SSE NEWS ARCHIVE - July to September 2006

"Global warming is the greatest long-term threat to our planet's environment. Scarce energy resources mean rising prices and will threaten our country's economy. In 15 years we will go from 80% self-sufficient in oil and gas to 80% imported."

"We need therefore the most radical overhaul of energy policy since the War. We will increase the amount of energy from renewable sources fivefold; ensure every major business in the country has a responsibility for greenhouse gas reduction; treble investment in clean technology, including clean coal; and make sure every new home is at least 40% more energy efficient."

"We will meet our Kyoto targets by double the amount; and we will take the necessary measures, step by step by step, to meet one of the most ambitious targets on the environment set anywhere in the world - a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050."

Mr Blair wants to treble investment in clean technology. He has pledged to make the environment a focus of his last months in office with "the most radical overhaul of energy policy since WW2".

He says energy from renewable sources will rise fivefold, investment in clean technology trebled and every new home will be at least 40% energy efficient.

In his last speech to Labour delegates he said the UK will meet its Kyoto targets by double the amount pledged. He also says he wants to see a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement setting targets for industrialised countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

OUR COMMENT: Aviation?

Pate Dale

Labour yesterday attempted to reclaim the green agenda by seeking to reverse the decline in bus use and investing £10m to provide enough renewable energy to meet the domestic demands of Norwich, Oxford, Exeter and Newcastle combined.

The transport sevretary, Douglas Alexander, promised councils fresh powers over bus services, partly undoing Margaret Thatcher's deregulation of the industry, while David Miliband vowed to unlock hundreds of millions of pounds of private funding by partnering energy schemes which will provide enough electricity to serve 250,000 homes.

The environment secretary also called for "a stronger European Union on the environment, not a weaker one".

Bug ministers shied away from the radical proposals Ken Livingstone offered – adding a £10 - £15 carbon tax to every plane ticket and rolling out water metering.

The mayor of London predicted green issues would dominate the next election, perhaps to the alarm of his party, which is regarded as less environmentally sound than the Lib Dems and the Tories.

"Aviation has got to be brought right to the centre of this debate", Mr Livingstone told delegates. But the subject was barely mentioned in ministerial speeches yesterday.

A Labour insider said: "The trouble with aviation is that the technology is not there yet. We are not going to stop people going on holiday."

Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth warned: "Many of the government's initiatives coming forward are broadly positive, but they are utterly insufficient to match the scale of the problem. Aviation is one of the most glaring omissions in policy terms."

Sir Richard Branson called on airlines to take greater responsibility for global warming yesterday, but his plea to slash fuel emissions by a quarter received a lukewarm response from some corners of the green lobby and the aviation industry.

The chairman of Virgin Atlantic followed up his pledge to spend 3b dollars on renewable energy by proposing an industry forum dedicated to reducing aviation's contribution to climate change. Carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft account for 2% of the global total and are expected to reach 15% by 2050.

In a letter to aviation executives, Sir Richard said: "We need to accelerate the pace at which we reduce aviation's impact on the environment."

Sir Richard said these emissions could be cut by a quarter by 2008 if the industry adopts environmentally friendly practices such as towing aircraft to starting grids close to runways in order to save fuel, changing landing approaches and unifying Europe's 35 air traffic control systems under one body to shorten flight routes. Gatwick airport has offered to run a trial of the starting grid concept.

Sir Richard said the measures should be overseen by a new global body: "Airlines, airports, air traffic controllers and governments should seize these initiatives."

However, Richard Dyer, aviation campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said Virgin should drop any support for new runways at Stansted and Heathrow airports. "The growth in emissions from airport expansion will outweigh any improvements he has suggested."

Mr Dyer said many of the proposals announced yesterday are already being considered or have been adopted. British Airways pilots have used a fuel saving landing technique known as continuous descent approach for the past 10 years. The proposals also fail to address take offs and high altitude flying, when passenger jets emit the most carbon, he said.

British Airways, Virgin's main rival in the transatlantic market, said it was committed to tackling climate change but was "puzzled" by Virgin's call for a new body to deal with the issue. Sustainable Aviation, an industry body dedicated to making flying more environmentally friendly was established last year with Virgin's help, said a BA spokesman.

"Virgin has played a big part in launching Sustainable Aviation. We recognise this is a big issue and all commitments to action are welcome. But we are puzzled as to why Virgin are looking to launch another body a year after they helped to launch Sustainable Aviation."

EasyJet welcomed the Virgin proposals and said its chairman was the "right person" to lead action on emissions.

Sir Richard also called for governments to take action against the aviation industry if necessary. "If the industry does not get its act together then governments should impose some of these things."

He admitted some of the proposals repeated existing ideas, but said the industry had failed to act on them so far. "Not enough has been done about it. Nor is there a sense of urgency out there to do something about it."

OUR COMMENT: Any action by the industry is to be welcomed. If action is to be effective, then inevitably it will be realised that ever increasing numbers of flights cannot be accommodated in any scheme designed to reduce emissions. There has to be a limit to expansion in the west, recognising that the third world must be allowed room for development.

Pat Dale

The world would have to give up only one year's economic growth over the next four decades to reduce carbon emissions sufficiently to stave off the threat of global warming, a report says today.

Consultants at PricewaterhouseCoopers offer a "green growth plus" strategy, combining energy efficiency, greater use of renewables and carbon capture to cut emissions by 60% by 2050 from the level reached by doing nothing. Nuclear energy, it says, can play a role, but it is not crucial.

This scenario, which involves little real sacrifice in terms of economic growth, could be achieved only if embarked upon without delay, the report warns.

"If countries adopt a 'business as usual' approach, the result could be a more than doubling of global carbon emissions by 2050," said John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at PwC.

"Our analysis suggests that there are technologically feasible and relatively low cost options for controlling carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Estimates suggest that the level of GDP might be reduced by no more than 2-3% in 2050 if this strategy is followed."

PwC envisages the Group of Seven leading economies taking the initiative, cutting their emissions by about half by 2050, while the fast-growing E7 countries - China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey - could still increase their emissions by 30% over the period.

"If this is to be achieved it will take further concerted action by governments, businesses and individuals over a broad range of measures to boost energy efficiency, adopt a greener fuel mix and introduce carbon capture and storage technologies in power plants and other major industrial facilities," Mr Hawksworth said.

The report says a combination of all these measures will be necessary to stabilise global CO2 levels at 450 parts per million, the figure scientific opinion judges to be broadly acceptable.

The PwC projections see China overtaking the United States as the world's biggest emitter of CO2 by 2010 while total E7 emissions would be more than double G7 emissions by 2050, with the "big three" - China, the US and India - accounting for just over half, up from 45% today.

The European Union could cut its share of global emissions to under 9% by 2050 from 15% now, while Britain's should fall to 1% from 2%, it said.

A shift to a much less carbon-intensive fuel mix would more than double the current non-fossil fuel primary energy share to about 30% by 2050. That alone would be sufficient to reduce carbon emissions by 25%. PwC's view that renewables could do the job without having to use nuclear technology could undermine Tony Blair's argument that atomic power is crucial.

Increasing energy efficiency gains to 2.6% a year from today's 1.6% would reduce emissions by a third, while carbon capture and storage - pumping power station emissions into disused gas fields underground - could achieve a further 20%.

OUR COMMENT: No suggestions as to the special problem of aviation, with no possibility of carbon capture or alternative fuels – BUT presumably aviation would be expected to also abandon expansion plans….

Pat Dale

Stansted Airport expansion could still be decided this month

PRESSURE group Stop Stansted Expansion has called on Uttlesford District Council (UDC) to stick to its original deadline for making a recommendation on the airport's expansion plans.

UDC announced last week that it had deferred its decision from September 27 to November at the earliest and accused BAA and other organisations of delaying the decision.

SSE believes the council's development control committee should be given a recommendation by the end of this month as originally planned to avoid prolonging uncertainty in the community.

And if BAA cannot give the council all of the information it has requested, SSE said the application should be refused now.

A SSE spokesman said: "BAA submitted its planning application in April but failed to provide much of the information requested by the council. This included an analysis of the full environmental impacts in such areas as climate change, noise and road and rail impacts through to 2030."

"BAA also failed to comply with the council's request for a quality of life survey and full master plan for the airport."

"We have written formally to UDC, quoting the government planning guidelines which state that if the developer fails to provide enough information to complete the environmental statement, the application can be determined only by refusal."

Calling upon the council to refuse the application, SSE chairman Peter Sanders said: "BAA has had ample opportunity to provide adequate information and has plainly failed to do so. We therefore urge the council to adhere to its original well publicised and clearly defined timetable for dealing with this application and to reach a decision by September 27."

A spokesman for UDC said they would not comment on the issue further until the planning committee meets on September 27.

BAA said it had not received formal notification of the extra information UDC requires from them, but that they would seek to provide the data as quickly as possible.

A spokesman said: "We welcome the fact that UDC are still looking to determine the application."

"We, like them, would like a firm decision as swiftly as possible to remove any uncertainty this delay may cause for the local community."

OUR COMMENT: Regrettably, unlikely, as it appears that a failure, not only by BAA, but also by the Highways Agency and the Rail Authorities to provide all the necessary information means that a full consideration of all the issues is impossible. We await the deliberations!

Pat Dale

The European parliament has angered the European commission and environmentalists by watering down key aspects of proposed new air quality EU legislation.  MEPs gave their first reading position on the directive in Strasbourg on Tuesday.

The air quality directive streamlines existing legislation and introduces new controls on ultra-fine particles under 2.5 microns (PM2.5) in the framework of last year's Cafe air quality strategy.  The parliament called for even more ambitious levels of protection, but failed to follow its own lead, the commission complained.

MEPs voted to allow member states to postpone compliance with existing limit values on air pollutants for up to four years beyond 2010.  For PM2.5 and already regulated PM10 particles, they added an extra two years under certain conditions.  EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas retorted that he could not accept extensions of more than five years.

Parliament weakened a proposed PM10 daily limit value of 50 ug/m3 by voting to increase the number of times it could be exceeded from 35 to 55 days per year.

The assembly also called for a new PM2.5 limits due to enter force in 2010 to be made non-binding until 2015.  It also called for member states to have greater flexibility over a requirement to reduce PM2.5 pollution by 20% between 2008-12 and 2020.

The vote was criticised by the European commission, which argued that it would delay implementation and expose populations to "excessive and avoidable" pollution levels.

The parliament did strengthen certain aspects of the legislation.  It called for an annual limit value for PM10 to be reduced from 40 ug/m3 to 33 ug/m3, and for the EU to aim for maximum 20 ug/m3 PM2.5 rather than 25 ug/m3, even while postponing a legal requirement for this goal to be respected.

Environmental group EEB called these changes "largely cosmetic".  "It looks good on paper but it won't do much in reality," said air pollution policy officer Kerstin Meyer.

On other aspects of the legislation, the parliament demanded measures targeting pollution at source in future proposals to help member states meet air quality limits, including the inclusion of 20 to 50 MW combustion plants in the IPPC directive and stricter Euro 6 standards for heavy vehicles.

MEPs also adopted a non-legislative resolution on the Cafe air quality strategy, in which they called for a long-term target for PM2.5 of 10 ug/m3 in line with recommendations from the World health organisation (WHO). They also demanded more ambitious targets for a number of pollutants including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine particles and nitrogen dioxide (NOx).

OUR COMMENT: While the EU Parliament votes do not determine what finally happens, it has a direct relevance to the Stansted airport application. BAA themselves have admitted that the new statutory levels for PM10 will be exceeded at 35 mppa and even maybe at 25 mppa. Also, that PM 2.5, the finest particles will be near the permitted level if they are included in the regulations. They dismiss this by referring to the attempts that have been made to remove the proposed lower levels. They also claim that because PM10 particles are emitted mostly by vehicles then this is irrelevant to the expansion of an airport. A surprising claim bearing in mind the number of airport bound vehicles pass through our local roads every day and night! However, even if the lower statutory levels are postponed for a few years they are still going to be enforced during the development period of runway 1 and the proposed runway 2. Expansion cannot be allowed if regulatory standards will be breached, so says the Aviation White Paper itself – so, what about it BAA?

Pat Dale

Sir Richard Branson joined the growing ranks of global warming activists yesterday by committing $3bn (£1.6bn) to tackle climate change. The billionaire pledged all profits from his Virgin air and rail interests over the next 10 years to combating rising global temperatures. However, the estimated $3bn will not go to charities and will be invested in a new branch of Sir Richard's ever-expanding Virgin conglomerate, Virgin Fuels. Much of the investment will focus on biofuels, an alternative to oil-based fuels made from plants.

The government has ordered petrol stations in the UK to source 5% of their fuel from renewable energy by 2010, one of several lucrative opportunities for biofuel producers such as Virgin.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "This is an extremely generous offer. The prime minister met Richard Branson and other business leaders in California in the summer and came back very impressed with the positive steps all the companies were taking to reduce their impact on global warming. The UK is already leading the way in Europe in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to press for an international agreement to control global emissions in the long run."

The Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, Chris Huhne, called it an "extraordinarily generous and imaginative gesture on Sir Richard's part".

Sir Richard may find some attempts to run his aircraft on biofuels struggle to take off. In 2000, scientists at Imperial College said that bioethanol was not suitable and could be dangerous. Small amounts of biodiesel could be mixed into existing aircraft fuel, kerosene, but critics say its green credentials have been exaggerated. Biodiesel is prepared from plants such as rape seed, and is supposed to be carbon-neutral because the carbon emitted when it is burned to release energy was absorbed from the atmosphere while the plant grew.

But recent studies have shown the greenhouse gains are much smaller than assumed. Making the fertilisers and pesticides needed to grow the crop takes large amounts of energy, as does processing it into fuel. Others say the amount of land required to grow crops on a sufficient scale could increase deforestation.

In an editorial, this week's New Scientist magazine says: "We cannot grow our way out of the twin crises of climate change and energy security. There is a real danger of creating a biofuels bubble that will burst, leaving behind a pungent whiff of chip-fat oil, burning rainforests and rotting fields."

Mike Childs, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, welcomed Sir Richard's commitment but said his air interests were part of the problem: "The fast growth in air flights cannot be maintained without causing climatic disaster. The government needs to introduce a climate change law and stop the expansion of airports, tax air fuel and encourage business to invest in more sustainable alternatives."

Virgin made its first investment in so-called green fuels this month by injecting $60m into Cilion, a California-based venture that plans to make bioethanol from corn and to construct seven refineries by 2009. Virgin Trains is switching its diesel-powered trains to biodiesel and the group also plans to develop a biofuel for planes. A spokesman for the group said wave and wind technology would also be considered as alternatives to petrol: "Even nuclear power is not out of the question."

Virgin's environmentally friendly transport plans extend into space. The Virgin Galactic service, which plans to transport tourists, aspires to be the most fuel-efficient space launch system developed. However, environmental campaigners say Virgin Galactic serves no practical purpose and is even more environmentally damaging than passenger jet travel.

Speaking at a news conference for Bill Clinton's Clinton Global Initiative organisation in New York yesterday, Sir Richard said adults had a duty to pass on a "pristine" planet to the next generation: "We have to wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels. Our generation has the knowledge, it has the financial resources and as importantly it has the willpower to do so."

Airlines are coming under increasing pressure to account for their contribution to climate change, with the aviation industry expected to account for 15% of manmade global warming by 2015. Air transport was exempted from the Kyoto protocol on climate change, provided that airlines sought a way to reduce emissions through a trading scheme by 2007. With that deadline fast approaching and no agreement in sight, the prospect of taxes on aviation fuel or airline travel is becoming more realistic.

The industry strongly opposes new taxation and argues that its contribution to carbon dioxide emissions is comparatively small, accounting for around 2% of global emissions currently. Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways, said recently that governments were in danger of exaggerating the environmental threat posed by airlines: "The notion that flying is a selfish, antisocial activity that single-handedly threatens planetary catastrophe bears no relation to the evidence."

FAQ

Where is the money coming from? Can Sir Richard Branson afford $3bn?
Unpicking the gordian knot of the Virgin empire's finances is notoriously difficult. Sir Richard's transport interests generated dividends and profits of around $215m (£113m) last year, of which around $100m went to Virgin. So he can probably generate around $1bn over the next decade.

So where will the rest come from?
Sir Richard is about to launch the Virgin America airline in the US and he will pledge all profits from sales of shares in his assets. For example, Virgin Trains is being lined up for flotation. With the growth from his existing businesses, he hopes to reach the $3bn. Nonetheless, monitoring Virgin Group's progress will be difficult.

How can he run his businesses if he is giving away profits?
Sir Richard is not frittering away $3bn. He is investing the cash in his renewable energy business, Virgin Fuel. Its first investment, in a Californian biofuel business, is a hard-nosed business decision from which Virgin expects to make a return. The same rule applies to the $3bn investment over the next 10 years.

What else could Sir Richard do to help the environment?
Some environmentalists would say that Virgin's most positive contribution would be to quit air travel altogether. The airline industry is fighting proposals to tax aviation fuel. At the very least, the industry expects to be signed up to an emissions trading scheme.

Do experts approve of biofuels?
Scientists are not yet convinced biofuels are a genuine solution to global warming. Although they are considered carbon neutral, because the carbon they release when burned was absorbed from the atmosphere while they grew, there are concerns about emissions produced during farming and processing crops.

The mock statement claims the rules need not stop development

Binding targets to reduce CO2 emissions should be included in regional planning rules, campaigners are to say in a "mock" climate change policy statement.

They will also call for local development plans to help communities deal with flood risks.

In March, a government report said Britain would be unlikely to meet its 2010 target to cut emissions by 20%.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, also supports using coercive measure to cut global warming.

Former environment secretary Margaret Beckett previously stressed that the government had not given up on its 20% goal but she conceded more needed to be done.

Call for changes in planning rules will be made in a statement to be delivered by Friends of the Earth and the Town and Country Planning Association.

Friends of the Earth campaigner on planning Hugh Ellis said: "As well as a new climate law called for in our Big Ask campaign, tough new rules are needed to reduce the impact that regional and local developments have on climate change." The statement also calls for the active promotion of low and zero carbon development.

America's most populous state, California, opened a new front in its struggle with climate change yesterday when it announced that it was suing the six largest carmakers in the US for allegedly contributing to global warming.

In the unprecedented lawsuit, the state accused Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan of creating a "public nuisance" and costing it millions of dollars. Environmental campaigners hailed the lawsuit as a landmark event in the effort to deal with global warming.

The suit, filed in a US district court in northern California, alleges that vehicle emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, and argues that the car manufacturers should be held responsible for the past and future cost of combating this crisis.

"Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health," said the state's Democratic attorney general, Bill Lockyer, who filed the complaint. "The impacts are costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing ... It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."

California is the largest car market in the US, with more than 2m new vehicles registered every year, compared with about 2.5m for the entire UK. Car sales in the state totalled $83bn (£44bn) in 2005 according to the Automobile Alliance, an industry group representing carmakers. The 29m registered vehicles in the state drive a total of 320bn miles in the year.

The complaint further argues that monitoring and addressing the effects of global warming has cost the state millions of dollars. "Global warming has already injured California, its environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens," the complaint states, adding that dealing with global warming's harmful effects in the future, "will almost certainly cost millions more".

Roda Verheyen, co-director of Friends of the Earth's Climate Justice Programme, welcomed the development, saying: "This was a case waiting to happen. It is the most significant piece of climate change litigation that has ever been brought."

Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming programme, said the lawsuit built on initiatives taken by California and other states: "While the Bush administration continues to burrow its head in the sand, California has taken out a whole arsenal to combat emissions."

He said California's boldness stemmed in part from the attitude of its governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has been outspoken in his determination to combat global warming.

The Automobile Alliance in a statement said car manufacturers were already working to produce more fuel-efficient cars. Arguing that it needed more time to study the complaint, it noted that a similar suit, which saw energy companies sued on public nuisance grounds, had failed. "Using nuisance suits to address global warming would involve the courts in deciding political questions beyond their jurisdiction," the alliance said. "This opens the door to lawsuits targeting any activity that uses fossil fuel for energy."

The lawsuit comes as California aggressively pursues a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. A law passed in 2004 will force carmakers to reduce carbon dioxide exhaust emissions by 30%. That measure is currently being challenged by car manufacturers.

Last month the California state legislature approved a measure to force utilities to cut emissions, and the state has sued the federal government for failing to address the effects of global warming.

Climate change sceptics, once a thriving species, will soon be extinct. The overwhelming majority of scientific opinion recognises that global warming is a reality and that humankind is responsible. As a result of carbon compounds emitted into the atmosphere the world, on its current trajectory, will get up to six degrees hotter this century, with drastic consequences.

One example: the Arctic ice sheet receded by 280,000 square miles between 2004-2005. At that rate the North Pole will be ice-free in the lifetime of many of us. The oceans will rise faster than even pessimistic environmental campaigners have feared.

Apocalyptic pictures can sap the will to take urgent action. But there are grounds for optimism. First, we know what the problem is. Global warming has not been visited upon us like a biblical plague. We are able to cut the amount of carbon we produce. It may be politically complex, but it is scientifically possible. Second, the political obstacles are fewer than they were even a year ago. In Britain, environmental debate is mainstream.

The Liberal Democrats, whose conference runs this week, deserve the most credit for a long-standing commitment to the environment. They have detailed green policies and deserve credit for their honesty in identifying the most effective instrument for bringing about change - the tax regime.

David Cameron has made the Tory party a late but zealous convert to the environmental cause and for this he, too, deserves credit. His photogenic Arctic explorations and enthusiasm for cycling have been dismissed by rivals as stunts, but the net effect has been to up the ante among all parties in the competition to be greenest. This is no bad thing.

Labour's record is mixed. Britain is on track to meet its targets on carbon emission under the Kyoto Protocol, but the government has abandoned the more stringent targets it set itself. Tony Blair fought to put environmental issues on the agenda when he chaired the G8 summit last year, but international accord to cut emissions is barely closer as a result.

There is no denying the awkwardness of decisions governments have to make on energy provision. They often reflect tangled arguments within the environmental movement. Nuclear power stations, for example, may not contribute as much as coal burning to global warming, but the waste is still toxic.

However, complexity is not an excuse for inaction. Devising realistic policies always requires a trade-off between lesser and greater evils. Britain needs new nuclear power stations. This is the only way to provide the volume of power that the country needs at an environmental cost that is, relatively speaking, manageable.

Similarly, stifling the cheap flight boom will hit tourism. But the effect of carbon emitted at altitude by thousands of planes criss-crossing the globe is too great to ignore. Aviation fuel, currently untaxed, must have a green levy put on it. Only when airlines come under financial pressure will they look in earnest for alternative ways to fuel flying.

Meanwhile, major investment is needed in alternative energies such as tidal and wind power and in carbon capture and storage. Planning regulations need to be completely rewritten so that new houses and businesses are developed to emit less carbon. Such steps have already been taken in Northern Ireland, as Secretary of State Peter Hain writes in today's Observer

Road use can no longer be free. While some rural drivers depend on their cars, many journeys are not necessary. Their environmental impact should be recognised in tolls.

These are not perfect policies, but they could make a positive difference to all of us. And that, surely, is what the political parties drawing up plans in conferences over the next three weeks, should be trying to do.

It may not be a Big Idea but Sir Menzies "Ming" Campbell, whose first party conference as Liberal Democrat leader began yesterday, has some good ideas about tax. He wants to abandon his party's long-held commitment to a 50% top rate of income tax and cut the tax burden on low and middle-income earners, including a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax, mainly making up the lost revenue through environmental taxes.

Assuming he can get it through the Lib Dems' Brighton conference this week the party will distribute a million leaflets to homes, highlighting "The Green Switch" that it would bring in if it ever got close to power.

Green politics is a fertile area for opposition parties, as David Cameron has discovered, to the point of redrawing the Tory party's logo. But while the Conservatives have a self-imposed omerta on serious discussions about using the tax system to advance a green agenda, the Lib Dems are making the running.

Not all aspects of Sir Ming's plans add up; local income tax and and locally set business rates will cause some concern. Reversing some of Gordon Brown's capital gains tax reforms - one of the few positives on tax from his chancellorship - could hit entrepreneurs.

But the broad thrust of the tax plan, to cut taxes on income, while increasing taxation on what economists call "bads", in this case things that damage the environment, makes sense. Voters will not necessarily be happy with higher air fares and more expensive motoring but lower income taxes should compensate.

The Lib Dems, though, never make these things easy. Sir Ming's tax plans face a challenge in Brighton from his party's "soak the rich" tendency. They are unhappy with the idea of scrapping the 50% top rate and want the pledge retained for those on incomes above £150,000. If they win the day the new leader will have suffered the embarrassment of losing his first big battle. He will also struggle to convince voters that his party has anything fresh to offer. It is a test of how serious the Lib Dems are.

OUR COMMENT: He got his tax plan through. It included two green taxes, a higher excise duty on high emission cars, and an aircraft tax based on carbon emissions to replace airport passenger duty. Will the other Parties take the plunge and begin to do what is necessary?

Pat Dale

England has become a full degree Celsius warmer since the Beatles started playing - and human activity is the cause, according to research released yesterday.

Since 1960, when John, Paul and George formed their legendary band - Ringo came later - the average temperature in England has undergone a remarkably steep rise, according to the research, released by the UK Met Office. Yet scientists are convinced that the new warmth, which is allowing red wine to be made in Surrey and olives to be grown in Devon, is not part of the climate's natural variability.

Instead, it is part of the global warming being caused by emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from industry and transport.

Furthermore, the warming of England is proceeding much more rapidly than the warming of the Earth as a whole, which has warmed by about 0.6C over the last century. England's average temperature has increased by nearly double that rate, in less than half the time. This is because the land is warming more quickly than the sea, and land at high latitudes - nearer the Poles - is warming more quickly than at low ones.

The new findings, which represent the first time that man-made climate change has ever been identified at such a local level, were unveiled yesterday at the Climate Clinic at the Liberal Democrat party conference in Brighton.

Created by Britain's major environmental group - with The Independent as media partner - the Climate Clinic is a roadshow-cum-think tank formed to press for tougher action on climate change. It will be lobbying hard at all three party conferences.

The new research was set out in Brighton by one of Britain's leading climate scientists, Dr Peter Stott of the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. It is based on close analysis of the Central England Temperature record (CET), which is the longest-running series of temperature data in the world, dating back to 1659. (By comparison, the global temperature record dates back only to 1860.)

The CET represents a roughly triangular area of the UK enclosed by Bristol, Lancashire and London. It is now calculated as the average of the surface air temperature at three stations: Stonyhurst in Lancashire, Pershore in Worcestershire and Rothamsted in Hertfordshire.

Although the record has always gone up and down, at the end of the 1950s the CET average began a climb which is still continuing; the average has risen a full degree in just over 45 years, from 9.4C to 10.4C, giving England the beginnings of a new climate. Investigation of this rise by Dr Stott and another senior scientist, David Karoly from the University of Oklahoma in the US, which was also published yesterday in the journal Atmospheric Science Letters, has identified a man-made climate change "signal", meaning it cannot be explained by the climate's natural variation.

The recent warming they have detected "is consistent with the model response to increasing greenhouse gases ... and is not consistent with response to changes in natural external forcing, or to natural internal climate variations," Dr Stott and Dr Karoly say in their paper.

One of the significant points about the research is that it is the first time that scientists have looked at such a small geographical area and identified a temperature rise that can only be explained by anthropogenic (human-induced) factors.

In Brighton yesterday, Dr Stott said: "This is a remarkable anthropogenic signal. Sharp spikes in warming have been recorded in regions across the world, but because we in the UK hold this unique temperature record stretching back nearly 350 years we are able to say that background climate 'noise' can't reasonably be held responsible for what's happening in Central England."

"This is the first time anywhere in the world that climate scientists have been able to look at a small geographical area, identify significant warming and say humans have very likely played a part."

Changing way of life

BURGUNDY ON THE NORTH DOWNS
Although white wine grapes can do well here, England has hitherto always been too cool for red wine grapes, and in particular for the pinot noir, the classic grape of Burgundy. But at the Denbies wine estate near Dorking, Surrey - on the North Downs, 25 miles from central London - the pinot noir grape is now flourishing and producing a delicious Burgundy, English-style. (But be warned: it's not cheap.)

RING OUZELS DISAPPEARING
Britain's mountain blackbird, the ring ouzel, which lives on cool mountain tops and high moors, is disappearing because of rising atmospheric temperatures, scientists believe. Numbers of the attractive black and white bird have dropped by almost 60 per cent in the past decade, in the English and Welsh moorlands and in Scotland. They have already gone from the Long Mynd, a ridge of high ground in south Shropshire, where there were 12 pairs in 1999.

HAY FEVER RAMPANT
The warmer climate is to blame for the steadily rising numbers of Britons suffering from hay fever, according to the UK's leading pollen specialist. Pollen seasons are lengthening and the pollen itself is provoking a more powerful reaction - a situation already being reflected in rising GP consultation rates for hay fever, according to Professor Jean Emberlin, director of the National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit at the University of Worcester.

OLIVES IN DEVON
Britain's first olive grove has been planted in Devon. Temperatures have risen so far in recent years that it is now considered possible to grow the iconic fruit of the Mediterranean countries commercially in southern England. Mark Diacono, a Devon smallholder, has planted a grove of 120 olive trees on the banks of the river Otter near Honiton. He hopes for a commercial crop which will produce Britain's first home-grown olive oil in five to seven years.

The fight for space on Spain's beaches looks set to grow fiercer over the next four decades as the sand starts to disappear under a rising sea that also threatens to flood beach-side homes, according to a Spanish environment ministry report.

Spain's beaches are expected to shrink by an average of 15 metres (50ft) by 2050 as global warming causes sea levels to creep up while stronger waves and currents eat away at the coastline.

In some of the worst hit resorts, unprotected beaches could vanish altogether while salt water washes into holiday homes, the authors warn.

"I wouldn't buy a house in La Manga," said the report's coordinator, Professor Raúl Medina, referring to an area in the south-eastern region of Murcia popular with British holiday-home buyers.

"It is a bad investment because I doubt that my children would be able to use it," he told the newspaper El País.

Global warming is melting the icecaps and raising sea levels around Spain by 2.5mm a year. By 2050 that will mean a 12cm-15cm rise, with northern Spain's Atlantic coast suffering most.

The Mediterranean coast, where many resorts already have to truck in sand each spring, will lose an average of around 10 metres of beach by 2050.

Hotel owners in the southern Costa del Sol have already asked for permission to bring in their own sand as beaches begin to shrink. The report also recommends that sea walls be raised in some Spanish ports and that planning permits for beach-side buildings take into account the changing shape of the coastline.

It also warns that some of Europe's most important wetland sites will be hit.

The Albufera of Valencia and the delta of the River Ebro as well as the Dóana national park in south-west Spain - one of Europe's biggest nature reserves - will all suffer the consequences of rising water levels and higher salinity.

"It will be even worse by the end of the century, when a lot of today's children will still be alive," warned the ministry's top climate change official, Arturo Gonzalo.

As climate change quickened, he said, so too would the rate at which sea levels rose. "The sea level will have risen between half a metre and a metre by the end of the century, and up to 50 metres of beach will disappear in some areas."

The warnings came as Spain's sweltering summer showed little sign of abating this month. Twenty cities have posted record monthly temperatures in the first week of the month, with the north-western city of Ourense recording a temperature of 41.4C (107F).

Farmers in Murcia, meanwhile, gathered to pray for autumn rains to prevent a third consecutive year of drought. Some 2,000 farmers asked the Virgin of Fuensanta, Murcia's patron saint, for rain.

Rainfall over the year up to September was 15% down on the average. The previous year had been 21% down, Spain's meteorology institute reported.

AIRPORT managers are resisting a government plan for a partial easing of baggage restrictions for passengers because, they claim, it will create confusion and worsen chaos at airports, writes Dominic O'Connell.

Douglas Alexander, the transport secretary, wants to increase the maximum size of hand luggage allowed on planes and to let passengers carry small amounts of liquids. Discussions are under way between Alexander, the airports and the airlines in the hope of reaching agreement in time to make an announcement tomorrow and to bring the changes into force on Friday.

Tight restrictions on what can be carried on planes were introduced last month after an alleged plot to blow up transatlantic jets using liquid explosives in toiletries and drinks bottles was foiled.

Even if the rules were relaxed to allow passengers to carry liquids there would still be restrictions on the size of bottles. Airports argue that this could create severe delays. One senior airport executive said: "This would double the amount of items being x-rayed. It would be a big addition to the workload of security staff who are already flat out with extra body searches and shoe searches."

Critics have accused Alexander of being too ready to give in to the lobbying of airlines such as British Airways and Ryanair. BA has been hard hit by the liquids curb because of its large number of business passengers going on short trips for which they carry overnight toiletries.

Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, has been the most outspoken critic of the restrictions on hand luggage. His and other budget airlines achieve fast turnaround times partly because they discourage passengers from checking luggage into the hold.

Alexander plans to increase the permitted size of cabin bags from 45cm x 35cm x 16cm (approximately 18in x 14in x 6in) probably to 56cm x 45cm x 25cm. This change is not opposed by airports. BAA, which runs Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, declined to comment yesterday.

O'Leary has threatened to sue the government for income lost because of the introduction of the security measures.

Drastic action is needed if Britain is to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, a ground-breaking environmental report warns today.

In the first big study of what households, business and government may have to do to cut carbon emissions, the leading climate change research body has revised upwards by 50% the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that need to be achieved by 2050.

The government-funded Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research says this is necessary because successive governments have failed to include aviation or shipping emissions in their calculations.

At the moment, the government's estimate is that a 60% cut in emissions is needed to avoid a 2C increase in temperatures by 2050. But the authors of today's study conclude that a 90% cut in emissions is needed. Their data suggests that when aviation and shipping is factored in, UK carbon emissions have not fallen at all since 1990.

In a scathing report commissioned by Friends of the Earth and the Cooperative Bank, the Tyndall Centre academics lambast successive governments for misleading the public on what has been achieved and what needs to be done.

"The government's carbon reduction policies continue to be informed by a partial inventory which omits the two important and rapidly growing sectors of air transport and shipping ... There is a clear void between the scale of the problem and the actual policy mechanisms proposed," the report says.

It proposes radical ideas to effect change, predicting that most buildings will have to generate their own electricity, double-decker trains will transport people to work, and planes might not be allowed to take off unless they are nearly full.

But the report says that 90% cuts are achievable if measures are taken within four years to stabilise emissions. Beyond 2010, it says, annual cuts of 9% will be needed for the next 20 years.

If the measures are not introduced urgently, say the authors, much more drastic and much less manageable cuts will be needed later.

The authors say that little new technology or investment in infrastructure will be needed to reduce emissions, apart from the development of hydrogen as a fuel, and carbon capture as a way to store carbon dioxide.

Instead they say that the government can encourage all sectors of society to become far more energy efficient, generating their own power and saving energy at all points.

However, they propose that Britain become the first country in the world to introduce a wide-ranging carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. They envisage that everyone would be able to trade emissions, with those who do not use much energy able to sell their quotas to those who use a lot. They also propose that aviation, the fastest growing emitter of carbon dioxide, be given a stringent cap on its emissions.

"The UK has reached a tipping point. If the government's carbon dioxide targets are actually to have meaning the government must act now to curb dramatically the nation's carbon dioxide emissions," says the report.

"The message is stark. We are deluding ourselves [if we] wait for technology or emission trading to offer a smooth transition to a low carbon future. The real challenge is making a radical shift within four years and driving down carbon intensity at an unprecedented 9% a year for up to 20 years."

Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "To turn this road map into reality we need a law that commits this and future governments to making annual cuts in the UK's carbon emissions. Without legislation to force government to reduce emissions annually, politicians will continue to place short-term gains ahead of the long-term decisions needed to get to grips with climate change."

Dr Kevin Anderson, research director of the Tyndall Centre's energy and climate change programme, said: "Our research demonstrates that the UK can move to a low carbon economy. But the journey will become much more demanding the longer the government leaves it to act."

He added: "To make a smooth transition to a low carbon future the individuals need immediately to begin to implement a major action programme."

Railways

By 2030, railways could be entering their greatest era. Trains are expected to remain the most carbon efficient mode of transport after cycling and walking, and the authors expect the British network to grow by 25% in 25 years as people forsake short haul flights for a new generation of high-speed trains linking national and European urban centres.

By 2030, the authors say, double-decker trains could be introduced to increase capacity. Not only will passenger numbers grow, but operators will be encouraged to run longer and fuller trains on more energy efficient fuels. Rail freight will increase, but will be curtailed because the existing lines will be used more for passenger traffic. Track improvements will also be needed to reduce emissions.

Industry

If Britain is to meet a 90% cut in emissions, the government must slow energy consumption and shift the economy towards renewables. The biggest emission savings, say the authors, will come from capturing and storing carbon emissions from coal and gas, and the generation of wave, wind and tidal energy.

By 2030, the authors expect wood and fuel crops to be heating public buildings and housing estates, and up to 36% of all electricity to come from renewables, compared with less than 5% today and 10% in 2010. A further 15% will come from "on site" micro-generation by buildings and appliances.

A big change in industrial processes and technologies will be needed, and reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions will become essential in industrial design. Energy demand from appliances may overall stay the same but the emissions from air conditioning, refrigerators, computers and mobile phones can be greatly decreased.

By 2050, industry will be located in hubs, so the waste heat from one manufacturing process is used by another. It will be far less carbon intensive when it uses hydrogen instead of gas and starts generating its own renewable electricity.

By 2050, hydrogen fuel made from both fossil fuels and renewables will be used widely by industry for transport and heating. Hydrogen fuel will also be produced at filling stations by a process called renewable electrolysis, with huge arrays of solar panels placed on embankments.

Roads

Cars and cities will have to transform themselves by 2030 if the UK is to meet its carbon reduction targets. The biggest emission savings will come from the shift from oil to alternative fuels, and as cities effectively ban private transport from their centres. By 2030 the Tyndall report says there may be 13% fewer cars on the roads a wider choice of fuels including electricity, hydrogen, and biofuels.

A network of "multi-fuel" filling stations will be needed. Cars will generally be lighter and more efficient. In the short and medium term, say the authors, the government could increase road tax on inefficient vehicles, decrease the speed limit on motorways to 60mph, set minimum emission standards for company car fleets and encourage public transport.

By 2050, the authors say most cars will be run on fuel cells or by electricity and emissions could have reduced to practically nothing.

Buildings

Anticipating population growth, and a shift of people to the south, the authors expect roughly 2m new buildings in the next 45 years, but say that if high construction standards are introduced they need add little or nothing to overall CO2 emissions. But they consider some existing houses to be so energy inefficient that they may have to be demolished.

By 2030, the majority of homes would have highly efficient insulation and roofs, and would have begun to generate their own electricity from wind turbines and solar panels. In addition, the government could ban the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs in favour of LEDs. The authors suggest that by 2030, all individuals could be part of a carbon emission trading scheme, allowing people who do not travel much or burn much energy to trade quotas with those who are energy profligate. By 2050, little energy will be needed to heat or cool buildings.

Aviation

Over the next decade the aviation industry will come under intense pressure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It can achieve big cuts by developing lighter planes that burn less carbon-intensive fuels, and could also return to more efficient turboprop planes for short flights. Governments could demand speed limits on planes, ban larger ones from short haul flights and allow them to take off only if they are at least half full.

The Tyndall authors expect biofuels increasingly to be grown for aviation over the next 25 years and suggest that the government could increase the tax on flying. In addition, a moratorium could be put on runway building, aviation could be brought into an emission trading scheme and the industry could be given a cap on emissions.

By 2050, the authors say, domestic aviation will have greatly decreased as people shift to high-speed trains, and a combination of greater fuel efficiency and restraint encouraged by personal emission trading could reduce greenhouse gases from air travel to about one third of today's level.

OUR COMMENT: The Government has had a clear warning. Aviation expansion as proposed in the Aviation White Paper would be disastrous for all of us. Rethink the proposals!

Pat Dale

The melting of the sea ice in the Arctic, the clearest sign so far of global warming, has taken a sudden and enormous leap forward, in one of the most ominous developments yet in the onset of climate change.

Two separate studies by Nasa, using different satellite monitoring technologies, both show a great surge in the disappearance of Arctic ice cover in the last two years.

One, from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, shows that Arctic perennial sea ice, which normally survives the summer melt season and remains year-round, shrank by 14 per cent in just 12 months between 2004 and 2005.

The overall decrease in the ice cover was 720,000 sq km (280,000 sq miles) - an area almost the size of Turkey, gone in a single year.

The other study, from the Goddard Space Flight Centre, in Maryland, shows that the perennial ice melting rate, which has averaged 0.15 per cent a year since satellite observations began in 1979, has suddenly accelerated hugely. In the past two winters the rate has increased to six per cent a year - that is, it has got more than 30 times faster.

The changes are alarming scientists and environmentalists, because they far exceed the rate at which supercomputer models of climate change predict the Arctic ice will melt under the influence of global warming - which is rapid enough.

If climate change is not checked, the Arctic ice will all be gone by 2070, and people will be able to sail to the North Pole. But if these new rates of melting are maintained, the Arctic ice will all be gone decades before that.

The implications are colossal. It will mean extinction in the wild - in the lifetime of children alive today - for one of the world's most majestic creatures, the polar bear, which needs the ice to hunt seals.

It means the possibility of a lethal "feedback" mechanism speeding up global warming, because the dark surface of the open Arctic ocean will absorb the sun's heat, rather than reflect it as the ice cover does now - and so the world will get even hotter.

But most of all, the new developments add to the growing concern that climate change as a process is starting to happen much faster than scientists considered it would, even five years ago when the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its last report.

"These are the latest in a long series of recent studies, all telling us that climate change is faster and nastier than we thought," said Tom Burke, a former government green adviser and now a visiting professor at Imperial College London. "An abyss is opening up between the speed at which the climate is changing and the speed at which governments are responding.

"We must stop thinking that this is just another environmental problem, to be dealt with when time and resources allow, and realise that this is an increasingly urgent threat to our security and prosperity."

Yesterday, Jim Hansen, the leading climatologist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York, issued a now-or-never warning to governments around the world, including his own, telling them they must take radical action to avert a planetary environmental catastrophe. He said it was no longer viable for nations to adopt a "business as usual" stance on fossil-fuel consumption.

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," he said.

Early in his first term, President George Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto Treaty that is meant to bind nations to lower emissions of warming gases. However, opinion in the US is starting to change, as evidenced by the huge success of the documentary on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, narrated by the former US vice-president Senator Al Gore.

The two Nasa Arctic studies, released simultaneously, break fresh ground in dealing with the perennial, or "multi-winter" ice, rather than the "seasonal" ice at the edge of the icefield, which melts every summer.

Concern about the melting rate has hitherto focused on the seasonal ice, whose summer disappearance and retreat from the landmasses of Arctic Canada and Siberia is increasingly obvious. In September 2005, it retreated to the lowest level recorded. Such rapid shrinkage of the perennial ice has not been shown before. "It is alarming," said Joey Camiso, who led the Goddard study. "We've witnessed sea ice reduction at 6 per cent per year over just the last two winters, most likely a result of warming due to greenhouse gases."

Dr Son Nghiem, who led the team which carried out the Jet Propulsion Laboratory study, said that in previous years there had some variability in the extent of perennial Arctic ice. "But it is much smaller and regional," he said. "However, the change we see between 2004 and 2005 is enormous." Britain's Professor Julian Dowdeswell, the director of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, agreed the changes shown in the American studies were "huge", adding: "It remains to be seen whether the rate of change is maintained in future years."

The melting of the Arctic ice will not itself contribute to global sea-level rise, as the ice floating in the sea is already displacing its own mass in the water. When the ice cube melts in your gin and tonic, the liquid in your glass does not rise.

There are great volumes of land-based ice - the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, and mountain glaciers - which are subject to exactly the same temperature rises as the Arctic ice, and which have also started to melt. They will add to sea levels. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet would, if it were to collapse, raise sea levels around the world by 16ft (5m), submerging large parts of Bangladesh and Egypt - and London.

Efforts to refine the European emission trading scheme (ETS) must not deflect political attention from policies needed to improve energy efficiency, WWF told stakeholders at a seminar on the future of the ETS in Brussels on Monday.

Measures to promote lower-carbon road transport are for example urgently needed, the head of WWF UK's climate programme, Keith Allott, said.

Green MEP Caroline Lucas emphasised the need for additional measures to curb aviation's climate impact even if the sector is incorporated into the EU ETS.

Seminar organised by IPPR http://www.ippr.org.uk/, see discussion paper www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=476.

A decision by planners on Stansted airport's bid to expand to about 35 mppa has been delayed to the surprise of key players. Uttlesford District Council announced on Monday it would not be able to decide the application by BAA on September 27th as expected – it would have to be deferred until November at the earliest.

It blamed delays in receiving responses from the Highways Agency, Network Rail, 'One Railway', the DfT's Rail section and BAA. But these organisations passed the buck back to Uttlesford. The Highway's Agency said it had written only on September 4th to say it was unable to need an extension until November and was likely to be able to respond before September 27th.

The DfT said at no time over the past 16 weeks had the Council indicated information not yet received from it would lead to a significant delay and Network Rail said it was still awaiting formal consultation details from Uttlesford to outline what additional information was required.

BAA was also "surprised" and said it too, was still to receive formal notice of what additional information Uttlesford required on noise, traffic and air quality issues. In response, Uttlesford said it stood by its original statement. A spokesman added that the Highways Agency was now less definite, issuing words such as "likely" and that it had heard "not a dicky bird" from DfT and Network Rail in response to its original requests.

Council Leader Mark Gayler said: "I am extremely disappointed that the time scale for handling this application has been stretched and I regret the continuing uncertainty that this causes for the local community".

If BAA, highways and rail agencies had done their job properly this delay would not have occurred, he said. Stansted Airport is seeking to maximise use of the existing single runway by applying for an increase from 241,000 air transport movements a year to 264,000, equivalent to about 35 mppa.

OUR COMMENT: A ragbag of excuses. Surely the transport agencies and the DfT Rail realise that 10-15 or more mppa will mean more passengers on the roads and the rail. We were told at the Inquiry into the Draft East of England Plan that congestion was present on the M11 and expected to increase, and that over-crowding of trains at peak time would occur if the number of commuters increased. Also, it may interest commuters to know that trains are not regarded as overcrowded until all standing spaces have been filled! These agencies are supposed to be advising or running essential businesses and we would expect them to be anxious to appraise Uttlesford Council of the possible future situation at the earliest possible time. As for BAA….

Pat Dale

For three decades, Airbus and Boeing have been engaged in a titanic battle for supremacy in the global market for continental airliners. But with soaring oil prices as well as increasing pressure from environmental pressure groups and governments over CO2 emissions, that battleground is increasingly shifting to fuel efficiency.

Boeing;s strategy is to build its aircraft - such as the new 787 Dreamliner - from revolutionary plastics that reduce weight and therefore fuel use and CO2 emissions. Airbus, meanwhile is placing its face in the Airbus 380, whose sheer size it says, reduces the amount of fuel used per passenger, while also adding an all-new A 350 mid-sized long-haul jet as a direct rival to the 787.

For all its technical problems, Airbus argues that, environmentally, the A 380 is a great leap forward. Seating 550 passengers or 800 in an economy-only configuration Airbus says that, if full, it uses 2,9 litres of fuel per person per 100 Km, making it the first sub-3 litre airliner - more efficient than the latest family car.

Boeing has its own new jumbo jet that it is pitching against the A 380 from 2010. It says the 450 seat 747-8 - the latest incarnation of the familiar jumbo that has flown since 1969 - will be far quieter and more fuel efficient than the 747-400, which cam out in the 1980s, and the A380.

But the airliner that Boeing really thinks will take the market share from Airbus is the much smaller 787, which will seat up to 290 passengers, but have a similar range as the A380 of around 8000 nautical miles.

The 787 has been so popular with airlines that it forced Airbus into a belated redesign of it's a 350, which was originally little more than an updated A 330 and attracted only 100 orders, compared with 360 for the 787. Airbus released details of the new A 350 XWB (standing for extra wide body) in July and cannot yet say how fuel efficient it will be.

The 787's fuselage is made largely of light weight carbon fibre composite materials instead of the traditional aircraft aluminium, which Boeing says makes it 20% more fuel efficient than other jets of its size. It says the 787 could use as little as 2.3 litres per passenger per 100 KM.

Boeing says, using composites, which are added to the fuselage in layers during construction, also means it wastes less material than it does cutting a body of an aircraft from sheets of aluminium. "Its more like making a jacket than a sculpture" says Bill Glover, Boeing's director of environmental performance for commercial airplanes.

It was Airbus that pioneered the use of composites and it has long used them for tail fins, rudders and even wings. But until recently the European firm said they were too risky for a fuselage and pointed to the problems Boeing was having after the US company admitted that engineers had discovered tiny bubbles between the Dreamliner's layers of composite.

Now, however, with airlines clamouring for its rival's Dreamliner, Airbus has been forced to increase its own use of composites. The company's new chief technical officer, Jean Botti, has spent virtually his entire time on composites since taking on the job.

Airbus and Boeing's two key products, the A 380 and the 787, reflect two very different visions of what the market for commercial air travel will look like in an increasingly environmentally conscious future.

The idea behind the A 380 is that airlines will pack large numbers of people in huge aircraft flying between big airports on different continents and then put them on short haul flights on smaller planes to get to their destinations - what Tom Williams, former head of Airbus UK, calls the "urbanisation" case.

Airbus believes this "hub and spoke" model, which relies on large aircraft being as full as possible, is the best way to make flying both cheap and environmentally friendly. Boeing, on the other hand, thinks the market for giant planes like the a 380 is much smaller than Airbus does. It also believes that its planes are now advanced enough to by-pass hubs and fly smaller numbers of people directly between mid-sized cities around the globe.

For example, to get from Tokyo to Vienna, one would normally fly from Tokyo to Frankfurt, then switch planes and fly from Frankfurt to Vienna. Boeing says it makes more sense to fly directly from Tokyo to Vienna and that the Dreamliner makes this economically viable for the first time.

It says that this "point to point" model is also better from an environmental point of view; aircraft will use less fuel, take-off and land less frequently, and there will be less congestion at hubs. It estimates that between 30% and 50% of all traffic at hub airports are just passing through.

A study by researchers at Cranfield University is quoted to support Boeing's case. "The noise and emissions social cost impact of the hub by-pass networks was sufficiently lower than the hub to hub in all cases" the researchers say.

Mike Mason, the founder of Oxford based Climate Care agrees that flying point to point would reduce CO2 emissions. But he adds that, by making flying more convenient, it could increase demand, which would ultimately be worse for the environment. "Paradoxically, the best thing for the environment would be a really crappy airoplane that no one wants to fly on" he says.

A new national competition has been launched to design an environmentally-friendly airliner for 2050.

Details of the competition can be found on: www.futureflight.org - including information and lesson plans about aviation, travel and the environment.

The initiative is funded by EPSRC, with many partners such as Airbus and Microsoft. The 2006 competition will be launched at International Youth Day, Farnborough International Airshow, 21/7/2006.

The Government has announced the go-ahead for 28 new projects in its campaign to change public attitudes to understanding and tackling climate change.

The projects, totalling £3.5m, are designed to form part of an innovative new approach to raise awareness at regional and local level of the urgent need to tackle climate change, following the announcement of 53 successful projects in June.

Among the successful projects announced are plans to educate children about carbon footprints through a carbon calculator; using community radio to get across key climate change messages to the ethnic community in Bradford, bringing together community based film-makers and communicators in Bristol to work with young people in the development of short climate change films and an interactive "Climate Dome" to tour the North East.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Ian Pearson said it was important to develop new and exciting ways of communicating climate change so that new audiences and communities at national, regional and local level could understand the need to change their attitude towards the issue.

Speaking on a sustainable development visit today to Nottinghamshire, Mr Pearson said: "I am pleased to announce the final 28 successful Climate Challenge Fund project today. These grass-roots communication projects on climate change are vital to help change people's attitudes to climate change - the largest single environmental threat facing this generation.

"Too often, we still disregard the environment and waste too much energy. It is important that we all recognise the need to move towards one planet living," he added.

The Climate Challenge Fund was set up to provide financial support for communications projects across a full range of media, seeking to achieve positive changes in public attitudes about climate change. Defra received more than 500 applications from across England totalling nearly £60m worth of bids.

Seven of the winners in this tranche submitted projects covering the whole of England; five were from the North West and West Midlands; four from the South West; two from Yorkshire and Humberside and one each from the East of England, East Midlands, London, North East and South East.

It's a shame. Ray Brown doesn't know anyone who considers environmental issues when planning holidays (Letters, 4th September), because growing numbers of us do exist. At 24, I've already flown a lot in my short life, long and short haul, but since discovering the huge impact my flights have had on the climate I've decided to cease using air travel for holidays or commuting.

I'm so certain this is the right thing to do that I have started a web site to extol the benefits of travelling without flying and to help others do the same: www.flyless.info

This autumn I'm travelling to America on a green "fact-finding" trip. I'll be crossing the Atlantic by freighter ship and then the States by train. Travelling sustainably need not be a sacrifice. It's time policy makers began using sticks to curb unsustainable travel, but they must also sell to us the juicy carrots that come with "slow travel".

Jack Guest
Norwich

A global body with similar scope to the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund should regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Conservative party will suggest today. The body would enforce worldwide cuts in emissions after 2012, when the current provisions of the Kyoto protocol on climate change expire.

Peter Ainsworth, Tory shadow environment secretary, said the "global climate change emissions authority" would create a level playing field for companies reducing their emissions, and would ensure that the fledgling international market in carbon trading remained in existence after 2012.

Companies needed this kind of long-term certainty to make substantial investments in technology to reduce their greenhouse gas output, and he criticised Tony Blair for failing to begin work on a post-2012 framework for cutting emissions.

BAA, Britain's largest airport owner, has rejected calls from airlines that it should be broken up, warning that it would be "a poisonous cocktail for consumers". The owner of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports has been criticised by airlines for its handling of the recent security crisis, which led to the cancellation of thousands of flights at an estimated cost of £300m to the aviation industry.

The public relations disaster came in the middle of an Office of Fair Trading investigation into British airports, which is to report by the end of the year. BAA, bought by the Spanish group Ferrovial this year, submitted its response to the inquiry yesterday, after submissions by British Airways and Ryanair last week that called for the break-up of the company.

Nearly two-thirds of people who fly in and out of Britain go through BAA airports. Stephen Nelson, BAA chief executive, said BAA and Ryanair were demanding action because they wanted more control over prices and investment at airports.

The Civil Aviation Authority caps the amount BAA can charge airlines for using its London airports. The company said airlines wanted to reduce those fees and break up ownership of London assets, this endangering investment in extra capacity at Heathrow and Stansted.

"Failure to build new runway capacity will lead to gridlock, disappointed customers and significant loss to the national economy," Mr Nelson said, "Despite this, some airlines want to break up BAA and impose even heavier price regulation. This have-it-both-ways proposal would be a poisonous cocktail for consumers. It risks setting back the much needed investment programme which BAA is pursuing, to transform London's airports like Heathrow terminal five, Heathrow East (a proposed development at them airport) and the Stansted second runway."

BAA added in its submission that the airports market was "imperfect" because most people used the airport closest to where they lived or one that offered flights to their preferred destination. Factors such as allocation of take-off and landing slots also distorted the market, the company said. A break-up would threaten investment, outweighing any benefit to consumers in price or choice.

"We are not saying that the current situation is perfect and we welcome the OFT's review as long as it is wide-ranging and evidence based. The OFT needs to consider regulation as well as ownership structures."

BA argued in its submission last week that BAA is dragging its heels over expanding capacity at Heathrow and Stansted, something BAA denies. Ryanair added that regulation of the company by the Civil Aviation Authority was inefficient, setting price caps that allowed BAA to build "gold-plated facilities" at its airports that are of no use to its customers.

OUR COMMENT: An interesting price war using the un-consulted consumers as the excuse. For most of us and also, hopefully the government, the real question should be "How much extra capacity can be accommodated in view of the threat of climate change?" The Government should be seriously reviewing the Aviation White Paper in the light of recent scientific advice, recent adverse weather events and environmental reports from the polar ice, and the changes occurring in the sea CO2 levels.

Pat Dale

At the half-timbered clubhouse of a Normandy golf course, Christiane Célice looked up from her lunch and stared across towards the Channel. "Isn't it beautiful?" she sighed. "Now imagine if a Boeing 737 thundered past, it would ruin the whole effect. We must fight to the end."

From her 19th century cottage, the former antique dealer is leading a battle against the imminent arrival of Ryanair to Deauville, the ultimate chic beach resort on the Normandy Riviera.

The Irish low-budget airline next month starts three flights a week from Stansted to the Calvados town after striking a deal with the local mayor. In a standard transaction by small towns keen to attract low-cost flights from Britain, Deauville town hall itself will meet the cost of advertising the new route to England, paying Euros170,000 a year (£114,000) in monthly instalments.

To Madame Célice and her growing protest group it is unthinkable to spend French taxpayers' money promoting a non-French company. She believes the new route will damage the tranquillity of an area once beloved of Gustave Flaubert and Marcel Proust, lower the price of homes and crowd the roads.

"We're considering legal action," she said. "Not against Ryanair, but against our local representatives. Why should French taxpayers' money be spent on this?"

Network

Picturesque Deauville is nicknamed "the 21st arrondissement" for the Parisians who swell the population of 4,500 to 30,000 in the summer. Coco Chanel opened her first boutique here and Yves Saint-Laurent owns a house nearby. The town's film festival, casino, polo matches and thoroughbred horse fairs attract celebrities and foreign visitors in private jets but, to Madame Célice, regular Ryanair flights are a step too far.

Her group recently held its first public meeting. Those who spoke included the TV presenter Frédéric Mitterrand, nephew of the former president. Some feared the worst. The owner of a smart restaurant currently occupying the second floor of the tine airport fears he could be shut down for a snack bar.

"We're not anti-English," Madame Célice said. "From William the conquerer to the Normandy landings and the liberation there has always been a link across the Channel here - we get on exceptionally well with the English. But you can't build an airport for every house or village where English, German or Italian people are."

The debate on Deauville reflects the growing network of low-cost flights between England and France. Until now, Normandy, where at least 9,000 British people own homes, was the only region without a budget route to Britain. Over the past 6 years dozens of small French towns have made deals with budget airlines, acknowledging that a cheap "commuter" flight to Britain can boost tourism, business and property sales. Some new routes have been followed by an influx of British people buying second homes or moving to France.

Ryanair already has agreements with 19 state owned airports in France to transport what its founder Michael O'Leary calls "the chateau owners of the shires".

In the south-west, Bergerac is an example of how a region can be transformed. In 2001, before the first Buzz flights from Stansted, the airport handled 16,000 flights a year. In 2005 250,000 passengers passed through on several new routes as the Dordogne enjoyed a boom in British house buyers. A new book analysing the effect of low-cost routes on the region is called "Help, the English are invading us!"

Paradox

Its author, José-Alain Fralon, says: "There is a certain amount of envy. Why have low-cost flights for the English when we don't have them for ourselves? There are currently five or six different flights between Bergerac and England, but none between Bergerac and Paris. Some people question why France gives money to foreign companies which will compete with our TGV (high speed trains). But the paradox is that France has the greatest number of small airports of any European country and in a way the British have aided decentralisation with these flights."

On the beach at Deauville, Christian Fougeray, head of the chamber of commerce and the syndicate that owns the airport, said the protestors were in the minority. He said that the Euros 600,000 that local authorities will spend improving the airport would have been spent regardless. The airline would bring 40,000 passengers a year, creating jobs. "Its fantastic for tourism, brilliant for business and it makes perfect sense," he said.

Building a sandcastle with his son, one Londoner who took 7 hours to drive his family over on the ferry said the flights would transform the journey.

At the picturesque neo-Norman town hall, the mayor, Philippe Augier, brushed aside the suggestion that budget flights from England would cheapen the resort's image. "Yes, Deauville is in many ways a celebrity town, but everyone is welcome here," he said.

"The very rich don't keep the small businesses open here" observed one local restaurant owner.

In the Jardin des Délices shop where British tourists buy Calvados, the owner Pascal Bultez was checking the Ryanair website. "A return flight for Euros33? Can it be true? I haven't flown to London before, but I'll definitely be doing it now".

OUR COMMENT: The other side of the coin! The same arguments!

Pat Dale

David Cameron called on Tony Blair yesterday to introduce annual targets for reducing harmful carbon emissions. The Tory leader said that real action on the environment was "Mr Blair's chance to make a legacy for himself."

The Government sets long-term targets for reducing harmful emissions, including the aim of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. But a coalition of organisations, including Friends of the Earth (FoE), has called for stricter, annual targets as damage from global warming is "cumulative".

Yesterday, Mr Cameron threw his weight behind the coalition's call. Speaking at a press conference co-hosted by FoE in Devon, he urged Labour to put aside "petty party differences" and join a cross-party consensus to introduce the legislation in the next Queen's Speech.

The Tories indicated this week that they were prepared to consider imposing huge tax increases on motorists and on air travel.

Mr Cameron said: "Annual targets will make it much harder for any one government to shirk responsibility, hoping that another will get back on track for 2050."

David Cameron will today join Friends of the Earth in calling for a Climate Change Bill to be included in this years Queen's Speech. Speaking in Devon, alongside Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper, David Cameron will say:

"There is a growing consensus at Westminster about the danger that climate change represents to the future of our planet. But despite many speeches and pronouncements on this vital issue by everyone from the Prime Minister to the lowest Parliamentary Under Secretary, Ministers' rhetoric is failing to translate into Government action that in any way matches up to the scale of the challenge."

"So I am today backing calls from Friends of the Earth for the Government to bring forward in the next Queen's Speech a Climate Change Bill as a central part of its legislative programme for the coming parliamentary year." "So what should this Bill do?

1. Annual Targets. First, it should establish year on year targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% by 2050, and must set in place a legal framework for these targets.

2. Independent expert scrutiny. Second, it should establish an independent monitor to report to Parliament Britain's progress in meeting those annual targets, and to audit government policy to assess whether we remain on track to hit future targets. Britain needs an official group of independent climate change experts to carry the same weight in this area as the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England does in monetary policy."

"There is clearly a basis in Parliament for cross-party support for such a Bill, as there is a commitment amongst all parties to the long- term 2050 target. But much more needs to be done to agree the actions we need to take in the short term - and year on year - to meet the ambitious long-term goal. We cannot go on just talking about the issue. By putting this off we are creating an ever bigger burden for the next generation. No one doubts that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown can talk the talk, but if Britain is to show real global leadership, we need action now, not vague promises of action in years to come."

"If the Government introduces such a Climate Change Bill, we will work positively and constructively with them to put in place the necessary mechanisms."

"This would be a new way of working at Westminster, but it is not unprecedented. I believe we can find the resolve and determination to overcome, on a cross-party basis, the great challenge that climate change represents for our nation and our planet."

"But I don't want to stifle policy debate, or for this new consensus to in any way reduce effective parliamentary scrutiny of Government policy. Far from it. There is still a huge battle of ideas to be fought on the best ways to meet any new annual targets for carbon reduction. But if we can all agree on the goals that this and future Governments are required to reach, the direction we must travel, and the framework for assessing progress, then the effectiveness of long-term policy for reducing the burden of CO2 emissions should be that much greater."

"The simple fact is that we cannot afford for any Government in this century to put off action on climate change. All must do their bit regardless of their political colour. Long-term targets have not provided sufficient incentive to act so far: annual targets will make it much harder for any one Government to shirk responsibility, hoping that another will get back on track for the 2050 target."

"Our children will judge this generation of political leaders on our ability to put aside petty Party differences in order to pull together in the face of this unprecedented global threat. Most people will be amazed to find that despite all the rhetoric and speeches on the dangers of climate change, not a single Bill devoted exclusively to this most pressing of issues has been passed in Government time at Westminster."

"We can no longer delay or sideline our response to the threat of climate change, or hold back from exploiting the tremendous opportunities that also come with any changes of such a scale. The time for worthy ministerial speeches is over. It is time for all political parties to take responsibility and work together to get things done."

Sir, In just over ten weeks' time, the government programme for the next session of Parliament will be announced in the Queen's Speech. Given the urgency of tackling climate change, we have written to the Prime Minister, calling on him to use this opportunity to enable Parliament to debate and enact a legal framework for cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

It is now clear that the total volume of greenhouse gases we add to the atmosphere in the first half of this century will determine the severity of such impacts in the middle of 2050. While this is a global challenge, we in the UK must make our fair share of the cuts.

This means action over a period of time stretching way beyond the tenure of any one Government or Prime Minister. For this reason we support a legal framework for cutting carbon emissions, with annual targets and reporting and scrutiny procedures. A sizeable majority of Members of Parliament have also supported such a proposal; some 380 MPs have signed Early Day Motion 178.

By allowing Parliament to agree a long-term framework for tackling climate change that rises above party differences we will help future governments to tackle the issue while sending a clear message about the direction of Government policy. Climate change is a huge problem - but it is a solvable one.

PETER AINSWORTH
Shadow Secretary of State Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Conservative

CHRIS HUHNE
Shadow Secretary of State, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Liberal Democrats

COLIN CHALLEN MP
All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change

ASHOK SINHA
Stop Climate Chaos

TONY JUNIPER
Friends of the Earth

DALEEP MUKARJI
Christian Aid

Our correspondent reports from the British Association for the Advancement of Science's Festival of Science

THE world must be more realistic about the chances of preventing climate change and prepare for the inevitability of global warming, the head of one of Britain's foremost scientific societies will urge today.

Politicians and environmentalists have failed to understand how difficult it will be to curb global warming and are overlooking the importance of adapting to the hotter world it will bring, according to Frances Cairncross, the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

While measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming are essential, they have been emphasised over and above the equally vital need to develop ways of coping with climate change, Ms Cairncross will say.The "ineffectual" Kyoto Treaty will not stop temperatures rising, as the US and large developing nations such as China and India are not involved, and even if a global agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions is reached, a significant degree of warming is still likely.

As a result, scientists and governments need to think now about measures, such as better flood defences and wildlife corridors, that will help threatened species to migrate as habitats are lost.

"Adaptation policies have had far less attention than mitigation, and that is a mistake," Ms Cairncross will say in her presidential address to the association's Festival of Science in Norwich.

"We need to think about policies that prepare for a hotter, drier world, especially in poorer countries. That may involve, for instance, developing new crops, constructing flood defences, setting different building regulations, or banning building close to sea level."

Ms Cairncross's message will be controversial as many environmental groups have discouraged talk of adapting to global warming as an inevitability for fear that it will hand politicians an excuse for failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Ms Cairncross, an economist who is also Rector of Exeter College, Oxford, believes, however, that there is no reason why adaptation and mitigation cannot proceed hand-in-hand. "There are some things that we can't adapt: we can't relocate the Amazon rainforest or replace bleached coral reefs, but we have to think about adaptation with mitigation," she said.

Sea levels could rise by 4m over the coming century, he warns.

One of America's top scientists has said that the world has already entered a state of dangerous climate change.

In his first broadcast interview as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, John Holdren told the BBC that the climate was changing much faster than predicted.

"We are not talking anymore about what climate models say might happen in the future. We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we're going to experience more," Professor Holdren said.

He emphasised the seriousness of the melting Greenland ice cap, saying that without drastic action the world would experience more heatwaves, wild fires and floods.

He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts.

To put this in perspective, Professor Holdren pointed out that the melting of the Greenland ice cap, alone, could increase world-wide sea levels by 7m (23ft), swamping many cities.

Safe limits

He blamed President Bush not only for refusing to cut emissions, but also for failing to live up to his rhetoric on harnessing technology to tackle climate change.

"We are not starting to address climate change with the technology we have in hand, and we are not accelerating our investment in energy technology research and development," Professor Holdren observed.

He said research undertaken by Harvard University revealed that US government spending on energy research had not increased since 2001. In order to make any progress, funding for climate technology needed to multiply by three or four times, Professor Holdren warned.

Last year, the UK's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, held a science conference to determine the threshold of dangerous climate change. Delegates concluded that to be relatively certain of keeping the rise below 2C (3.6F), CO2 levels in the atmosphere should not exceed 400 parts per million (ppm) and the highest prudent limit should be 450 ppm.

In October, at an international conference in Mexico, UK environment and energy ministers will try to persuade colleagues from the top 20 most polluting nations to agree on a CO2 stabilisation level.

Professor Holdren expressed doubt that progress could be achieved because if the US administration agreed that there was a need to limit CO2, this would inevitably lead to mandatory caps. President Bush has already rejected that option.

For more than a year, the BBC has invited the US government to give its view on safe levels of CO2. Our request is repeatedly passed between the White House office of the Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the US chief scientist.

To date, we have received no response to questions on this issue that Tony Blair calls the most important in the world. Professor Holdren called on the US Government to back the UK position.

John Holdren, in addition to his presidency of the AAAS, is a director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.

A claim that the new owners of BAA might defy the government and build a new runway at Heathrow before a second at Stansted has immediately been quashed.

On Sunday BA's chief executive Willie Walsh said he believed the Ferrovial consortium would take a more pragmatic approach to the business case for Heathrow over the Essex terminal. But the idea was scotched by BAA, saying it was a non-starter.

On Tuesday a BAA spokesman said nothing had changed. After BAA was bought for £10.1bn in June by ADI. It confirmed to the Observer that it would continue with a second runway at Stansted.

The spokesman said this week that a third runway at Heathrow would have to overcome environmental issues first and that government review was not due to start until next year. Its conclusions would be after the planning application for G2 (Second Generation) had been submitted.

"In the south-east, there's a shortage of airport capacity so the Government White Paper which suggests that there should be a second runway at Stansted as early as possible is an extremely valuable piece of policy" he stated.

The spokesman also felt that any inquiry into BAA's monopoly ownership of Britain's main airports would not affect plans for expanding Stansted. The Office of Fair Trading is collecting views within the industry to consider whether to refer the issue to the Competition Commission. Any such inquiry would take at least 2 years, he said.

BAA's new owner's review of the costings for Stansted's G2 were "proceeding apace" and should be published no later than the autumn, said the spokesman. A planning application is expected to be sent to Uttlesford District Council in summer 2007.

The BAA spokesman concluded that a recent drop in passenger numbers due to the latest terrorist threat was "a blip, rather than a trend" and the travelling public were quick to recover from such chocks.

OUR COMMENT: Well, they would say that, wouldn't they! BUT since BAA's own Environmental Assessment for the expansion of runway 1 admits that European Air Quality legislation may be breached by 2014 if the number of flights increases, it would seem that there are significant environmental issues still to be solved at Stansted as well as Heathrow before any second runway application is made. Quite apart from the big problem that won't go away - Climate Change. If London airports are too crowded then why not a priority system? The government is not intending to build new rail lines for our overcrowded commuter services - why are new runways so essential? An economic case has not been made that is stronger than the environmental objections, neither can industry be expected to supply the necessary carbon credits for a carbon neutral expansion.

Airport Watch has mounted a campaign urging the government to Rethink the Aviation White Paper. All thinking people should join it and write to the Minister for Transport Visit www.airportwatch.org.uk

Pat Dale

Stansted airport's low-cost carriers are urging an inquiry to recommend BAA's monopoly is broken up. Ryanair and easyJet have made the plea to the Office of Fair Trading, which is looking into the UK aviation industry for a possible report to the Competition Commission.

EasyJet, which has stressed that BAA should not be allowed to pass on the cost of its take-over by Ferrovial to travellers, has added there must be strong price regulation to stop airport owners abusing their monopoly position.

Its chief executive Andy Harrison says: "UK consumers must not pick up the bill for Ferrovial's acquisition of BAA. Consumers need better protection from the airport operators who behave like local monopolists, pushing up prices to hide their own inefficiencies. So, while easyJet supports the break-up of BAA, the primary focus must be on tougher regulation."

Ryanair's head of regulatory affairs and company secretary Jim Callaghan cited "numerous abuses" by BAA at Stansted, which he said the CAA had failed to address. "The CAA has failed to prevent BAA from developing gold plated facilities that do not meet the requirements of passengers and have led to inflated airport charges for consumers."

SWITCH off your computers when you leave the office for the night - that's one of the messages being hammered home by MPs who are urging Government action to crack down on carbon emissions from the workplace.

A coalition of organisations campaigning for sustainable energy have welcomed the backing given by South Suffolk MP Tim Yeo - chairman of the influential parliamentary environmental audit committee - of a Bill aimed at reducing carbon emissions from offices.

He is one of the main sponsors of a House of Commons motion - signed by nearly 300 backbench MPs from all political parties - supporting the Climate Change (Commercial and Public Services Sector) Bill.

"The offices sector has the fastest growing energy use apart from aviation," said Mr Yeo. "With the proliferation of computers and other electronics, its use of electricity, which has a particularly high carbon footprint, is projected to increase by nearly 45% from 1990 to 2020."

"The Bill will set legally binding targets for reducing energy usage in the commercial sector and further targets for energy production from renewable sources, combined heat and power, and microgeneration.

"We hear lots about how everyone should use less energy at home but what happens in offices is just as important. This Bill would be a big step in the right direction. "To back it up the Government should give discounts on the business rates to those offices which minimise their carbon emissions."

"The need for urgent action to cut our carbon emissions is greater than ever. The Government has rightly acknowledged that we need to do a lot more if we are to meet our climate change targets of a 20% reduction in C02 emissions by 2010."

Mr Yeo added: "I fully support this Bill which will ensure the Government makes our offices more environmentally friendly. I will do all I can to ensure that it becomes law as soon as possible."

Among the groups supporting the initiative are Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party, Greenpeace, Help the Aged, National Federation of Women's Institutes, the trade union Unison, and WWF-UK.

Other sponsors of the motion include two Labour former environment ministers, Michael Meacher and Elliot Morley.

Signatories include Suffolk and Essex MPs Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree), John Gummer (Con, Suffolk Coastal), David Ruffley (Con, Bury St Edmunds), Bob Spink (Con, Castle Point) and Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester).

The British government has published full details of its national allocation plan for the second phase of the EU carbon emission trading scheme (ETS). The announcement confirms provisional figures released two months ago and expands on them by setting out draft installation-level allocations of carbon permits. The plan (Nap) must still be approved by the European commission.

The overall cap has been set at 246m tonnes of carbon annually over the 2008-12 second phase. Of this amount, 237m tonnes will go to installations that took part in the scheme's in the first phase. The figure is marginally tighter than the 238m tonne provisional cap announced by environment minister David Miliband in June.

The remaining 9m tonnes will go to cover additional activities at 160 installations that are being drawn into the ETS for the first time. The net effect of the cap will be to save 8m tonnes of carbon annually over the business-as-usual scenario, the government says.

The reduction in allowances will be borne "entirely" by large electricity producers, it adds. Some minor installations, including hospitals and universities, have been removed from the scheme. "We are focusing on the biggest carbon emitters while removing those businesses where the costs outweigh the environmental benefits," climate minister Ian Pearson said.

Industry minister Malcolm Wicks said the Nap "provides further certainty for business" and "improves and simplifies" the scheme. But green group WWF blasted the targets as weak and said the allocation confirmed the government had "effectively abandoned" a voluntary target to slice 20 per cent off 1990 carbon emissions by 2010.

Around seven per cent of the allowances will be auctioned at the start of the second phase. There will be an eight per cent limit on the volume of emissions that can be covered by credits from projects under the Kyoto protocol flexible mechanisms. Operators will be able to bank their permitted level of project credit use between years.

OUR COMMENT: Is this tough enough? We have yet to hear up to date news about including aviation.

Pat Dale

Tim Johnson of AirportWatch tells Chris Wearmouth why there are far more important long-term concerns about aviation than security.

"Thank God I went on holiday in June." That thought has crossed my mind on many occasions since the alleged terror plot was foiled and increased security imposed on air travellers across the United Kingdom.

Hundreds of people stuck in seemingly never-ending queues; non-travellers banned from terminals; the raised question of profiling – air travel has never seemed either as far from the glamour of the 1950s or the 'turn up and go' attitude of Ryanair and EasyJet.

The security question falls against several backdrops, not just increased terrorist threat. For example, if the threat is only going to increase, as doomsayers predict, how are we going to cope with increased passenger flow as airports expand to meet demand? But, according to aviation environmental pressure group AirportWatch, expansion poses a global threat with a far greater potential long-term bearing than terrorism.

"There are four main impacts," says Tim Johnson of the Aviation Environment Federation, a partner in AirportWatch, along with the likes of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and local pressure groups such as HACAN ClearSkies. "And three of these are local. These are the aspects that the public doesn't really think about. One is that the car parking, the runways and the terminals all require land. There are a lot of national treasures in the UK in terms of historic buildings and ancient woodlands which are under threat from airport expansion plans.

"Secondly, because it's largely invisible, they don't see the impact that airport activity – that includes the aircraft, cars travelling to and from the airport – has on the air quality. We are already in breach of EU standards in protecting public health of air quality and it's largely due to the activity generated by Heathrow that these are being breached.

"The one that upsets the communities living around airports most of all is the aircraft noise. Anyone that's got a long enough memory will tell you that the early jets in the '50s were five, if not ten times as noisy as the jets you get today. But the communities will argue that while they're less noisy they're no less an intrusion as there are ten times as many.

"Perhaps the number one issue for everyone is the climate change aspect. Aviation globally is the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide. More importantly, all the other sectors have a relatively stable profile whereas aviation is growing at a phenomenal rate. The activity of technology to deal with this is probably summed up quite simply by looking at the fact that aviation demands growth annually four to five percent. But the rate of technological improvement in terms of efficiency is growing at only one percent.

"The other cause for concern is the fact that at altitude aviation has other greenhouse gas effects beyond CO2 emissions seen in contrails. The invisible impact that you don't see are oxides of nitrogen. At altitude they actually increase ozone concentrations, which has a global warming effect, and increase methane concentrations, which has a global cooling effect. The industry would like to tell you that these balance each other out. Scientists will tell you it doesn't, that it happens largely in the northern hemisphere, where we have a large amount of aviation, and it's largely a global warming effect. The effect on climate change is two to three times greater than the effect of CO2 emissions alone."

AirportWatch was formed in the wake of the 2003 White Paper on aviation, which the environmental NGO movement found weighted in favour of expansion with little, if any, guarantees given regarding the management of environmental impacts.

Given the current insatiable appetite for air travel, specifically cheap air travel, it would be easy to perceive AirportWatch's stance as out on a limb and out of touch with the masses. However, the organisation's research found that opinion is in fact largely along the lines of what AirportWatch stands for, according to Tim Johnson.

"First of all, people did consider aviation as an everyday mode of transport but in increasing numbers recognised their behaviour did have an impact, not only on climate change (which is the thing that concerned most people). They also realised that their bucket and spade trip they were taking to Spain that left at four o'clock in the morning wasn't just an inconvenience to them as a traveller but it did have an impact in terms of people whose houses they were flying over.

"There's a general changing mood that says the travelling public in all age groups were prepared to pay more for the environmental damage they caused. But what they're not saying is that they're willing to moderate their behaviour. We still think that the only institution that's going to be in a position to drive through that change is central government and it has to come through the form of regulation. This is the role that AirportWatch has set itself.

"What we really want to see is limits to emissions, not necessarily limits on flying, and thereby laying down a challenge to the aviation industry."

British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh moved to widen the rift between the airline and airport operator BAA still further by alleging that security at Heathrow airport has been in a state of disarray for many months.

Mr Walsh, whose airline is the largest flying in and out of the London airport, is unhappy about lengthy queues and extended search times at Heathrow, which he argues were a problem well before the terror alert of a fortnight ago.

His comments threaten to re-ignite the very public spat between the two companies a fortnight ago, which culminated in BAA Heathrow chief executive Tony Douglas confronting Mr Walsh at BA's Compass Centre building on the edge of Heathrow on August 12th.

At the centre of Mr Walsh's discontent is the airport's central security search area, which he believes is unable to process the high numbers of passengers who flow through the airport at peak times. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph he said: "We've had issues with them (BAA) on their performance for some months now, its not just arisen in the last couple of weeks".

He went on to reveal that he has raised the issue on a number of occasions, largely with Mike Clasper, who has since stood down as BAA's chief executive. "I had a number of meetings with Mike Clasper on this going forward on a number of months and the fact that we've made it public is a clear indication of this. It is critical that these issues are addressed for BA, for our passengers, and for everyone using the airport."

Mr Walsh, who has been chief executive of the airline for 10 months, went on to issue the airport operator with an ultimatum, saying: "We want to see an improvement in performance at the airport, and that has to be significant. The events of August 10th are no excuse."

When asked if he would take legal action over this, he refused to rule it out, saying: "We're keeping all our options open. We will look at every option."

A BAA spokesman acknowledged there had been an increase in security regulations in February to meet with European standards, which led it to recruit extra security staff at all its airports. But he added that since then security has been running as normal until the problems caused by extra pressures linked to the terror alert which were imposed on BAA by the Department for Transport.

His rather stark comments came as BA unveiled the thrust of its submission to the Office of Fair Trading's inquiry into BAA's alleged London monopoly. BA wants Heathrow and Stansted to be owned by different companies, largely as it is at these two airports at which the majority of future expansion will take place. But the airline also wants strict economic regulation to continue at Heathrow and Gatwick, in direct conflict with what BAA is known to argue in its own submission to the OFT.

BA will also suggest that a number of BAA controlled services – thought to include IT and security – could be put out to tender to lower costs.

Low-cost airline easyJet argues in its submission to the OFT that UK airports must be subject to strong price regulation, and says that UK air travellers must not pick up the bill for Ferrovial's recent acquisition of BAA.

The shambles at Heathrow caused by the recent terror alert has turned into a blame game between British Airways and the airport's owner.

Three days after the terror alert first brought chaos to Heathrow airport, Willie Walsh finally flipped. His aides had dissuaded him from publicly criticising BAA, Heathrow's owner and operator, but on the afternoon of Saturday, August 12 he decided he had had enough.

At 3pm he attacked. "We are ready and able to operate a full schedule at Heathrow," he said in a statement. "We have sufficient flying crew, ground staff and aircraft in place. However, BAA is unable to provide a robust security search process and baggage operation, and as a result we are being forced to cancel flights and operate others without all the passengers on board."

It was tough stuff for a BA chief executive - particularly one who has been in the job for less than a year. And it broke an unwritten understanding between Britain's two biggest transport groups that they would not air their dirty laundry in public.

Walsh's predecessors, Sir Rod Eddington, Robert Ayling and Lord Marshall may all have had private doubts about BAA, but rarely said anything against it openly.

Stephen Nelson, BAA's chief executive - an even newer arrival than Walsh, having been in the hot seat just five weeks - was at Heathrow when the BA bombshell landed.

He resolved to confront Walsh. Accompanied by Tony Douglas, BAA's Heathrow boss, he drove round the airport to see him. A 45-minute debate ensued. The two sides disagree on the venue - sources at BAA said the clash took place at Waterside, BA's campus-style headquarters near Heathrow, while BA insiders insist it happened at the Compass Centre, the airline's operational base a mile up the road. But they do agree on the nature of the conversation. "It was... well, let's just say it was fairly frank," said one BA source.

With flights at Heathrow returning to near normal this weekend, the Walsh-Nelson showdown may have marked the low point in the airport shambles caused by the terror alert.

But airline executives, analysts and investors remain deeply concerned about the long-term effects of the crisis. They think the increased security restrictions mean BAA will struggle to maintain the throughput of passengers even in the medium term, and that the new rules may have as yet unforeseen consequences for airlines (see below).

The debacle has also brought to the surface long-simmering tensions between BAA and its customers, and marked an end to 20 years of friendly relations between the airport operator and its largest customer, BA.

For BAA and its new owners, a consortium of investors led by the Spanish group Ferrovial, there is a twist in the tale. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is in the middle of an inquiry into BAA's dominance of the airport market around London. BAA owns Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and accounts for more than 90% of all flights from the capital. If the OFT does not like what it finds, it could send the matter to the Competition Commission for a full inquiry.

Most airlines were likely to urge a