Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign - SSE News Archive

We have been negotiating with the US for greater competition in transatlantic flights on and off since 1977, which is why this week?s agreement has been acclaimed as historic. It certainly can?t be on the merits of the deal that has finally been reached between the European Union and the US. The dream of those pushing for the ?open skies? treaty was for greater competition on flights between Europe and America, leading to lower prices for customers and more jobs.

Open skies? Hardly. True, by next summer European airlines will be able to fly from any city in the EU to anywhere in the US. Their American rivals will have the same option. But both sides will need lots of cash to buy swingeingly expensive takeoff and landing slots. And however liberal Washington?s negotiators may have sounded, they still refuse to allow US airlines to be bought by foreign firms.

America had the whip hand throughout the negotiations: while US airlines can run internal flights within Europe their continental counterparts remain barred from American domestic markets. In any case, this week's deal will not make much difference to most British travellers. Our market is already fiercely competitive: with the trawl of the internet, and economy ticket between London and JFK can be yours for just over £200. No, the real beneficiaries are that gilded lot who sit in the front of the plane. Business class passengers may see their fares come down, but their victory should not be seen as a win for all.

We set off down the road of liberalising air travel a long time ago, which may be why this treaty looks like a throwback to an age when we were not so concerned about the environment. Tellingly, the EU?s own report into this deal?s impact discusses how it affects businesses and consumers ? but not the environment. Yet this agreement will put another 26 million passengers on planes over the next 5 years, a figure that green campaigners believe adds around 3.5m extra tonnes of CO2 emissions every year. How, does this fit with Europe?s new green agenda? Well it offsets any reduction in emissions that come from aviation?s inclusion in the European emissions trading scheme. That is, it takes us back to square one.

Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing? The transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, hails this agreement as a great deregulation, while the environment secretary, David Miliband, admits to the BBC Newsnight that increased air travel is bad for the planet. We can?t push for increased air travel and reduced environmental damage. The former is a luxury, the latter a necessity. This is a deal whose time has come ? and gone.

UK finance minister Gordon Brown announced a series of measures to encourage reduced greenhouse gas emissions in a budget for the financial year 2007/8 on Wednesday. The environment ministry welcomed the budget as providing the "next steps towards a low-carbon economy".

Key announcements included a competition to develop the UK's first full-scale demonstration of carbon capture and storage, the winner of which will be revealed next year. A new UKP800m (E1.2bn) fund for projects that benefit the environment and reduce poverty in developing countries will be launched. Britain's landfill tax will rise next year.

For transport, there was a modest rise in fuel duty rates and an extension of lower duty on biofuels to 2009/10. Annual car tax is being cut for vehicles emitting under 120 g/km CO2 and increased significantly for the most polluting. A review is to be launched to look at what vehicle and fuel technologies could "decarbonise" road transport over the next 25 years.

For buildings, Mr Brown announced abolition of house purchase tax for most zero-carbon homes and an increase in funds for installation of domestic energy generation. All householders should have been offered help to introduce energy efficiency measures by the end of the next decade, he said. And incandescent light bulbs should be phased out by 2011.

OUR COMMENT: A pity that all these policies will be undone over the Atlantic if not over Europe.

The Bush administration has been meddling in climate research in a bid to downplay the importance of global warming, according to a memo released by the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The committee held its second hearing on federal interference in climate change science on Monday this week.

In his opening statement, representative Henry Waxman said although it is too early to draw firm conclusions about the White House's conduct, "some of the information the committee has already obtained is disturbing. It suggests there may have been a concerted effort directed by the White House to mislead the public about the dangers of global climate change".

He said that science should inform policy, and that if the Bush administration had turned this policy upside down "through raw political pressure, then it set our country on a dangerous course".

A memo later released by the committee says that the documents provided by the Council on Environmental Qualify (CEQ) suggest the White House was systematically trying to minimise the significance of climate change.

It says there is evidence that Phillip Cooney, former chief of staff of the CEQ, and his staff made almost 300 edits to a 10 year strategy document either to emphasise scientific uncertainty (181), or to diminish the human role in global warming (113).

It also cites evidence that the White House "played an active role in deciding when federal climate change scientists could answer media questions about their work".

James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said he had seen a gradual politicising of science over the past quarter of a century, but that in 30 years in government he has "never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now".

He has previously accused political appointees within NASA of trying to censor him.

In his own testimony, Cooney describes his editing as part of "the normal review process" of documents moving between different agencies.

He writes: "I had the authority and responsibility to review the documents in question... and did so using my best judgement, based on the administration's stated research priorities...I understand that my judgement and the administration's priorities are properly open to review."

Forty top British companies will next week launch an unprecedented campaign to shrink Britain's carbon footprint, by cutting their own energy use and trying to turn "green consumerism into a mass movement".

They will introduce promotions and new products to make it easy for people to save energy and cut emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. And they will set a "Blue Peter style" target for the total amount of carbon dioxide to be saved by the campaign.

The initiative - to be launched by Tony Blair next month - aims to counter a widespread feeling of helplessness among people who want to act to combat climate change, but fear that any contribution they make will be too small to make any difference.

It is being spearheaded by some of the country's best-known brands - including Tesco, Marks & Spencer, BSkyB, HSBC, the BBC, B&Q and 02, working with the Prime Minister's office, the National Consumer Council and the Church of England. Top businessmen - such as Sir Terry Leahy, chief executive of Tesco, and James Murdoch, chief executive of BSkyB - are intimately involved.

The companies at the heart of the plans have all promised to clean up their own operations as a precondition of the campaign. "Our philosophy is that we will not ask customers to do something that we have not done", said one.

BSkyB, for example, has cut greenhouse-gas emissions from its sites by 47 per cent, buys all its electricity from renewable sources and has announced its intention to go carbon neutral. Last week it began a programme of enabling two million set-top boxes to switch automatically to standby when not being used, in an attempt to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32,000 tons a year.

Marks & Spencer aims to go carbon neutral within five years and Tesco plans to work out the carbon footprint of each of its businesses worldwide, publish the total on its website, and take measures to cut it.

Sir Terry Leahy says: "The key to success is to turn green consumption into a mass movement. By harnessing the buying power of millions of consumers we can drive change throughout the economy."

"Businesses like mine, with an international reach, have a particular responsibility to give a lead. This is about transforming our business model so that the reduction of our carbon footprint becomes a central driver of our business and not just some PR add-on."

He says that sales of organic food have risen by a "phenomenal 39 per cent" in the past year, and that labelling of the salt and fat content of food is "leading to the most extraordinary changes in buying behaviour, which in turn is driving innovation throughout the industry."

The company plans to label each product with its carbon footprint, believing that this "will send very powerful economic signals through the supply chain".

The move is part of a belated attempt by Mr Blair to cut carbon-dioxide emissions at home as he campaigns for a new global agreement to take over from the present arrangements under the Kyoto Protocol, when they run out in five years' time. So far, emissions of the gas have risen since he came to power in 1997.

He and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, are stepping up a lobbying campaign of world leaders - including President George W Bush - to try to get the G8 summit at Heiligendamm, Germany, in June to agree a limit on the amount of pollution the climate can tolerate. The aim is to get national allowances that can be bought and sold internationally, and provide help to developing countries.

The two leaders were boosted by the EU's agreement last month to cut carbon dioxide emissions, and increase renewable energy, both by 20 per cent by 2020.

Railfuture will be calling for better rail connections to Stansted if the Government allows the airport to expand.

There is already a good service from London but it is almost impossible to reach by rail from Bedfordshire or most parts of East Anglia.

The Government has been dilly-dallying for years over the East-West rail link ? ignoring the implications of expanding both Stansted airport and Felixstowe docks as well as large-scale house building in the region.

Now it must confront the issue of rail connections between Bedford and Cambridge. Combined with a rebuilt Bedford-Northampton line, the west and south Midlands could also gain rail access to Stansted.

Rail campaigners will be trying to ensure that the anti-rail bias of the Government Office for the East of England does not distort yet another transport scheme.

At least rail gets a mention in the launch by BAA of its public consultation on the possibility of a two-runway Stansted airport.

But the 14-week public consultation to consider the requirements for road and rail access to Stansted will mean that ideas have to go the The Government Office for the East of England.

GO-EAST, as it likes to call itself, has already been involved in developing a "surface access strategy" in conjunction with BAA, the Highways Agency, Network Rail, and the Department for Transport.

The proposals so far include:
Measures to reduce the growth in car travel to the airport
Longer trains to meet increased passenger demand
The Stansted Express to return to being a dedicated service for airport travellers at the busiest times of day
Additional trains on the West Anglia Main Line serving Harlow and Bishop's Stortford
New and improved coach and bus services to build on the success of existing services
Local road diversions to maintain connections between communities around the extended airport boundary.

The Highways Agency will be consulting over its proposals for widening the M11 south of Stansted between the M25 (junction 6) and the airport at junction 8, and on plans to improve access to the airport from the M11 and A120.

Responses to the consultation should go to: Transport Team, Government Office for the East of England, Eastbrook, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8DF. Tel: 01223 372752. Fax: 01223 372862. Email: Transport.GOEast@goeast.gsi.gov.uk

OUR COMMENT: There may be a good service to Stansted airport but the commuter services are very crowded at peak times and depend on using seats on the Stansted Express when it is allowed to stop at Stansted Mountfichet, Bishop?s Sortford or Harlow. Rail DfT now regards standing room as the indicator of coach capacity, rather than just seats!

The ability of the planning system to deliver a high quality environment will be weakened under sweeping Government changes, rural campaigners warned today.

There are fears that changes proposed in the Barker Review of land use planning which favour economic growth above all the other needs of society will be harmful, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

At the launch of the CPRE's critique into the Barker Review Marina Pacheco, CPRE's head of planning, said: "Barker's controversial review of land use planning with its narrow focus on making the system faster and better for business, completely misses the point that planning is about getting the right development in the right place at the right time.

"The planning system needs to be used to address key environmental concerns like global warming, while improving the environment and quality of life.

"There is little evidence that planning is biased against development - in fact the opposite is the case.

"And it is not clear why planning for major infrastructure projects like nuclear power stations, airports and highways is facing further reform when new procedures, which have never been used, were introduced only 19 months ago.

"We urge the Government to take note of this critique which questions whether Kate Barker's evidence really does point to a planning system which is unresponsive, costly and inefficient."

:: Barker's approach to planning is naive and simplistic because many of her apparent costs of planning, such as investment forgone or the extra expense to developers of complying with planning requirements, are really benefits of the system in the form of damaging developments prevented and/or poor quality developments improved.

:: The planning process is already biased in favour of developers who only need to get lucky once on a planning application for it to go through, while objectors have to get lucky every time to prevent development and have no right to appeal.

:: Protection for green belt is as critical as ever, and continuity of green belt boundaries is essential to prevent developers buying land up on the expectation of getting planning permission sometime in the future.

:: The Government should question the need for "big kit" infrastructure which is becoming harder to justify and should try and develop in a more sustainable way as a first step.

:: The planning system could contribute a lot more to reducing and adapting to climate change, but the growth and competitiveness agenda militates against this.

Ms Pacheco added: "We strongly believe that what Kate Barker sees as weaknesses in the system are actually strengths protecting our environment and quality of life."

"As the finishing touches are put to the Planning White Paper it is critical that the Government takes note of this damning critique and rethinks its approach to planning reform."

The UK government proposed a legal requirement to slash national carbon dioxide emissions by 26-32 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050 in a draft law tabled on Tuesday. The initiative is the first of its kind in the world.

Under a climate change bill issued by the environment ministry, the government would set statutory five-yearly carbon budgets at least 15 years before each period, based on advice from an independent committee.

It would be required to report annually to parliament on progress in cutting emissions, and every five years on expected impacts of climate change and its proposals for adapting to it.

Finance minister Gordon Brown trailed the proposal in a speech on Monday evening. Carbon would now be counted in the same way as money, he said. "Just as we manage our financial budgets over the economic cycle with prudence and discipline, so we will have to manage our carbon budgets with the same prudence and discipline".

A strategy on moving Britain to a low-carbon economy issued alongside the draft law argues that all sectors of society will have to contribute and sets out plans for investment in low-carbon fuels and technologies, more efficient use of energy, a shift from energy supply to energy services and boosting decentralised energy production.

The government's proposal came amidst furious competition by Britain's leading political parties to outdo one another on green issues.

Mr Brown had to vie with Conservative opposition leader David Cameron for media attention on Monday as the latter delivered a separate speech on environmental issues. Menzies Campbell of the centrist Liberal Democrats accused both the other parties of talking too much and doing too little.

Both opposition parties are pressing for statutory carbon dioxide emission targets to be made annual rather than five-yearly. Environmental groups said the emissions reduction target should be strengthened to 75 per cent by 2050.

The European emission trading scheme is already leading participating companies to cut carbon dioxide, Point Carbon said in a market survey published on Tuesday at the opening of its annual carbon markets conference in Copenhagen.

About two-thirds of 800 EU ETS participants approached said they had initiated internal abatement projects as a result of the EU ETS. Last year only 15 per cent responded in this way.

This is only the second strong indication that the EU ETS has triggered abatement, after an Italian study published last year. Prevailing wisdom up to now has been despite giving birth to a thriving carbon market the EU ETS has failed to cut emissions.

Jos Delbeke of the European commission welcomed the finding. He also emphasised the fact that hardly any companies said they were considering relocation as a means to comply with the EU ETS.

In other findings, over 80 per cent of respondents said they did not expect to be able to avoid having to cut their own emissions in phase two of the scheme by importing credits from the Kyoto protocol flexible mechanisms.

Point Carbon expects carbon allowances to average E21 in the period 2008-12, fluctuating between E8 and E32. It puts the chance that there will be sufficient international credits available to meet EU ETS demand at only 50:50.

Former American vice president Al Gore opened the conference by telling delegates he felt the USA was nearing a tipping point after which action to combat climate change could develop very quickly. He suggested that America and China might reach some kind of consensus on post-2012 actions by 2010.

Last week Point Carbon released figures from the report demonstrating the success of the EU ETS as a market.

EU countries are still failing to send clear market signals in favour of lower CO2-emitting cars, carmakers complained on Monday. Sector group Acea called for harmonised taxation across the EU to encourage consumers to purchase lower-emission vehicles.

According to a new survey by Acea, only 11 of the EU's 27 member states now have some linkage to CO2 emissions in their national car tax systems, though this is up from just nine a year ago.

Where there are linkages to CO2, these vary enormously in design. Some countries link only one-off registration taxes to CO2, others link only annual circulation taxes. Even within each category almost no system is alike. Furthermore, the difference in tax paid by high and low CO2-emitting vehicles is generally relatively small (see table below).

According to Acea, all this significantly impedes carmakers ability to sell low-CO2 vehicles. "Manufacturers face a fragmented EU market and are unable to exploit economies of scale", it explains.

The association called for all existing taxes to shift towards circulation taxes, in line with a directive proposed in 2005 but stalled in the council of ministers due to national sensitivity to EU involvement in tax measures.

CO2 should be the "key criterion" in setting tax rates, the group added. In addition, every gram of CO2 emitted should be taxed the same amount, so avoiding arbitrary thresholds - no existing national CO2-lined tax complies with this principle currently.

SCHEMES used by environmentally conscious consumers to cut their "carbon footprint" could take up to a century to deliver the promised benefits, a study has suggested.

Researchers found it takes that length of time for "carbon offsetting" ? which often involves the planting of trees in the developing world ? to absorb the greenhouse gases emitted by a single flight.

Dozens of fortunes have been made in recent years by entrepreneurs offering people and businesses the chance to neutralise their carbon emissions for a fee.

The new research, carried out by scientists at the Tyndall Centre, based at the University of East Anglia, and Sweden?s Lund University, suggests that such schemes may, in fact, do little more than salve the consciences of those paying for them.

"What we are seeing here is the emergence of a new and completely unregulated financial market," said Lund?s Professor Stefan Gossling, who led the study.

"These schemes may eventually recapture the carbon people emit now but will only finish the job after most of them have died. That is too long."

The schemes studied by Gossling included one offered by British Airways to its passengers.

AT THE back of Ernest Moniz's mind a clock is ticking. Moniz is director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His mental countdown marks the narrowing window of time that remains for the US to address a looming environmental disaster fuelled by the burning of mountains of cheap American coal.

"It's going to be used," says Moniz, who co-chaired a report - The Future of Coal - that was released this week. His assertion is the result of three years of economic modelling which predicts that coal consumption in the US will grow significantly by mid-century. "In virtually any scenario that we've explored, coal use increases - even when you place a substantial price on CO2 emissions."

Unlike oil, which is expensive and concentrated in geopolitically problematic locations, coal is plentiful in those countries where future demand is likely to be greatest, notably the US, China and India. Given that coal generates the most CO2 per unit energy of any fossil fuel, the implications for climate change are serious.

The report recommends a massive scale-up of technologies that capture the carbon released by coal burning and sequester it underground in porous rock formations. Such technologies have been tried on a small scale, but no single project covers the entire process.

"We believe the United States and the rest of the world is not demonstrating the necessary urgency," says Moniz. A big increase in funding is needed to develop infrastructure for CO2 capture. What is most needed, he says, is a regulatory framework to select geological sites for carbon sequestration on the scale of 1 million tonnes per year.

"Our understanding of the technology is better than most people realise," says Howard Herzog, who heads the lab's research on sequestration. A greater obstacle is the lack of incentive for utility companies to invest in carbon capture. "The key thing is to attach a price to carbon emissions," says Moniz. "Without that it can never cost less to capture and sequester CO2 than it would to simply let it go into the atmosphere."

The MIT report also urges Congress to ensure that existing coal-fired plants will not be exempt from future emissions charges. Without such legislation there could be a rush to build power stations with no provision for carbon capture. The Texas utility giant TXU, which has been in a fight with environmentalists over plans to build 11 old-style coal-fired power stations, said recently that it has dropped eight of them. Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has said he will introduce a bill to block companies from building plants without carbon capture. The goal is to force owners to use up-to-date technology for storing carbon emissions.

According to David Keith at the University of Calgary in Alberta, who chairs the CO2 storage group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the US and Canada must start building commercial-scale coal-fired plants that incorporate carbon capture. The US government currently has plans for one, dubbed FutureGen, which is scheduled to begin operating in 2013. To be ready for the approaching coal rush, the MIT report calls on the Department of Energy to fund at least three projects on a similar scale. The report is available at web.mit.edu/coal - "The US and Canada must start building coal-fired plants that incorporate carbon capture"

Environment ministers representing the world's eight leading industrialised countries and top five emerging economies managed to agree only the broadest brushstrokes of an agenda for combating climate change at a summit in Potsdam on Saturday.

German environment minister and meeting host Sigmar Gabriel insisted the meeting had not been a failure. Mr Gabriel had repeatedly stressed the talks aimed to lay bare national interests, especially of developing countries, rather than reach consensus on future action (EED 16/03/07 www.endseuropedaily.com/22842).

Both he and Yvo de Boer, head of the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), told journalists that the meeting's achievements had exceeded their expectations.

Ministers agreed that climate change objectives must be combined with economic development goals. This was the key concern of developing countries.

They also agreed that industrialised countries will have to help developing countries adapt to climate change, further reduce their own emissions, and transfer technology to the developing world. Ministers endorsed the international scientific consensus on climate Change.

The discussions became heated when they became more specific. Mr Gabriel's contention that the carbon market was an essential tool to mitigate emissions in both the developed and developing world was opposed by the US. The latter also refused to endorse a proposal that developing nations should receive compensation from the developed world for voluntary efforts to protect their forests.

Developing nations need incentives to act on climate change, said Mr de Boer, however. Japan's environment minister pointed out that Brazil, lauded for its success in reducing deforestation, has suffered economically as a result. Besides job losses, it had seen only a sixth of the $1.2bn investment it was promised for its efforts 15 years ago.

The issue of how to ensure that developing countries invest in and are rewarded for climate protection will reappear at the G8 heads of government summit in Heiligendamm in June. There also, leaders will discuss specific emission reduction targets for the post-Kyoto period. This was "the elephant in the room" at the Potsdam talks, said Mr Gabriel - looming in the background but not discussed.

Norwich International airport is to levy a "terminal tax" to fund an £18m expansion plan, despite its owners resisting moves for a similar levy aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

Omniport, which runs Norwich International, said the £3 airport development fee would be introduced from April 2 and those refusing to pay would not be allowed to board flights.

The move prompted renewed calls for Omniport to introduce a levy to pay for measures to cut aircraft carbon emissions instead of a charge to fund profit-boosting schemes.

Norwich North MP Ian Gibson, who tried in vain to persuade the airport to introduce a passenger levy to fund a local carbon offsetting scheme in September 2005, said it was ironic Omniport now backed the idea to pay for its expansion plans.

And he urged the airport to look again at a local carbon tax. "Why stick this on the passengers? They seem to be living in a strange world up there," he said.

"Everybody else is talking about carbon emissions but they are not pushing it at all. This seems more about increasing their profits than anything. They are trying to encourage more people to fly, but they don't seem to have any environmental policy whatsoever. This will put people off and they will start going to Stansted."

When the airport was privatised in a £11m deal in 2004, supporters stressed it was the best chance of funding as the private sector was best-placed to attract investment. Around 450,000 passengers flew from Norwich in 2004 and the figure is expected to increase to nearly 800,000 this year.

Richard Jenner, airport managing director, said the levy, to be collected in special vending machines, was needed because growth had been faster than expected since the Omniport takeover.

Under the plans all outbound passengers will pay £3 with a £1 charge for children aged between two and 15 years old. Youngsters under two will travel free.

"We are trying to be transparent," he said. "These funds are going to allow us to get better facilities and extend the number and range of flights. We think the benefits far outweigh an extra £3 overall. This money will all be put back into development at Norwich Airport. Of the £18m between £12 and £13m will still be made up from private investment. This is a very small element."

The tariff will raise £4-6m in the next five years and be handled by the airport's transport services company NCP. Revenues will partly fund work like increasing the number of check-in desks, betters shops, improving the lounge side toilets, developing a new fire service training ground and introducing noise reduction facilities.

Other terminals operating a similar payment method include Ireland West Airport Knock, Kerry and Newquay.

"Without this small charge made to every passenger it simply would not be possible for us to put this level of investment into the airport," Mr Jenner said. "The growth will double the number of jobs created by Norwich International within the next five years as well as providing more choice, better value and greater comfort to passengers."

A survey out yesterday showed more than three quarters of travellers are demanding a carbon offset flight tax to allow for "guilt-free" holidays.

While 94pc of travellers surveyed by lastminute.com disagree with the new Government Flight Tax, 78pc would be prepared to pay twice as much as the new tax if the money went towards offsetting the environmental impact of their flights.

The leaders of the EU's 27 member states adopted a "bold and ambitious" programme of measures on climate protection and clean energy on Friday. Shortly before lunchtime, leaders emerged from talks to announce agreement on binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of renewable energies by 2020.

The outcome delighted the European commission. Leaders had signed up to virtually every single proposal in a major package of climate and energy proposals in January, the EU executive said (see full details of agreement in separate article in this issue).

European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said the EU now had "the most ambitious climate protection strategy anywhere in the world". UK prime minister Tony Blair described the meeting as a "true triumph" for the German EU presidency, adding that the agreement put Europe "in the lead on climate change".

Whether to make a target for boosting the share of renewable energy binding or not was the most contentious issue at the summit meeting. Leaders finally backed it, providing it is shared "fairly and equitably" between countries, and takes into account different national "circumstances, starting points and potentials".

German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that agreeing differentiated national targets contributing towards the overall 20 per cent goal will be a "difficult task".

Mr Barroso promised new legislative proposals on renewables in the third quarter of this year, adding that binding national targets will be agreed in cooperation with each member state in turn.

The summit conclusions recognise the contribution of nuclear energy to meeting "growing concerns about safety of energy supply and CO2 emissions reductions". This is widely seen as a concession to France and other pro-nuclear countries, designed to win their support for a binding renewables goal.

However, the text adds that issues of nuclear safety and security are "paramount" in the decision-making process, and there is no mention of a target demanded by France for increasing the share of "low-carbon energy".

Heads of government committed the EU to a series of short and long-term targets and measures on climate protection and clean energy on Friday. Almost all of them are based on proposals tabled by the European commission in January.

* A binding unilateral EU commitment to cut greenhouse gases by at least 20 per cent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. The target will be fleshed out through differentiated national targets along the same lines as the burden sharing agreement underlying the EU's current Kyoto protocol emissions commitment.

* A broader objective for all industrialised countries, including the EU, to reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2020. The EU would aim to meet it if other developed countries made "comparable efforts" and leading developing countries made "adequate commitments".

* Beyond 2020, developed countries should be aiming at collective cuts in emissions of 60-80 per cent by 2050.

* A comprehensive EU energy action plan for 2007-09, containing the following priority measures:

?On Tuesday, when the government publishes its Climate Change Bill, we will set out to become the first country in the world to establish in law a timetable to become a low-carbon economy. The bill will enshrine our determination to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050, with interim goals as well as annual reporting to parliament to help us get there.

The benefits will be threefold. By creating a long-term trajectory for emissions reductions we avoid damaging lurches in policy. By providing a framework for business we give incentives for technological innovation. By showing that we are serious about emissions reductions, we get a fighting chance of bringing India and China on board.

The energy security and climate change rationale for a low-carbon economy is overwhelming. But its achievement will require political left and right to drop their shibboleths. The left needs to embrace markets, individual empowerment and nuclear power; the right needs to embrace Europe, social justice and wind farms. No wonder climate change is classic territory for thinking that is bold Labour not old Labour.

The starting point for Britain?s transformation into a low-carbon economy is mundane. Energy efficiency is the Cinderella of climate change policy. But 8m cavity walls and millions more roofs without insulation offer us the chance to save money and help the environment. But we need to go much further.

Britain?s energy mix is wrong ? low-carbon nuclear is declining and renewables produce less than 5% of electricity, with coal and gas filling the gap. Yet wind energy worth one-fifth the electricity baseload is held up in the planning system. Tidal power is an obvious option for an island nation. And carbon capture and storage technology ? which buries underground 85%-90% of the carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations ? is already being used in Norway. In transport the Lotus-built Tesla is a fully electric car with a top speed of over 130mph and a battery range of up to 250 miles. In Brazil three-quarters of the cars run on ethanol. It is not utopian to think of Britain becoming a ?postoil economy? over the next 20 years.

The practical solutions to climate change exist or are on the horizon. The question is to how to get people, businesses and government to drive the change.

Government targets are not enough. Nor is David Cameron?s exhortation to social responsibility ? it?s nice to have but insufficient. The instinct of progressives to set high and rising standards for goods and services makes sense ? hence mandatory emissions levels for cars, mandatory carbon capture fittings for power stations (both agreed in Brussels last week) and tighter building regulations until from 2016 every new home is a zero-carbon home.

But the world?s greatest market failure ? as Sir Nicholas Stern said of global warming ? needs the power of the market to be redirected to climate stabilisation. Carbon trading puts a price on pollution. It already exists in Europe, through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and covers half of the UK?s greenhouse gas emissions. Done right, it will drive the private sector to meet scientific goals and generate funding for investment in low-energy infrastructure in the developing world. London is the best place in the world to develop the market.

Within an overall ?carbon budget?, companies are allocated carbon allowances, declining each year, as the carbon budget gets tighter. Companies that cut their emissions get to sell their spare allowances and make money. Those that do not can buy allowances. Carbon markets offer efficient ways of cutting our environmental footprint, but they require government to create and enforce them.

The Climate Change Bill will set out ?enabling powers? that will allow government to bring forward schemes to extend carbon trading across the economy. The priority in the short term will be to extend carbon trading across main carbon-emitting industries. So in the EU, we want to see aviation brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme. We are also consulting on a UK carbon trading scheme for 5,000 large organisations.

In the long term, however, the implications could be even more radical. Carbon trading could be extended to emissions by individuals, which account for 44% of UK emissions. Each of us could have a personal carbon allowance, with those whose carbon footprint is less than their allowance able to earn money selling their allowances to those who need more. The Tyndall Centre suggests this would be broadly socially progressive ? in general the poorer you are, the lower your emissions.

The main barrier is the transaction costs of creating a new system. But with a new credit card called Ice about to be launched that will automatically count up your carbon emissions when you buy products, even this barrier does not seem insurmountable. If the banking system automatically can count up your carbon footprint, at least on the four main transactions that account for most of our carbon ? electricity, gas, petrol and aviation ? personal carbon trading could be a long-term option.

We need political parties to challenge their ideological traditions and make the tough decisions that this challenge requires. In practice, that means helping new wind farms through the planning system and accepting that nuclear power will be part of the energy mix of the future. It means accepting that carbon markets are the future.

The only way they can be created is by an active state and an active European Union.?

The Conservatives are today launching a consultation on how to use environmental taxes to reduce the rapid growth in carbon emissions from aviation.

Those who argue that we must stop flying altogether are wrong. But we will be unable to meet our national and international targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions unless we reduce the rapid predicted future growth of aircraft emissions.

Any solution will require a combination of international cooperation and national action. The focus of this consultation is what can be done at the national level. In particular, the current system of aviation taxation in the UK is fundamentally flawed - Air Passenger Duty is not directly linked to carbon emissions and provides no incentives for airlines to use more fuel-efficient aircraft. Even the Government admit that it is a "blunt instrument". The consultation asks for submissions in response to three main policy ideas:

* Replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per-flight tax based more closely on actual carbon emissions

* Introducing a 'Green Air Miles Allowance' so that people who fly more frequently pay tax at a higher rate

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said: "At the Conservative Party conference last year I outlined how I wanted to rebalance the tax system away from taxing the good things towards taxing the bad. Today we are publishing our consultation document on the future of aviation taxation. This is a detailed, serious and thorough analysis of the weaknesses of the current regime whose problems have been summed up by Treasury Minister John Healey when he described it as a 'blunt instrument'."

"Our Greener skies consultation sets out credible proposals for curbing the future growth of emissions from air transport. Our consultation shows how this can be done in a way that does not tax people out of their one foreign holiday a year but instead focuses on dirtier aircraft and more frequent fliers. It is important that people understand that for each additional pound raised in aviation tax, there will be a matched reduction in family taxes so the overall tax burden will not rise."

"With our principle of pay as you burn not pay as you earn we are proving we are prepared to take tough and long term decisions for a strong stable economy and a cleaner environment."

The document sets out five principles that a reformed system of aviation taxation should satisfy:

1. The aim of any reform should be to reduce the overall growth in emissions from aviation

2. International cooperation is of primary importance in addressing the environmental impact of aviation, but there remains a crucial role for national policies

3. Any new environmental taxes should be replacement taxes, not additional taxes, with any extra revenues offset by equivalent reductions in other forms of taxation

4. Any reforms should link tax incentives more closely to carbon content and provide better incentives for fuel efficiency

1. What is the correct balance between international and national action to address the environmental impacts of aviation?

2. Is there an immediate case for charging fuel duty and/or VAT on domestic flights?

3. Is there a case for replacing APD with a per-flight tax based more closely on actual carbon emissions?

4. If some element of per-passenger taxation is maintained, is there a case for introducing some form of annual 'Green Air Miles Allowance' so that people who fly more frequently pay tax at a higher rate?

5. What other steps are needed in order to reduce the growth in aviation emissions?

Those who argue that we need to stop flying are wrong. However, unless we act to reduce the growth in emissions from aviation we will be unable to meet our domestic and international targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

* Official Government statistics show that, including domestic flights and international departures, aviation currently contributes 5.5% of the UK?s CO2 emissions.

* Aviation?s contribution to global climate change is often cited as 2-3%. However, this refers only to carbon dioxide. Evidence suggests that water vapour and nitrous oxides emitted at high altitude boost the greenhouse impact of aircraft by a factor of 2 to 4. The true contribution of aviation to climate change is thus estimated to be in the region of 4-9% and growing rapidly.

* Even under the Government's 'best case' scenario, aviation will account for 24% of the UK's carbon emissions by 2050. The Tyndall Centre has estimated that, with unconstrained growth, aviation could account for more than 100% of the UK's target carbon budget by 2050 if its full environmental impact is taken into account.

International cooperation is of primary importance in addressing the environmental impact of aviation, but there remains a crucial role for national policies:

* While the inclusion of aviation within the EU ETS is a welcome development, there are several reasons why this is not likely to be a sufficient solution. For example, the European Commission itself admits that including aviation in the scheme will do little to constrain demand for air travel. Current proposals also take no account of the indirect warming effects of aviation emissions, which increase their impact by between 2 and 4 times.

* The current system of aviation taxation in the UK is fundamentally flawed. Aviation is under-taxed relative to other industries due to the lack of fuel duty and zero VAT. In addition, Air Passenger Duty is not directly linked to carbon emissions and provides no incentives for airlines to use more fuel-efficient aircraft. Even the Government admit that it is a "blunt instrument" that is "not designed for environmental ends".

* The taxation of aircraft fuel for international flights is governed by international agreements which will take time to renegotiate. In the meantime there is a role for national policies that are compatible with existing international agreements.

* Without urgent action to reduce the rapid growth of emissions from aviation, there is a danger that aviation-intensive lifestyles and travel patterns could become harder to change in future. As a significant aviation hub, there is potentially scope for the UK to show global leadership in addressing the environmental consequences of aviation.

* Evidence on the current mix of passengers supports the conclusion that a tax on aviation would not be regressive. For example, about half of the population do not fly in any one year, 80% of flights are taken by those in the top half of the income distribution, and the average income of leisure flyers is almost double the national average.However, we should try to find policy solutions that do not end up turning air travel into the preserve of the better off. Our 'Green Air Miles Allowance' idea is one potential way to address this.

Working men earning more than £40,000 a year are responsible for the lion's share of climate change emissions from personal travel, according to a Oxford University survey. It found that one in five people are responsible for 61% of climate change emissions from private transport and that most of these are well-off men.

Christian Brand at the university's transport studies unit, who carried out the research with Brenda Boardman, said that discussions about reducing emissions usually focused on the average carbon footprint. "Our work shows there's a huge range," he said.

While most people emitted between one and three tonnes of CO2 in total through their personal travel in the previous year, the top 10% had an average of 19.2 tonnes of CO2 from flying alone. The data came from a survey of leisure travel using all modes of transport by 456 people at 278 addresses in Oxfordshire.

The survey points to aviation as the biggest single source of emissions, closely followed by car use. The impact from air travel on global warming is higher than its carbon emissions alone because gases and water vapour are released at altitude. Taking this effect into account, the team calculated that aviation's share of climate impact is 70.4%. "Air travel is so cheap - mainly because there is hardly any tax paid on it - that people start thinking of that as their first mode of transport when it comes to leisure travel," said Dr Brand.

Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth, said: "Finding ways in which the message can be got through to the people with the biggest carbon footprint would be a way of getting some easy wins. That needs to be reflected in policy, for example changing the way in which vehicle excise duty is levied to discourage people from buying big gas guzzlers and putting more of a signal into the price of a flight ticket."

The danger was that even if large numbers of people changed their behaviour a small minority could blow targets out of the water. Peter Cox, a climate expert at Exeter University, believes the rich would be able to buy themselves higher emissions. "Putting a tax on a unit of carbon wouldn't hit them particularly hard."

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall asked Her Majesty's Government: What steps they will take to ensure that BAA's latest plans for the expansion of Stansted Airport are consistent with government policies on environmental protection and carbon emissions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, BAA is taking forward expansion plans for Stansted Airport in accordance with the Government's White Paper on the future of transport. In the 2006 progress report on the White Paper, the Government made it clear that major decisions on airport capacity need to take into account not only their local environmental effects but also the wider context of aviation's climate impact. All planning applications will be subject to the planning inquiry process.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will be aware that his predecessor and other Ministers have consistently denied that the Government are pursuing a predict-and-provide approach to airport expansion or to any other form of transport infrastructure. Does he agree, however, that BAA's rationale for the expansion of Stansted Airport is based entirely on that rather discredited planning model, as the language of its public documents reveals? Is he aware that if Stansted Airport is expanded, carbon emissions there will rise from the present 5 million tonnes per annum to 12 million tonnes per annum? In view of everything we now know about the urgency of addressing climate change, not to mention the devastating impact of the expansion on local communities, will he explain why the Government are still supporting BAA's ambitions in this arena?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we support airport development in the right circumstances, which means making better use of existing airport capacity as a priority ahead of building the targeted additional infrastructure supported in the White Paper and ensuring that where new capacity is required, its provision is in line with our environmental obligations.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree with Sir Nicholas Stern's report that aviation is responsible for only 1.6 per cent of global emissions? Do the Government agree with Sir Ron Eddington's report that there is a strong economic case for additional capacity at UK airports while tackling the environmental case?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we recognise the need to address climate change, as the Stern report makes clear. We have to balance the important economic driver that airport development is with our environmental obligations. We fairly set that out in the response to the 2004 White Paper in the follow up report that was published last December.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the Minister is really saying that we are going to go on emitting and hope that someone else is going to stop emitting to allow us to expand airports. Will the Government commit themselves to embarking on a programme where visits by Ministers and officials in this country or in close Europe are transferred to the railways as a concrete step to reducing aircraft emissions?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Ministers take great care in deciding their choice of transportation for visits. From personal experience, we think very carefully about these matters. It is obviously important that we set a good example in terms of using the most sustainable forms of transportation available. The fact is that Ministers are required to make long journeys and the most efficient and effective use of a Minister's time is surely of great importance. One would expect that that is how they would behave.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend admit that the Government, or, indeed, any Government around the world - or opposition political parties for that matter - have no serious policy to stop the growth of air travel because it is too popular? Would it not be better to seek global agreement on setting up a major fund to seek to try in some way to find technological changes to prevent aircraft emitting these emissions?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is precisely what the Government are investing in. We have international commitment, and we are committed to working through the International Civil Aviation Organization to achieve that very point. Clearly, we need to ensure that we reduce emissions and that any expansion in civil aviation is reflected in an increased commitment to protecting the environment long term because we know of the impacts of emissions over the longer term.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, have the Government taken into account the great increase in stacking, which would undoubtedly take place, with a very bad effect over Cambridge, for instance, which, last time the whole matter came up, objected fiercely to an increase?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course there will be impacts from any increase in journeys and visits through Stansted Airport. We clearly have to take very careful accounts of those. The planning inquiry process does exactly that.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Conservative Party has a policy on Stansted Airport; it is "no second runway". My leader and the shadow Secretary of State for Transport that the Conservative Party announced a policy for no second runway at Stansted; I make that quite clear to this House.

Last week it was announced that there would be a new runway on the M11, costing something like£50 million. Yet we desperately need infrastructure for other things in Essex. Would the Minister support investing in that roundabout rather than in other infrastructure in Essex?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am rarely completely puzzled by questions from the Opposition, but did I hear the noble Lord correctly? I thought he asked whether we invest in a new runway on the M11. I do not know if that was the question, but it seems a bit wide of the mark if it was.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the 1,000 year-old Hatfield Forest is already being damaged - I cannot say destroyed - by current emissions from the M11 and Stansted Airport? If the M11 is widened to four lanes each way, if there is a new runway and if the number of aircraft take-offs and landings increase, it will be totally destroyed. Will the Government support that?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know Hatfield as well as I did when I was younger and lived in Essex, but I doubt very much whether, even on current projections, Hatfield Forest will be completely destroyed. The noble Lord makes a very important point: that we have to consider very carefully the impact on the environment of aircraft emissions or, for that matter, emissions from motor vehicles. Clearly, those things are very important. They feature in considering these things and of course we look very closely at such issues at all times.

OUR COMMENT: The Key question ? Do the claimed economic benefits outweigh the environmental damage? One might also ask if any airport can truly be ?an economic driver?? It provides a transport service that may be quicker when speed is essential, but it is not a primary producer of goods - a service industry is dependent on the producer and the public for its business.

An "overwhelming" majority of European citizens believe that the best way to tackle energy-related climate challenges is through EU-level actions, according to a Eurobarometer survey published on Monday.

The poll was published to coincide with EU leaders' spring summit later this week. Energy and climate issues will feature highly at the meeting (EED 02/03/07 http://www.endseuropedaily.com/22741).

More than 25,800 European citizens in the 27 EU member states were questioned in February. Nearly 90 per cent said they were concerned about climate change. Those living in southern countries including Spain and Greece were most worried.

Eighty-three per cent of those questioned agreed that the EU should "set" minimum shares for renewable energy in each member state. European leaders are undecided whether to back the European commission's proposal that each country should take on binding renewables targets.

According to the survey, Europeans consider environmental issues when choosing electricity suppliers. They also take energy efficiency into account when buying household appliances. Measures such as financial support are the best way to help citizens upgrade the efficiency of their homes, they say.

A majority of Europeans believe that use of nuclear power should decrease, and that the EU should introduce high safety requirements for plants.

EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs said the survey proved that European citizens expected the EU to "shape a common European response to face energy and climate challenges".

In a related development, commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has set up an advisory group of experts to advise him on climate and energy issues. The first meeting will be held on Tuesday and will discuss issues relating to EU leaders' meeting and this year's G8 summit. Participants include Nicholas Stern, advisor to the UK government, and Claude Mandil, director of the international energy agency.

The UK government plus business and environmental groups on Tuesday launched a manifesto for the European emission trading scheme (EU ETS) post-2012, including clear, ambitious reduction targets to at least 2030.

The manifesto calls on the European commission to be clear about how far it thinks reductions should be achieved within the EU. But it also requests a guarantee that at least some credits from Kyoto's flexible mechanisms will be accepted by the EU ETS post-2012.

All businesses should be exposed to the full cost of carbon in the long run, the manifesto continues. Diverse energy supplies should be promoted and market distortions minimised. It calls for more harmonised implementation of the EU ETS across member states. Expansion must be "managed carefully", it says.

The manifesto was released the morning after UK environment minister David Miliband suggested that Britain and the EU should aim to become a post-oil economy over the next 15-20 years, emulating a pledge already made by Sweden.

In a speech, Mr Miliband called for policy makers to consider bringing road and rail transport into the EU ETS after 2012, contradicting recommendations made by a UK parliamentary committee just last week .

Sir, We call on European industry and governments to work together to secure a sound footing for the EU emissions-trading scheme post-2012. European heads of state are holding crucial dialogues this week on future emissions reduction targets, and discussions are taking place across Europe on the future shape of emissions trading.

Carbon trading in Europe is working. It?s not perfect, but we have learnt some valuable lessons from the first years of the scheme. It has already put a price on nearly half the carbon emitted in the UK and EU, and provides flexibility in delivering emissions reductions.

This year is a key one if we are to secure a long-term future for emissions trading as well as moving towards a global deal on climate change post-2012.

DAVID MILIBAND Environment Secretary
ALISTAIR DARLING Trade and Industry Secretary
JOHN CRIDLAND Deputy Director-General, CBI
ROBERT NAPIER Chief Executive, WWF-UK

"If we do not motivate ourselves to take the decisions commensurate with the gravity of the threat that we face," said Tony Blair at the launch of the Bill Clinton's climate initiative last year, "we will betray in the most irresponsible way the generations to come. That is not something I want on my conscience as a political leader."

Well, it looks as if he is going to have to live with it. Blair has had 10 years in which to tackle Britain's contribution to global climate change, and he has blown it. His bold initiatives and stirring speeches now look like little more than greenwash. For the first time, we have the figures to prove it.

With Channel 4's series Dispatches, I commissioned a team of environmental scientists at University College, London, to conduct a peer-reviewed audit of the government's planned greenhouse gas reductions. The scientists, led by Professor Mark Maslin, estimated the real impact of its carbon-cutting policies. Nothing quite like this has ever been done before. The results are staggering.

The government has two formal targets for reducing Britain's climate-changing gases. The first is the one set by the Kyoto protocol, which commits the UK to a 12.5% reduction by 2012. The second is its long-term goal of a 60% cut in carbon dioxide by 2050. This target will be made legally binding later this year.

Last year the government's Energy Review found that to show "real progress" towards the 2050 target, by 2020 the UK's greenhouse gas emissions would need to be reduced to between 143 and 149m tonnes a year. This means a cut of 29 to 31% on 1990 levels. We asked Maslin's team to assess the policies that are supposed to deliver it.

For an audit, the 2020 aim is more useful than the 2050 target. If we are to have a realistic chance of hitting it, the necessary policies must already be in place or in development. While the Blair government would be only partly responsible if we fail to make 60% by 2050, it will carry almost all the blame if we do not reach its milestone in 2020.

Our audit reveals that the government's assessment of its own policies is wildly optimistic. Instead of a 29-31% cut by 2020, it is on course to deliver a reduction of between 12% and 17%. At this rate the UK will not meet its 2020 milestone until 2050. This result suggests that the government's claim to be "leading the world on tackling climate change" is simply another product of the Downing Street spin machine. Its carbon-cutting policies are little more than a sham. Take transport, for example. The government expects that national transport emissions (not counting international flights) will rise by 4m tonnes between 1990 and 2020. Maslin's team discovered that the real increase will be between 7 and 13m tonnes.

Faced with a vocal and powerful motoring lobby, Blair's government has sought to cut emissions in three ways, all of which are failing. The first is a voluntary agreement, struck in Brussels with the major motor manufacturers. In 1998, the car makers promised they would reduce the average emissions from new cars from 190 to 140 grams per kilometre in 10 years. The deadline is next year, and they will miss their target by half: the real figure is likely to be 164 grams.

The second mechanism is the tax we pay to put a car on the road - vehicle excise duty (VED). In 2001, the government replaced the flat rate for VED with a graduated tax. Owners of the most fuel-hungry cars would have to pay more than owners of efficient models. Seven bands were introduced, starting with A (for cars that produce less than 100 grams per kilometre) and rising to G (for those producing more than 225 grams).

A survey carried out by the Department for Transport found that to encourage most drivers to switch to a less polluting model, you would need a difference between the bands of at least £150. The government's Sustainable Development Commission went further: if the tax were to be really effective, the top whack should be £1,800. But the government's top rate is £215, and the average difference between the bands £35. When you are shelling out £65,000 for a Range Rover, is that really going to make a difference?

The third policy is to encourage us to switch to biofuels - diesel or alcohol made from plants. By 2010, the government wants 5% of all our transport fuels to be made this way. By 2020, the EU wants to raise this to 20%. But there are two massive problems, which the government consistently refuses to address. The first is that beyond a certain point, the production of fuel begins to compete directly with the production of food. A study conducted last year by Sarasin, a Swiss bank placed "the present limit for the environmentally and socially responsible use of biofuels at roughly 5% of current petrol and diesel consumption in the EU and US". Already, when only a tiny fraction of our transport fuel comes from plants, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that the demand for biofuels has helped to cause a "surge in the prices of cereals" to "levels not seen for a decade". All over the world, the poor are feeling the effect.

The second problem is that the new market has stimulated a massive expansion of destructive plantations, especially of oil palm. Palm oil planting is the major cause of tropical deforestation in both Malaysia and Indonesia. As the forests are cut down, the carbon in both the trees and the peat they grow on turns into carbon dioxide. A study by the Dutch scientific consultancy Delft Hydraulics found that the production of every tonne of palm oil causes 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. This makes oil palm 10 times worse than petroleum. Already nine new palm oil refineries are being built, in Malaysia, Singapore and Rotterdam, specifically to meet the growing demand from the European biofuel market.

The government urges us not to worry - a "second generation" of biofuels will eventually become available, made from straw, wood and waste. But there is no guarantee that these will out-compete their cheap but destructive rivals, or that they will be ready before the last rain-forests in south-east Asia have been felled.

In every sector the audit found similar oversights, elisions and deceptions. In housing, for example, the government has loudly proclaimed its intention to use better building regulations to make new houses more energy efficient - by 2016, it says, every new home in the country will be "zero carbon". But since the energy efficiency regulations were first introduced in 1985 there has not been a single prosecution for non-compliance. Building inspectors treat the energy rules as a joke - in one recent survey they dismissed them as "trivial" and "not life threatening". A study by the Building Research Establishment of new houses passed by the inspectors found that 43% of them did not meet satisfactory energy standards.

But the biggest greenwash of all involves flying. Under the Kyoto protocol, the pollution from international flights does not count towards a country's emissions. The government has taken this as a licence to ignore flying even when setting its own targets. The emissions simply do not appear on the balance sheet. Otherwise it could not justify its instruction to the UK's airports to double their capacity between now and 2030.

Because they were assessing the government's own programme, the auditors didn't produce figures for aviation. But even the government proposes that carbon emissions from planes will rise by 10.5m tonnes between 1990 and 2020. Had it been incorporated into the audit, this figure would have reduced the cuts for the whole economy by 2020 to between 8 and 13%.

But the government's figure is almost certainly a wild underestimate. It counts only half the emissions from planes flying to and from our airports, on the grounds that only half the passengers belong to this country. In reality, 67% are UK citizens. It also ignores the other greenhouse gases - especially high-level water vapour - that flying produces. If increases in international flights were counted in the national total, they could wipe out all the cuts in the UK's emissions between 1990 and 2020.

What makes these failures most shocking is that Blair's government took office in 1997 with a massive head start. When John Major left office, the UK was one of the few nations on course to meet its Kyoto commitments, with plenty of emissions to spare. That advantage has already been squandered. Today the UK is turning out slightly more carbon dioxide than it was in 1997 (though other greenhouse gases have declined) and we will just scrape in beneath the 2012 Kyoto bar, while on course for dramatically missing our 2020 and 2050 targets.

Instead of real action to deal with the greatest menace of the 21st century, the government has sold us a set of fake policies, designed to make us feel better about ourselves, without political pain. Next time Blair gives a heart-rending speech about his legacy to future generations, don't believe a word of it.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Douglas Alexander): I am today announcing a Highways Agency consultation on plans for widening the M11 between junctions 6-8. Copies of the consultation documents have been placed in the libraries of the House.

Over the next two decades, the East of England is set to grow substantially in terms of both housing and jobs. The draft East of England plan, which is currently out to consultation on my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government's proposed modifications, contains full details.

This growth can only be accommodated by providing the necessary infrastructure in terms of effective road and rail links within the region and to London. In this context, my Department has been working with the Government Office for the East of England and developers to identify what road improvements might be needed in the region. Our analysis indicates that the M11 between junctions 6-8 will become very congested in the period before 2021 unless improvements are implemented. The expected growth of Stansted airport, including the possibility of a second runway, will add to that congestion

Regional growth and the expansion of Stansted airport will also impact on the West Anglia Main Line in the next two decades. The Eastern Regional Planning Assessment for the Railway, published in February 2006, took account of these factors in identifying the priorities and options for further development on this route up to 2021.

My announcement today demonstrates the Government's commitment to the longer term development and economic prosperity of the East of England region and the need for strong transport links Widening of the M11 is also important to the growth of Stansted airport and this consultation fits with BAA's parallel announcement today on its surface access strategy for a second runway. In line with the policies in the Future of Air Transport White Paper, BAA will pay a contribution to the costs of these improvements to the extent that the airport will benefit.

In addition to options for widening the M11, the Highways Agency is also consulting on plans to improve the junction access to the airport from the M11 and A120. The airport is expected to fully fund this development.

OUR COMMENT: A very convenient announcement at the same time as BAA's parallel consultation and at the outset of the public inquiry into the full use of the existing runway. What choices do local residents have? One government department awards them thousands of extra homes, another extols the virtues of an extra runway at the nearest airport - and so, in order to accommodate all the extra road traffic and add to the dangers of climate change (supposed to be the government?s priority) the M11 - already congested at peak time - will be widened but the trains only lengthened. With up to 80mppa at the airport and 508,000 new houses, these measures are not going to prevent massive traffic congestion if the government persists with these expansion plans. They make nonsense of the whole concept of sustainable development. We, or our children, will be living in a noisy, polluted, built up sprawl, short of water and qualifying to head the table of carbon polluters. All because the government mistakenly believes UK plc can have its aviation cake and still remain a green and pleasant land.

OSLO (Reuters) - A surge in transport in the European Union is jeopardizing goals for cutting greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, the European Environment Agency (EEA) said on Monday. Emissions from transport, led by a near-doubling in aviation traffic, rose on average by 25 percent across Europe from 1990-2004 even as most EU nations managed to cut emissions from other sectors such as industry or agriculture.

"The environmental performance of the transport sector is still unsatisfactory," the EEA said in a report covering EU nations along with some details of outsiders Turkey, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. "This tendency threatens both Europe's and individual EU member states' progress toward their ... targets" under the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, it said in a 44-page report. "Therefore, additional policy initiatives and instruments are needed."

"Transport -- bottom of the Kyoto class again," it said. Transport, based mainly on burning oil, accounts for about a fifth of European emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities. Cars and trucks account for more than 90 percent of transport emissions, ahead of ships, planes and trains. From 1990-2003, passenger transport volumes in Europe grew by 20 percent, the EEA said.

More people own cars and often drive further, for instance to out-of- town shopping malls. Air transport alone surged by 96 percent, aided by cheaper flights. Under Kyoto, the European Union has to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2008- 12. Emissions were 0.6 percent below 1990 levels in 2004.

"Technical advances, such as cleaner, more fuel efficient engines are very important but we cannot innovate our way out of the emissions problem from transport," said Jacqueline McGlade, head of the Copenhagen-based EEA. It said road transport was polluting less but air quality in cities was still above EU limits. One in four EU citizens lives less than 500 metres from a road carrying more than 3 million vehicles a year, it said.

And transport was creating other problems, such as noise and slicing up landscapes with new roads. The EEA also said Europe spent 270-290 billion euros in transport subsidies a year, some of them environmentally damaging. The report said greenhouse gas emissions from transport had grown fastest in Luxembourg, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Romania. All had gains exceeding 90 percent from 1990-2004. In the same period, emissions fell only in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Estonia.

Emissions from international flights are now excluded from Kyoto but the EU Commission wants them to be part of an emissions trading scheme. It also wants tighter emissions rules for cars, saying industry goals are insufficient. The EEA said a 2005 study of the EU projected that road and aviation passenger transport volumes would rise by 36 and 105 percent respectively between 2000 and 2020, by when the Commission wants deeper cuts in overall emissions. Freight transport was also rising, because more goods were being transported and over longer distances.

The Mayor's Climate Change Action Plan

Action Today to Protect Tomorrow - The Mayor's Climate Change Action Plan sets out
a path for London to tackle this challenge and to deliver London's CO2 targets.

The core message of the Climate Change Action Plan is that Londoners do not have to reduce their standard of living for London to play its part in tackling climate change, but we do all have to change the way we live.

We have to move from a high energy-use, wasteful economic model to one that conserves energy and minimises waste. In other words we have to be more efficient.

As our focus is on efficiency, many of the measures advocated in this plan will deliver net financial benefits over a relatively short period of time, as well as cutting emissions. And as the government's comprehensive 'Stern Review' of the economics of climate change demonstrated, it will be far cheaper to invest now to reduce carbon emissions, rather than ignore the problem and face far higher costs in the future.

The report is available to download in its entirety or by each individual chapter.

On Aviation (summary):
The Mayor will:
- seek to influence EU and international aviation policy
- work with aviation industry for emissions reductions
- challenge need for future runway expansion at UK airports
- educate Londoners and advocate alternatives to air travel
- lead by example (Mayoral team travel)

The British mandarin behind a gloomy report on climate change has had to run
a gauntlet of American economists, reports Dominic Rushe from New York

PUNCH 'Sir Nicholas Stern' into Factiva, the news clippings database, and you'll find only 38 references to him in the American press over the past 12 months.

In Britain the quality papers alone have mentioned him more than 501 times (make that 502). Earlier this month the economist turned global warming guru set out to redress the balance. It hasn't been an easy journey.

Commissioned by the government to look at the impact of climate change, Stern published his review last October and it makes sober reading.

Unless drastic action is taken - and soon - 200m people are likely to be displaced by floods by 2050, Stern concluded. According to his 600-page report the global economy could shrink by between 5% and 20% over the next two centuries because of the likely disruption to people's way of life caused by global warming.

Taking action now to reduce carbon emissions would involve a 'significant but manageable' one-off cost of 1% of global economic output by 2050.

Not taking action would be disastrous: 'Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and economic depression of the first half of the 20th century,' wrote the former World Bank chief economist.

Until recently America's ruling party was in a state of denial about global warming. President George W. Bush appeared to believe it was a hoax. His critics accused the former Texan oilman of letting the world burn to protect business interests.

Mid-term elections have given the Democrats the upper hand in Washington and global warming has become a hot topic, fuelled by former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore and his Oscar-nominated documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

Stern was in Washington this month to address Congress about his report - an audience, it would be fair to assume, more receptive to his words than at any other point in the Bush administration.

Stern pressed Congress to consider adopting new regulations, funding new technologies and establishing a system of trading carbon-dioxide-emission credits to try to limit gases that spur global warming.

'Leadership in the world's largest markets sets the pace elsewhere,' he told the Senate's energy and natural resources committee. 'Now is the time to act urgently, strongly and internationally.'

But while the politicians were at least paying lip service, America's academics were taking their gloves off.

On a trip to Yale, Stern was compared to the Wizard of Oz, his frightening picture a projection of badly flawed economics.

Unlike Bush, it is not that Yale's economists doubt that the earth is getting hotter, or that human activity is the cause of global warming. The clear implication is that Stern overstated his case for political reasons.

Stern's biggest critic is William Nordhaus, an expert on the economics of global warming at Yale. In a public debate Nordhaus said the report 'commits cruel and unusual punishment on the English language', adding that the British government's opinion on climate change was no more infallible than its prewar view about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Fellow Yale economist Robert Mendel-sohn was blunter still. He was 'awestruck' by the report, comparing Stern to 'The Wizard of Oz'. 'My job is to be Toto [Dorothy's terrier, which unmasks the wizard],' he added.

Commenting on the dispute, Paul Joskow, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?s Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, said: 'I don't think that there is a disagreement in terms of policy. The US needs to get on board and control greenhouse gases.'

'The problems have been with the way in which the analysis in the report has been packaged,' said Joskow.

Academics felt the damage attributed to climate change was 'chosen from the high side of the probability distribution' and likely costs 'from the low side', Joskow said.

More criticism will soon be forthcoming. Harvard economics professor Martin Weitzman, in a soon-to-be published report in the Journal of Economic Literature, has made another attack on Stern's methodology. He argues that the UK government official overcooked his figures.

The Stern report is biased toward gloom, argues Weitzman. According to 'a generous interpretation of its not-so-great economic analysis,' the report 'has its heart in the right place' but its numbers do not back up its 'alarmist tone', he writes.

Stern's headline numbers assumed that a dollar of economic damage prevented a century from now (adjusted for inflation) is roughly as valuable as a dollar spent reducing emissions today. The figure makes the cost of disaster to our grandchil-dren equal to the cost of the same disaster to ourselves. Morally, the approach is unimpeachable; economically, its critics argue it is a nonsense.

The world's economy is set to grow at 4.1% this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. Already today's dollar is looking like it is worth less than it will be worth tomorrow. If growth rates continue at present levels, then in 100 years' time there will be no comparison between the two figures. A richer and more technologically advanced society will be better able to deal with tomorrow's problems than we are today, argue Stern's critics.

The Stern Review team has begun to address these criticisms and published a defence of its methodology. The easiest part of the argument to follow is that 'business-as-usual emissions of GHGs (greenhouse gases) could radically reduce the standard of living of future generations'.

But his critics say it is still Stern's convictions, not his numbers, that buttress his argument. 'I think very highly of Nick,' said Joskow. 'There's always a question if you are an economist: should you be stepping over the line and become a politician and a promoter' Nick has come to believe that this is a very serious problem, and drastic measures need to be taken. The very large numbers in the Stern review are at best speculative.'

The report has certainly ignited a heated academic debate. But so far Stern's words do not appear to have reached a mass audience in America in the same way they have in Europe. All this parsing of discount rates is unlikely to change that.

Surveys show that Americans are becoming more conscious of climate change. Millions more will become aware of the debate if Gore's documentary bags tonight's Oscar.

'These kinds of problem get you all tied up with the dilemmas of the infinite. We don't know a lot of things and 100 years away is a very long time,' said Joskow.

'Getting away from the precise numbers, the fact that it has helped to invigorate a debate about climate change and how we deal with it is very good. Maybe that was the intent: to shock people and get them to think.'

The row over global warming was heating up this week, fuelled by Stansted airport's second runway plans.

New government guidelines mean estimates of the airport?s greenhouse gas emissions have been revised down - despite doubts from the District Council. Using the new information Stop Stansted Expansion now predicts BAA?s Essex operation is currently responsible for around 5m tonnes of carbon dioxide - more than 6 times the total for the rest of Uttlesford, which is one of the country's worst polluters.

While airlines are anticipating future falls, the anti-expansion campaigners project that full use of the existing single runway - with around 35 mppa - will cause 7m tonnes, or 9 times the district total. The proposed second runway is expected to increase emissions to 12m tonnes, which represents 15 times the total produced by domestic use, road transport and industrial and commercial activity in the area.

Uttlesford has adapted the SSE estimates, and the district's energy officer, Jake Roos argued that the new guidelines understated the scale of the problem. The projections are based on 50% of flights - excluding incoming aircraft. He said: 'There's an argument to be made that as 63% of people using the airport are British,, the percentage for emissions should be 63% too.'

Meanwhile the airport operator and airlines counter that the impact of aviation has been exaggerated. Stansted's second biggest carrier, Easyjet, has just published a corporate and social responsibility report about climate change. Chief executive Andy Harrison conceded there was a 'clear and present danger', but said 'there's a time for a proper debate of the sort that has been largely missing of late."

'Given that aviation only accounts for 1.6% greenhouse gas emissions, grounding every aircraft in the world would have a miniscule effect on climate change yet a vast impact on our economies. So, airlines have a responsibility to do what they can and governments have a responsibility to ensure the right behaviour.'

He predicted major advances in technology that would reduce emissions in future. Easyjet claims its current business practices have already reduced pollution by 27% compared with traditional carriers.

BAA has also pledged to continue its anti-pollution programme setting a target to reduce CO2 emissions by 15% by 2010.

OUR COMMENT: It should be noted that BAA's promised reduction in CO2 applies only to its airport business, not to the planes and other businesses that use the airport. Possibly the same applies to Easyjet's claim. Aircraft technology is not that advanced! Neither is it likely to be within the forseeable future. It is also a misrepresentation to suggest that reducing a global % of only 1.6 will achieve nothing worthwhile. How many million tonnes of CO2 does that represent? Reducing the UK's carbon dioxide output means everyone sharing the action necessary, however small, and that includes the aviation industry. It certainly means no airport expansion!

A LOCAL RESIDENT ANSWERED THE
SAME QUESTION TWO WEEKS AGO

How does expansion cut our emissions?

Herts & Essex Observer - 15 February 2007

We know that Stansted airport is not the cause of climate change, but it has unquestionably contributed to such change and, at a time when the call is to reduce carbon emissions, do we just ignore that call and condone projects that will do the reverse?

Of course, the overall problem has to be tackled on a global basis and every effort should be made by both developed and emerging nations to ensure that steps are taken to secure a satisfactory environment for future generations. But we cannot reach any acceptable outcome if we say yes to projects such as Stansted expansion and reject others that may be of greater benefit to mankind at large. How can we see the changes in climate that are happening today and then just choose to ignore them?

A recent vote in the Observer, on-line, showed 65% did not support expansion - a sizeable majority. One would hope that in a democracy some notice would be taken of that result, which reflects the general view taken ever since the first Stansted public inquiry was held more than 20 years ago.

If there are people who think that carbon emissions could be reduced by scientific means alone, then shouldn't the government and BAA wait until such hopes are fully realised before promoting and developing potentially damaging projects?

At the same time, expansion at Stansted is not just about carbon emissions and aircraft noise, it is also about the associated infrastructure and the impact on the quality of life. If anyone is in any doubt about the detrimental effects of airport expansion, they should visit west London and note the impact Heathrow has had.

Many of us continue to use our cars for short journeys, but we are being overwhelmed by the ever-increasing levels of road traffic. Are we too indulgent to realise that the same could happen with air traffic?

Christian Aid says adding in emissions from UK-funded operations in other countries would raise the UK's share of the global total from 2% to about 15%.

British companies wanted globalisation, it says, and must take responsibility for the associated emissions. The charity is calling on the government to ensure that companies measure their emissions thoroughly.

"Our research reveals a truly staggering quantity of unreported carbon dioxide is emitted around the world by the top 100 companies on the London Stock Exchange," said Christian Aid's senior climate change analyst, Andrew Pendleton.

"The government should now oblige companies to report their emissions properly," he told the BBC News website. "In our view, this is a litmus test of how serious they are about climate change."

Working with the environmental research company Trucost, Christian Aid attempted to calculate emissions associated with FTSE-100 companies.

"While only 2.13% of the world's CO2 emissions emanate from the UK's domestic economy," says the report, entitled Coming Clean, "through the process of globalisation, CO2 is emitted around the world on Britain's behalf, in China, India, Africa and elsewhere."

"Britain's apparently light carbon footprint rapidly begins to assume a much greater profile when worldwide investments made with British money, through the mighty City of London, are taken into account."

Not everyone would agree with the charity's conclusion, but its argument is that Britain benefits from those investments, either by bringing cheap goods to the UK or by creating profits which flow back into the British economy, so the emissions ought at least to be accounted for within Britain. Using this methodology, the UK would account for between 12% and 15% of the global total.

Researchers also found that few companies are fully aware of their own emissions, even those relating directly to activities such as heating their buildings and running vehicles.

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which aims to persuade companies to release data on emissions, has recorded a gradual rise in the numbers prepared to make their figures public.

But Trucost found that only 16 of the FTSE 100 report emissions according to the internationally recognised Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP). "Some of the largest companies are beginning to get it, and you have companies like Marks and Spencer and Tesco and BSkyB all beginning to seek leadership positions," said Trucost's head of corporate services Neil McIndoe.

"Almost all of them have environmental policies, and sometimes they're very similar to each other, basically because they copy and paste the wording from the website of the one next door. But across the FTSE 100, you're lucky if you can get 20% of companies to tell you anything in numbers about the environment."

Trucost and Christian Aid argue that full disclosure is essential to the proper functioning of a global carbon market, which according to the forum of global legislators meeting in Washington last week is essential if greenhouse emissions are to be constrained.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says it has been actively involved in supporting the work of the Carbon Disclosure Project. A spokesman said: "We facilitated the distribution of the CDP questionnaire to FTSE companies in 2006, so as to assist investors in attaining more climate-related information on UK plc than before."

"The last CDP round generated the highest-ever response rate in 2006, with 72%, or 360, of the FT500 companies responding, up from 47% of companies that responded in 2003."

Airlines should be included in the European carbon trading scheme (ETS), EU environment ministers agreed almost unanimously on Tuesday. Most also said there should be no initial exemption for flights to and from non-EU destinations. But there was no consensus on when carbon caps should be first applied to the sector.

In their first public debate on draft legislation to include aircraft emissions in the ETS, ministers strongly supported the main lines of European commission proposals tabled last year. Only Hungary expressed doubts over the concept of the aviation sector's inclusion in carbon trading.

Environment council chairman Sigmar Gabriel emphasised the importance of tackling aviation if the EU is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020. "All other efforts are rendered useless if we lose grip of the aviation sector," he said.

But a majority of ministers opposed the commission's proposal to restrict emission trading to intra-EU flights during the first year and to extend it to all flights only after this twelve-month period. It should immediately apply to all flights landing at and taking off from EU airports, they argued, to minimise competitive distortion. Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas proposed the two-step approach after threats of legal action by US officials.

There was no consensus on when aviation should be included in the ETS. Some, like the Netherlands, said all flights could be included from 2011. Others, including Belgium, Poland, Latvia, Spain and Austria, argued for 2013. This was more realistic for including all flights at once, they said, and coincided with the end of a review of the ETS.

All member states appeared to support the notion of a cap decided at EU level with allowances allocated centrally from Brussels. Many also voiced support for distributing allocations through grandfathering on the basis of average emissions in 2004-6.

Several, especially new member states, said the distribution of allowances should take into account the differing levels of aviation development in different countries. Young, fast-growing airlines with comparatively cleaner aircraft than older, more established ones, should not be penalised, they said.

Other member states called for an allocation mechanism that would soften the impact of carbon caps on flights to isolated areas or those heavily dependent on tourism. Finland suggested different benchmarks for intra-EU and intercontinental flights. Several member states proposed more auctioning.

Mr Dimas reiterated his promise to issue proposals to combat non-CO2 greenhouse gases from aviation, specifically nitrogen oxides, by 2008.

A shake-up of aircraft routes in the skies above Stansted, showing towns and villages around the airport affected, were downplayed by the authorities this week.

A Sunday Times report at the weekend featured a graphic showing two new flight paths over the Saffron Walden area and new stacking areas north of the terminal for planes circling while waiting to land at Luton or Stansted.

But the Observer was told by an official from NATS - formerly National Air Traffic Services - which is responsible for managing Britain's air traffic control systems, that the report, which was based on a leaked document, was premature and contained inaccuracies. "We don't have a proposal at this stage. We've not established the geographical area which might be covered" said the spokeswoman.

'The Sunday Times has put together what they consider a generic graphic. We don't work with graphics but with maps. We don't have any maps at this stage because its an evolving process.'

NATs constantly redesigned routes for aircraft and the process took between 2 and 5 years from concept to implementation, which included public consultation, she explained.

She admitted that the body was evaluating what would be needed for an increase in air travel in the South East generally and the proposed second runway at Stansted would feed into that overall picture. Consultation would be later this year.

The supposed leaked document obtained by the Sunday Times was probably ?very old and likely inaccurate?. 'We started off this process by talking informally to the planning officers in local authorities because they are the experts, to understand what kind of things we need to take into consideration - like housing developments, or hospitals for example', said the spokeswoman.

'We do that over a wide geographical area because at the outset we don't necessarily know what area we are looking at. The plans go through several drafts, bits added and bits taken out. We are still at that stage.'

The spokeswoman said it would be inappropriate to offer any indication of which areas around Stansted might be affected.

In its G2 documentation published on January 30th, BAA Stansted says NATs' proposed new arrangements for the South East were to be implemented by 2009 and those for G2 would be brought forward at a later date.

OUR COMMENT: If changes in routes may be made by 2009, how will this affect BAA's predictions on noise and air quality for the expansion of G1?

CAMBRIDGESHIRE skies could be crammed full of planes if plans to create two new flight paths and stacking areas get the go-ahead.

Stacking areas, allowing up to four planes to circle while waiting for a landing slot, would feed Stansted, Luton and London City airports. It is not yet known exactly where in Cambridgeshire the flight paths and stacking areas would go.

Today (Tuesday, 13 February), Coun Sebastian Kindersley, who represents villages directly underneath one possible site, said the idea was "frightful". Coun John Reynolds, deputy leader of Cambridgeshire County Council, said the authority had already voiced its concerns. Both said there was a direct link with the Government's support for a second runway at Stansted.

Laurence Wragg, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), warned people on the ground could be breathing in kerosene fumes and CO2. If the plans go ahead thousands of residents could have their rural quiet shattered by the noise of jet engines and more air pollution.

Coun Kindersley, Gamlingay, said: "It's frightful. One of the areas they are looking at is the border between Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire - exactly where I live and the villages I represent."

"We already have positioning of planes for Stansted and Luton while they are getting ready to start their descent, although they're already pretty low by that time to go into their respective airports. So we are already suffering. If we get jets stacking above us it's going to be very busy and we suffer quite badly from aircraft noise. We don't want it."

Nats, the company that manages Britain's air traffic control systems is behind the scheme.

The number of flights over the UK is expected to double from 2.4 million a year to five million in 2030. Britain's 15 air corridors will be used more heavily and four new flight paths are being proposed altogether.

Coun Reynolds said the county council felt it was far more important to improve road and rail networks than increase flight path capacity and was concerned the move would pave the way for the expansion of Stansted.

He said: "More aircraft flying in the skies above Cambridgeshire will have an adverse impact, even if there is mitigation in terms of emissions. If we get more late night flying and early morning flying there will be a noise impact.

"People might think Stansted is a long way away but there could be a lot of over flying and that will mean the noise impact, especially for communities in South Cambridgeshire, could be quite significant."

Mr Wragg, chairman of both the CPRE's aviation advisory committee and the East of England region, said: "Sometimes aeroplanes dump fuel, although they say they do not, and that makes pollution even worse. It's always harmful - we do not want to have to breathe in kerosene fumes and CO2, it's not good for us."

Lee Murphy, Stansted spokesperson, said the airport has no final say on how air space is carved up but it would work closely with Nats, in particular alongside discussions for the proposed second runway. Public consultation is likely this year.

A COUNCIL is demanding answers to questions about the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport. Uttlesford District Council wants BAA to guarantee that if a second runway is built one would be used for take- offs and one for landings.

It wants BAA to promise not to seek planning permission until it has consulted on road diversions and connections and has considered maximising public transport links.

Uttlesford wants a full assessment on the effects on quality of life of massive expansion and is asking for the airport's health impact assessment to be published before BAA submits its planning application. It also want BAA to justify the net economic benefits of a second runway including carbon emission costs.

Council leader Mark Gayler said: "We will do all we can to stop the character of Uttlesford being damaged beyond repair. The impact of a second runway at Stansted would be disastrous."

A spokesman for BAA said: "The answers to the questions posed by Uttlesford District Council can either be found in the extensive information recently published about our second runway development proposal or will be the subject of thorough examination as part of the public inquiry process."

The European parliament called on Wednesday for the EU to reduce greenhouse gases by 30 per cent by 2020 whether or not other industrialised countries do the same. The demand goes beyond the European commission's proposal that Europe should commit unilaterally to no more than a 20 per cent cut.

In a resolution on the major package of energy and climate proposals adopted by the commission on 10 January, the parliament endorsed the idea that all industrialised countries should cut emissions 30 per cent by 2020. An amendment tabled by the Socialists and Greens was added to the effect that "all internal EU policies" should be based on achieving 30 per cent.

The resolution calls for a binding obligation on carmakers to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new cars to an average 120 grams per kilometre by 2012, whereas the commission has just proposed a weaker binding target of 130g/km.

Parliament wants to include aviation and maritime transport in post-2012 climate commitments, ensuring they make emissions reductions "equivalent to those in other sectors by 2020". There is also a clear call for the promotion of combined heat and power generation

The resolution also calls for an EU target for "ultra-low or non-CO2 emitting energy technologies" to provide 60 per cent of electricity by 2020. The commission considering proposing a similar target in its January package before dropping the idea. Such a target is generally seen as likely to favour nuclear power and carbon capture and storage.

On renewable energy, the parliament calls for a higher target than proposed by the commission - a 25 per cent share of all EU energy by 2020 rather than 20 per cent, which it calls only a "good starting point". The resolution also demands the reinstatement of specific renewables targets for the electricity and heating and cooling sectors.

BAA has ruled out selling Gatwick or Stansted airports to head off a Competition commission inquiry. The UK?s dominant airport owner, whose prize asset is Heathrow, also warned that only a business with its monopolistic structure could fund the expansion of south-east England?s biggest flight hubs.

The Office of Rair Trading said in December ot was considering a full investigation of BAA, which in tuirn said that a £9.5bn investment plan for Heathrow and Stansted would be more expensive under separate owners.

Stephen Nelson, BAA chief executive, rejected yesterday the OFT?s suggestion that disposals could head off a referral. Responding to the OFT consultation he said BAA?s new majority owner, the Spanish construction company Ferrovial, had no interest in breaking up an asset with long-term prospects.

He said: ?The airports are not for sale. We have got lonr-term investors who look at this over a 40 to 50-year time horizon, not 10 to 15 years.? He said a growing UK population and economy would guarantee air travel growth for decades, with passengers expected to grow from 228 mppa to 465 mppa by 2030. ?Why would we want to do deals around airports given the fundamental strength of the assets?"

About 9 out of 10 passengers in south-east England travel through BAA owned facilities, with 8 out of 10 in Scotland travelling via BAA.

OUR COMMENT: So much for BAA?s claims of ?sustainable development? and their support for an EU aviation trading scheme as a measure to ?control? expansion. All hot air! It's expand, expand, and forget the rest of the economy and the need to deal with the threat of climate change in a responsible and fair way. Why does the government listen to such dangerous views?

BAA has told the Office of Fair Trading that any break-up of its London airports monopoly would lead to higher landing charges and reduced investment in new terminals and runways.

In its response to the OFT, the Spanish-controlled owner of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted called for an overhaul of the regulatory system and said the competition watchdog had not set out a compelling case that its airports can compete more significantly, and serve the consumer better, under separate ownership.

The OFT will make its final decision on whether to refer BAA to the Competition Commission shortly. It has already said it plans to do so. Airlines including British Airways and Ryanair have called for the break-up of BAA but its chief executive, Stephen Nelson, said they "want it both ways... break-up and tight pricing."

He said the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, forces BAA to keep its charges lower than if its three London airports were in separate ownership.

Mr Nelson added that the CAA's proposed cut in allowed returns would deter any owner from investing.

Labour wants to cut CO2 emissons but it is also pursuing a dramatic expansion of Britain?s airways.
Can the circle be squared?

"Sod them, let?s fly," shouted full-page advertisements in several newspapers last week - and, for a moment at least, thousands of readers were taken in.

Under the headline, 'Flying, your patriotic duty', a fictitious businessman called Sir Montgomery Cecil railed against the 'miserable' green lobby and urged us to 'enjoy ourselves and keep on flying'. Far from cutting back, we should aim to fly more 'since many destinations might soon become uninhabitable'. 'I'm bored of the tofu mafia and their climate change hysterics', added Cecil. 'I didn't fight in two world wars to see communist liberals tell me, or my shareholders, what to do.'

The adverts were, of course, a spoof, designed to shock consumers into action and to lampoon the (fast dwindling) number of people who either don't believe in or don't care about climate change.

Unfortunately, Cecil's adverts appear to have been missed or perhaps even taken literally by the government. Evidence of its intention to allow aviation to expand on a massive scale is provided in a document leaked to The Sunday Times from Nats, the company that emerged from National Air Traffic Services and now manages Britain's air traffic control systems.

It wants to restructure Britain's existing air corridors and add new ones in preparation for a doubling of the number of flights over the UK from 2.4m a year today to almost 5m by 2030. A confidential aeronautical map drawn up by Nats points to sharp increases in the number of aircraft using the 15 or so air corridors that criss-cross Britain, and the creation of several new flight paths and six new stacking areas where aircraft fly in circles while waiting for landing slots.

The terms of Nats's licence from the Civil Aviation Authority, the industry regulator, require it 'to be capable of meeting, on a continuing basis, any reasonable level of overall demand' and to 'permit access to airspace on the part of all users'.

If approved, Nats's plans would mean hundreds of thousands of people - perhaps millions - suffering from aircraft noise where there was little or none before. They would also turn the aviation industry into one of Britain's biggest generators of greenhouse gases.

It is the kind of proposal that would delight Cecil but which leaves his creator, Peter Myers, a former City financier turned environment campaigner, spitting blood.

'Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us we had a maximum of 10 years to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions,' said Myers last week. 'The government promised to make reductions but all the tim