverse effects on the health or educational development of the surrounding residents.

Pat Dale

Aeroplanes taking off at Brussels's Zaventem airport expose almost a third of the city's million inhabitants to noise levels above World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended levels every night, according to a new report.

Around 300,000 people are subjected to noise levels of 45 decibels (db) or more between 11pm and 7am, says the study, done by the Brussels regional environment agency. Protests against night flights last year led to courier firm DHL deciding to close its Zaventem headquarters in 2008 (ED 21/10/04).

Regional environment minister Evelyne Huytebroeck told Belgian daily Le Soir the report proved night flight complaints in Brussels were more than "caprice".

Martin Broughton, the chairman of British Airways, has joined rival airlines in threatening to call for a break-up of BAA if the airports operator pursues the idea of paying for a new runway and terminal at Stansted with levies on passengers at its Heathrow and Gatwick sites.

BAA is facing mounting criticism from numerous airlines for its suggestion that passengers at the two main airports serving the South-east should subsidise the proposed £4bn expansion of Stansted.

BA objects to the idea because it operates mainly out of Heathrow and Gatwick and does not want to subsidise the building of a new runway at Stansted, which will benefit the low cost airlines, such as Ryanair.

Mr Broughton, according to reports yesterday, said BA had the "nuclear option" of lending its weight to calls for a break-up of BAA, which owns all three southern airports.

A spokeswoman for BA said: "We haven't called for the immediate break-up of BAA, but if BAA pursues cross-subsidies to fund Stansted then we will have to look at all the options, including break-up. If that is the route they are going to go down, then we are not going to roll over. There will be opposition. This is a wake-up call."

BA's opposition to the idea of subsidies, and the threat of calling for a BAA break-up, follows similar comments on Tuesday from Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair.

Although Ryanair is based at Stansted, Mr O'Leary believes BAA's proposed £4bn expenditure on the upgrade is inflated. Ryanair, as the airport's main operator, fears it will be hit with the lion's share of the costs. He believes the project should cost about £400m, in line with the expansion of Manchester Airport.

The airlines, usually bitter competitors, stand united against BAA's idea. They intend to appeal to the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), whose rules make such subsidies illegal. But airline operators, such as Mr O'Leary, suspect the CAA may in future accept BAA's plans as part of a new regulatory regime due to be hammered out in an upcoming review. Mr O'Leary has said that he is willing to go to the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to stop BAA and will also use local planning procedures to block construction.

A spokesman for BAA said the company did not wish to get drawn into trading insults. But it has warned recently that the project to expand Stansted will be delayed if it has to be financed entirely by passengers using the Essex airport. The timetable for opening the second runway has slipped by a year, which means it will not be ready until 2013, it said. BAA has floated the idea of a levy on passengers at Heathrow and Gatwick of between 50p-£1 while also raising charges at Stansted.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union's emissions trading system could get a makeover in the future as officials prepare for a planned review, with potential changes ranging from new gases to a new system of allocating pollution rights.

But policy makers at the EU's executive Commission have expressed caution about making too many alterations to the still young scheme, which is the key part of the 25-nation bloc's efforts to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

EU carbon dioxide (C02) emissions trade officially launched in January. The scheme sets limits on the amount of C02 power plants and other installations can emit and allows them to buy or sell allowances -- basically the right to pollute -- if they overshoot or undercut their targets.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a climate change conference on Thursday the Commission would start its review shortly with a survey of participants in the scheme and would study adding new gases and sectors to it.

"I believe we should not have changes for changes sake, but consider the costs and benefits of the nature and timing of any rule change," Dimas said.

He said he believed the scheme could be fine-tuned without changing its legal framework. Adding new sectors or gases would require legal changes and take time.

The current scheme runs from 2005-2007. National allocation plans are due in mid-2006 for the next phase, which goes from 2008-2012. The Commission must approve the plans before they go into force. Only Greece's plan for the current phase has not yet been approved.

Aviation is one potential addition to the scheme, though Commission officials -- to the chagrin of environmental groups and even some airlines -- have said it would likely not make it in the scheme for the next phase, at least not at the beginning.

ALLOCATION WOES

Currently member states decide -- with Commission approval -- how to allocate allowances to industry, based on how much C02 installations have emitted in the past.

Industry insiders call that system "grandfathering" and some have called on the Commission to change the process to one where rights are auctioned off or decided based on efficiency or "benchmarking" standards, rather than previous emission records.

"We need to have a serious look at the way we allocate," Dimas said, adding he hoped member states would steer away from a tendency to want to interfere in the market.

"I believe the guiding philosophy for the second allocation plans should be simplicity rather than complexity and hands-off rather than special rules."

Currently the scheme covers about 12,000 installations in energy-intensive industries like oil refineries, steel plants and cement and paper factories.

Removing some of those would be one way of simplifying the system without drastically affecting the amount of emissions covered, one expert told Reuters.

"We should kick all the small installations out of the system," said Leonhard Birnbaum of consultancy McKinsey, which is conducting a review of the scheme for the Commission.

He estimated 80 percent of the installations accounted for only about 20 percent of emissions covered by the scheme.

Aggressive measures to curb greenhouse gas releases from the aviation sector are vital if the EU is to achieve the long-term cuts in climate emissions proposed by environment ministers, according to Friends of the Earth.

New figures produced for the group by the UK's Tyndall centre for climate change research calculated the effect of pursuing 60-80% emission cuts recommended by ministers earlier this year while leaving the air transport sector's emissions unregulated. Under this unlikely scenario, by 2050 aviation would consume the EU's entire "carbon budget".

FoE said the findings showed that a failure to act soon on aviation emissions would make it "politically impossible" to achieve the deep cuts necessary to stave off climate change.

The release of the report was timed to coincide with a conference on aviation and climate held as part of the European Commission's Green Week event. On Tuesday environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said incorporating aviation into emission trading was the most promising option to tackle the sector's climate impacts (ED 31/05/05) Environmentalists are not against the move but say it is insufficient.

Plans to revise and consolidate the EU's air quality framework law and its first three daughter directives will be the only immediate legislative proposals to emerge from a major new EU air pollution strategy due later this month, it has been revealed. The strategy is currently undergoing a final round of internal consultation within the European Commission.

Commission official Matti Vainio told a conference at the Green Week event in Brussels on Wednesday that the Clean air for Europe (Cafe) programme's first legal proposal would add to the European Commission's "better regulation" drive.

Merging the four existing laws would cut down on bureaucracy and paperwork, Mr Vainio said. Air quality limit values contained in the laws will not change. The fourth air quality daughter directive, which entered force only this year, is to be left out of the merger for now.

The package might introduce controls on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), however, despite uncertainties voiced by the EU's chief environmental science committee, Scher (ED 30/03/05) "Waiting won't take the problem away," Mr Vainio said. Cafe would probably advocate a two-phase strategy - first by requiring better monitoring of PM2.5 and then by setting air quality limits.

But the most controversial part of the Cafe package will be the ambition level that the Commission chooses to propose for reducing levels of five key air pollutants - sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and PM2.5 - by 2020.

The reduction objectives will not be formulated as binding targets, but the degree of ambition will be important since it will determine the range of targets set in future binding legislation - such as a revision of the national emission ceilings (NEC) directive which is due to culminate in draft proposals next year.

In the Cafe paper the Commission will set out three scenarios - A, B and C - which the EU might aim to achieve. Scenario A is the least ambitious, but would still yield substantial cuts in the five pollutants. The annual cost to the EU of meeting this scenario would amount to €5.9bn. The health benefits are put at a minimum of €37bn.

Meanwhile the most ambitious scenario - C - would generate €14.9bn costs and at least in €49bn health benefits. For all scenarios there would be additional, unquantified improvements in the health of ecosystems. The Commission has calculated that implementing any of the scenarios the costs would cause changes in economic and employment indices of only fractions of percentage points.

Mr Vainio suggested there might be a "sweet spot" between the B and C scenarios which would be acceptable to EU legislators. The environment directorate is known to be arguing internally to for an ambition level close to the C scenario.

Panellists at the conference gave a foretaste of the political lines that will be drawn once the Cafe proposals emerge. Kirsten Meyer of environmental coalition the EEB said the Commission's cost-benefit analysis gave a clear justification for aiming well beyond the C scenario. But Peter Tjan of oil producers' trade body Europia said substantial benefits could be garnered at much lower cost by aiming below the A scenario. Some assumptions and models used to calculate the scenarios could be wrong, he said.

OUR COMMENT: Note the intention to include the smallest particles (PM2.5) in any new legislation - BAA will need to rethink their refusal to include PM2.5 in their assessment programme for Stansted.

Pat Dale

Airport bosses have admitted that their single runway can easily cope with increasing demand for another 8 years. The admission came as BAA Stansted's managing director Terry Morgan officially confirmed that they could not meet the 2011-2012 government deadline for having a second runway in use.

He told a meeting of the Stansted Airport Consultative Committee last week that the earliest BAA could lodge a planning application was 2007.

The reason for the delay on the original schedule set down by the transport minister Alistair Darling in the Aviation White Paper to have the second runway in operation by 2012 was that "it is taking longer than we though to get the road and rail infrastructure right".

Essex County Council planning spokesman, Councillor Peter Martin, extended the delay even further. After project manager Alistair McDermid said he believed the year 2013 was "very challenging" though a realistic date to open the second runway, an unsurprised Cllr Martin said: "With these delays it is clearly sensible to look again at relative timetables."

"Latest passenger forecasts for Stansted show that even by 2014 the single runway will continue to provide adequate capacity."

Mr McDermid assured the committee: "The need for a second runway remains, but unfortunately work will take a little longer. There is a risk it will go back further in time because of the planning process."

Councillor Martin said: "This news will come as no surprise to those of us who have been invoved in the planning issues around Stansted."

The White Paper said that because of problems at Heathrow, which may take time to resolve, another runway at Stansted should be developed first. News of the delay was welcomed by Peter Sanders, chairman of the pressure group Stop Stansted Expansion.

OUR COMMENT: We suggest that it will never be possible to get the road and rail infrastructure right for traffic generated by a second runway. Present congestion on road and rail at peak times needs attention first. Increaing capacity to meet the needs of up to 80 mppa, as well as John Prescott's extra houses would involve a major expansion of the M11 and the One Railway into Liverpool Street. Who is going to pay for it?

Pat Dale

Stansted Airport's runway is full to capacity at peak times and a second runway is needed as soon as possible, says airport manager Terry Morgan. He was speaking following the announcement last week that the second runway could be delayed by a year to 2013 because of the need to get road, rail and planning strategies in place.

Mr Morgan denied claims by Stop Stansted Expansion that the slow down in growth and the airport's dependence on low cost airlines would lead to funding difficulties for a second runway.

He said: "We are still saying that we will reach our current runway capacity of 35 mppa by 2014 or 2015".

He said that personally he would like the runway to be built before 2013 and added: "The need for a second runway is not disappearing into the future. It is needed as soon as it can possibly be done. We are still growing but we always knew we could not keep growing at 20% per annum as we did in the late 1990s. We always expected that the growth rate would slow down to 4 or 5% which is the normal growth rate for the industry. Part of the reason for the slowing down is that we are filling up and capacity is now full at peak times"…

The report continues with more.

Airport bosses have admitted plans for a second runway at Stansted could still hit further hitches. But the top brass denied that plans would be grounded by threats to pull out by their two biggest customers, Ryanair and easyJet. Instead, it was the "vagaries" of the planning system it feared most.

The report continues to explain the difficulties with providing infrastructure but Terry Morgan is at pains to make it clear that while BAA was happy to pay for work on the infrastructure associated with its development, it should not pay for the extra provision associated with the East of England draft Regional Plan.

OUR COMMENT: Has everyone forgotten that we do have a Planning System in force? Both plans for expansion of the present runway traffic and for a second runway have to satisfy the present Planning Law and that includes a Sustainability Appraisal. BAA should remember that the Aviation White Paper is not an Act of Parliament. Neither is a policy of continued air traffic expansion.

Pat Dale

Europe's top two low-cost airlines have joined forces to condemn Stansted Airport's four billion pound second runway plans.

Ryanair and easyJet, which account for nearly three quarters of all flights from the airport, were responding to BAA's announcement that aircraft landing charges will have to go up between 50p and one pound a time, and that Heathrow and Gatwick passengers would pay a surcharge to cover the costs.

EasyJet chief operating officer Ed Winter urged the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that BAA built according to what its users could afford.

"Before sensible low airport charges attracted the likes of easyJet to Stansted, it was little more than a white elephant in an Essex field with a single runway" he said. "BAA seems determined to make it a white elephant in an Essex field with two runways."

And David O'Brien, director of operations for Ryanair said: "The proposals by the BAA airport monopoly to blow 4 billion pounds on a second runway is just the latest example of the gold-plating rip-off of consumers practised by the BAA monopoly. The ordinary passengers should not be forced to pay higher fares just to finance another BAA Taj Mahal."

But speaking at a press conference last Thursday, Terry Morgan, managing director of Stansted Airport was upbeat. "We are confident that by 2014-2015 the London area will need another runway, otherwise the economy could be compromised."

"We shall soon know what we can charge the airlines through regulatory process by 2006 and know what planning permissions we have".

It might be cheap, but it's going to cost the earth. The cut-price airline ticket is fuelling a boom that will make countering global warming impossible.

The tens of thousands of Britons jetting off on cheap flights this weekend have been given graphic reminders by leading green groups that the huge surge in mass air travel is becoming one of the biggest causes of climate change.

Unless the boom in cheap flights is halted, say Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, Britain and other countries will simply not be able to meet targets for cutting back on the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that are causing the atmosphere to warm, with potentially disastrous consequences.

In spelling out what is for most people - and for many politicians - a very uncomfortable truth, they are echoing the warnings of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee.

The scientists of the former and the MPs of the latter have set out in detail how the soaring growth in CO2 emissions from aircraft that the cheap flights bonanza is promoting will do terrible damage to the atmosphere and make a nonsense of global warming targets, such as Britain's stated aim of cutting CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

British emissions of C02 from aircraft, expressed in millions of tons of carbon, shot up from 4.6 million tons in 1990 to 8.8 million tons in 2000. But based on predicted air passenger transport growth figures - from 180 million passengers per year today to 476 million passengers per year by 2030 - they are expected to rise to 17.7 million tons in 2030.

Aircraft emissions that go directly into the stratosphere have more than twice the global warming effect of emissions from cars and power stations at ground level and, based on the Government's own calculations, the effect of the 2030 emissions will be equivalent to 44.3 million tons of carbon - 45 per cent of Britain's expected emissions total at that date.

That growth alone, the environmental audit committee says, will make Britain's 60 per cent CO2 reduction target "meaningless and unachievable". The clash of interests cannot be ducked any more, say the green groups. "The convenience we enjoy in covering huge distances in a short time is one of the fast-growing threats to life on earth," said Tony Juniper, the executive director of Friends of the Earth.

"Aviation is an increasing source of climate-changing pollution and we must take steps to curb it now. Planes pump out eight times more carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a train. A return flight to Australia will release as much carbon dioxide as all the heating, light and cooking for a house for a year."

Blake Lee-Harwood, campaigns director for Greenpeace, said: "The simple fact is the boom in cheap air travel cannot be reconciled with the survival of those things we most value about the planet, and will ultimately kill millions of people.

"The only way to stop the problem is to reduce our flying. We just have to accept public transport and highly efficient cars are the only kinds of routine transport we can sensibly use, and air travel is just for special occasions. We may not like that hard truth but we don't have a choice."

The green groups feel the only solution is to cut back on demand by forcing prices up, especially as commercial aviation has long benefited from a very easy tax regime. In other words, people will have to be "priced off planes" and the cheap flights bonanza will have to end.

Bizarrely, the Government is facing in two directions at once. In the 2003 energy White Paper, it committed itself to tackling climate change and announced its 60 per cent CO2 target. But in the aviation White Paper later that year, it promised to facilitate the expected mass increase in air traffic, if necessary by providing several new runways to cope with increased demand.

There is no sign of the two positions being reconciled by Tony Blair. Yesterday, it appeared the leaders of the G8 group of nations, set to put climate change at the top of the agenda at this summer's G8 meeting in Scotland which Tony Blair will chair, are also flunking the issue. A leaked draft of a climate change communiqué showed they were promising more research into the effects of aircraft emissions, but shying away from any commitment to raise ticket prices.

One of the leading advocates of an emissions trading scheme for airlines is among a group of UK business leaders who wrote to Tony Blair yesterday calling for a "step change" in efforts to tackle climate change. Mike Clasper, the chief executive of BAA, has been the aviation industry's most outspoken supporter of the idea of forcing airlines to pay for excessive carbon emissions, even though it could be financially damaging to many of his customers.

Mr Clasper and 12 other senior businessmen say companies are deterred from investing in low carbon technologies because of the lack of long-term government policies and concern that their international competitiveness will be harmed.

Other signatories to the letter include the chairman of HSBC bank, Sir John Bond, the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, Sir Stuart Hampson and the chief executive of Scottish Power, Ian Russell.

The facts about flying

* Air travel produces 19 times the greenhouse gas emissions of trains; and 190 times that of a ship.

* Aviation could contribute 15 per cent of greenhouse gases each year if unchecked.

* Greenhouse gas emissions caused by UK air travel have doubled in the past 13 years, from 20.1m tons in 1990 to 39.5m tons in 2004.

* During the same period emissions from UK cars rose by 8m tons, to 67.8m tons.

* One return flight to Florida produces the equivalent CO2 of a year's average motoring.

* Emissions at altitude have 2.7 times the environmental impact of those on the ground.

* Air travel is growing at UK airports at an average of 4.25 per cent. In 1970, 32 million flew from UK airports; in 2002, 189 million. By 2030 some 500 million passengers may pass through UK airports.

* Cargo transportation is growing by 7 per cent a year. In 1970, 580,000 tons of freight were moved by plane; in 2002, 2.2 million tons. It is forecast to reach 5 million tons in 2010.

* 50 per cent of the UK population flew at least once in 2001.

* Flying 1kg of asparagus from California to the UK uses 900 times more energy than the home-grown equivalent.

Air Quality around Stansted airport is to be monitored by a panel of six "internationally distinguished" experts. The details of the ongoing scientific scrutiny were announced by managing director Terry Morgan on Friday.

Addressing the airport's first air quality seminar, he said that it was committed to understanding and addressing the effects of its business so had voluntarily commissioned a Health Impact Assessment study.

BAA has set it up in partnership with Essex Strategic Health Authority. It will run alongside an "independent topic working group "of local experts who will review the findings.

Mr Morgan said: "Assessments by the local authority of air quality around the airport show that standards are well within objectives set by the government and EU. These results are supported by independent verification."

He pledged to control emissions. "It is in our interest and that of thr local community that the relevant people work together to keep the air quality as good as it is now and I hope the seminar will act as a catalyst for this."

Nearly 70 representatives of local government, environmental groups and NHS Trusts were invited. It also considered global climate change.

OUR COMMENT: BAA are to be congratulated on arranging this seminar which provided an excellent resume of the importance of good air quality, the legislation and how BAA consultants intended to measure and calculate the concentrations of harmful emissions, from both vehicles and aircraft as well as the airport buildings, in the air around Stansted airport.

However, information was somewhat scarce on actual measurements made by BAA itself - when BAA received permission to expand to 25 mppa one of the conditions was that a comprehensive monitoring system would be established for nitrogen dioxide, one of the more irritating emissions liable to affect heart and lung sufferers. We were shown only six results of satisfactory annual means measured during the last 6 months at 5 different points on the airport near the boundary. Five of these were from diffusion tubes which, it was claimed, were regularly recording values that were too high in comparison with the more accurate real time monitoring machine at High House.

While it is true that these tubes are not so accurate the degree of inaccuracy, whether up or down, needs to be carefully assessed together with the processing laboratory. As the assumed reduction in levels made a significant difference in the results we felt that more measurements, more information on the exact position of the tubes and more explanations of the validity of the corrections will be essential if a full and relaiable survey of the airport is to be carried out. It has to be remembered that initial predictions for 25 mppa forecast that there would be exceedances. Stansted has never had the attention that Heathrow has had and has yet to produce a similar comprehensive policy and monitoring plan.

It must also be remembered that the Health Impact Assessment is intended to investigate as to whether any of the other adverse environmental effects of an airport - noise, increased traffic and urbanisation, odour and kerosene and nitrogen deposition, as well as air quality, have affected the health, quality of life, and educational attainments of local residents.

Pat Dale

The conflict over long-term plans to build a third runway at Heathrow, already the world's busiest international airport, will intensify today with the launch of a pro-expansion lobby group, Future Heathrow.

The campaign is to be led by Clive Soley, the former west London Labour MP and a former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, who stepped down at the general election and was awarded a peerage a few days later.

Its launch follows doubts last week over the economic case for building a second runway at London Stansted airport: the government's favoured first move for expanding airport capacity in the highly congested south-east of England.

The lobby group has been formed by UK and foreign airlines operating at Heathrow including British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and BMI British Midland, and business and labour groups including the CBI, the London Chamber of Commerce, three leading trades unions - Amicus, the GMB and the TGWU - as well as the TUC.

The Future Heathrow initiative was attacked yesterday by environmental and local residents groups, which disputed that without a third runway and a sixth terminal the future of the airport was threatened by continental European hubs led by Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt.

The government white paper on aviation policy, published in December 2003, called for the building of a third runway at Heathrow between 2015 and 2020, but only if it could meet tough environmental conditions: in particular one on air quality, which will become mandatory under a European directive that comes into force in 2010.

However, the Heathrow area already fails to meet the 2010 air quality targets; much of the pollution is caused b