Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign - SSE News Archive

On Friday 22nd the Inquiry took a week's rest ? well earned after 2 weeks during which BAA's witnesses were battling with the objectors' lawyers. John Rhodes was their principal witness, a planning consultant and senior director of a national company, he has been advising BAA on both G1 and G2. His remit was to present Stansted expansion as an instrument for furthering government policy as expressed not only in the Air Transport White Paper, but also in the SERAS Report. Quotes on the intentions and wishes of the government were exchanged and dissected to and fro' across the floor. The mantra that the government's wishes were paramount would, no doubt, sound somewhat out of place if repeated in BAA's (Ferrovial?s) board room.

However, there was also much discussion on the relevance of the various government pronouncements - were they material to a planning decision and, if so, was there an order of precedence? Should the application go through all the normal planning procedures? Was the Environmental Assessment that was carried out a thoughtful gesture from BAA or was it a statutory requirement? Whose was the main responsibility for proposing mitigation measures? Had BAA actually proposed any further measures beyond those already agreed for 25mppa and if not why not? Was the expansion approved by the Regional, County and Local Plans? This led to several differing interpretations of different policies.

Could the Inquiry question the government's belief that all airport expansion was necessary and an essential economic benefit? Was there a distinction between "need" and "demand"? Why had the effects of expansion on the local economy not been fully assessed by BAA? (The answer again - the government says it is a benefit to the whole economy.)

Could the fact that Stansted's tourist traffic contributed a massive debt to the UK's balance of payments be balanced against the opportunities for the less well off to enjoy mind enhancing travel experiences ? thereby improving their Quality of Life? Presumably the expected benefit for the many was a sufficient compensation for the "few" locals who already found their Quality of Life to be deteriorating - though, in separate arguments, the idea of assessing Quality of Life is an outdated concept and impossible to evaluate, according to BAA.

Mr Rhodes denied that there had been adverse effects on the housing market, or that BAA's growing Housing "Agency" was not caring for its properties, or that nearby villages had been affected by the social changes induced by people selling up and leaving on one side, and temporary workers moving in to empty properties on the other.

Employment opportunities and figures were also questioned, especially doubts about the forecasts of induced employment as no survey had been carried out "on the ground". Would Harlow provide more employees than to date (fewer than 190 on-airport at the moment)? Could the airport play any part in the regeneration of Harlow? Why did the forecasts for business travellers show such a small increase at 35 mppa? ? the numbers of expected foreign business passengers actually fell. How could inward investment be expected if relatively few business passengers were using the airport?

The concept of pain for the few for the benefit of not only the many but also for the economy of the UK came up in various forms. Population figures were exchanged and although the word "nimby" was not used, the spectre was in the background. The issue is, of course a very real one. Developments that have unpleasant side effects are easier to impose on rural areas where fewer people are affected. Yet those who live in urban areas enjoy and expect to enjoy the benefits of nearby rural attractions. The Government encourages the "Right to Roam", and the preservation of the green belt and unspoilt countryside for the benefit of all. How to balance the rights of a few against the rights of many, especially when both are intertwined?

The airlines were especially pressing over the economic aspects of expansion at this stage in the airport's progress. It was suggested that they had not been consulted either on the prospects for attracting more passengers or on the likelihood that charges to the airlines would rise, ticket prices would rise, and passenger numbers would fall. BAA at Stansted could not prosper unless the airlines prospered as well - they were responsible for providing the actual means of transport.

Mr Rhodes had covered the whole of BAA's case in his proof so he was questioned also on all aspects of the environmental effects, though he was able to fend off some probing by referring the issue on to the consultant witness yet to be questioned.

The National Trust was concerned at the damage not only to the Forest itself but also to its use as a national recreational centre, enjoyed by people who came from all over the UK to relax in the Forest's unique atmosphere.

On climate change, introduced by SSE, Mr Rhodes again relied on government policy. Stansted's aircraft might release tonnes more CO2 annually but the government had decided that the EU emissions scheme would deal with the problem which, in his view, was only a small one anyway.

At the end of his incarceration, after a relatively brief recapping of BAA's views of the government's policies and their application to Stansted expansion, Mr Rhodes retired and was replaced by BAA's noise consultant, Dr Charles.

Dr Charles had only been approached to represent BAA's case last February so he was not responsible for the section on noise in the Environmental Assessment. His views were very straightforward and he would not deviate from them in spite of intensive questioning from both Mr Hill and Mr Stinchcombe, for Uttlesford Council and for SSE. He believed in the divine right of the (average) LAeq method of assessing noise effects unsullied by measurements of individual noise experiences when an aircraft actually flies overhead. Once again "the government says" came into the argument, backed by a succession of official quotes, in turn rebutted by another series of equally official quotes.

The result of staying rigidly within the LAeq system and the average 57 decibel annoyance level means that the extra flights at 35mppa do not raise the noise experience of residents much more than 1 decibel, or 2 at the most. It has been decreed by some experts and again by the government that the human ear cannot recognise an increase of less than a 3 decibels. So, although there are more flights, residents will not notice the difference because the average noise level will appear to be the same. The increase in the number of flights actually heard at their full noise level is held to be irrelevant. The overall experience will not change.

This denial is, of course, inexplicable to most of us but it has been repeated and perpetuated at several Inquiries, though inspectors have commented in their reports that the number of individual noisy flights does relate to the annoyance experienced. The average LAeq measurement still remains the easiest and most convenient overall measurement, but common sense and personal experience should allow recognition of the importance of the number of incidents in increasing annoyance and associated stress.

Possible effects on children's learning (reading in particular) ability were also discounted since no schools lie within the areas of noise levels where sound insulation is officially required - though the Health Impact Assessment commissioned by BAA had conceded that there might theoretically be a very small effect in those schools nearest to the airport. However, since no one had actually done a proper survey, the arguments remain unchallenged.

The Airport's Traffic forecasts were questioned during the last session before the break, and will be reported on. Still to come, after the break, are the consultants advising BAA on ground noise, air quality and water.

EU greenhouse gas emissions fell by 0.7 per cent in 2005, the European environment agency (EEA) confirmed on Thursday. The fall was driven mainly by reductions in emissions from electricity and heat production, households and services and road transport.

The full annual inventory of EU greenhouse gas emissions for 2005 confirms preliminary published by the agency in early May. The data were prepared as the EU's official annual report to the UN's framework convention on climate change.

The report says the reductions in the power and heating sector were the result of a shift from coal- to gas-fired production. A mild winter led to emissions savings by households and services, while rising demand for diesel cars in Germany drove cuts from road transport.

Spain witnessed the largest increase in emissions in absolute terms in 2005, equivalent to 15.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This was mainly down to a fall in electricity generation from hydropower due to low river levels, and the resulting increase in coal-fired production.

EU environment spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich said on Thursday the figures proved the EU was "well on the way to meeting its Kyoto targets" and had achieved a decoupling of emissions from economic growth. But she added that some countries "still need to make major efforts" and urged them particularly to "look at how they generate power and heat".

But green group Friends of the Earth drew the opposite conclusion: "The new data clearly shows that the EU is still way off course to meet its Kyoto target," campaigner Sonja Meister said. "The slight drop in emissions in 2005 is a decrease over only one year and is by no means a trend yet. European governments have to seriously increase their efforts to combat climate change, with drastic measures now to set the EU's emissions on a downward path into the long term."

A debate on aviation and emission trading at Green Week in Brussels on Thursday saw a heated confrontation between low-cost airline Ryanair and a Green MEP on the environmental responsibilities of airlines.

Jim Callaghan of Ryanair rejected the notion that aviation should be a focus in the fight against climate change. "It's a relatively small part of the problem," he told a packed audience. "We've lost focus on areas where we can really make a difference."

Airlines like Ryanair have done everything they can to reduce emissions, he continued, and an emission trading scheme would be tantamount to a new tax. Mr Callaghan offered a pair of free tickets to anyone who could suggest ways for him to cut emissions.

Green MEP Caroline Lucas obliged. A dramatic reduction in demand is essential, she said, and must be driven by prices that reflect the full cost of flying. Ms Lucas also pointed to the industry's high growth rate and its non-CO2 impacts on climate.

Mr Callaghan suggested that any action should target large "inefficient" national carriers. "If you want to do something about emissions, the commission needs to start enforcing its state aid rules," he told delegates.

He also argued that capping emissions today would be unfair on eastern European countries. "Who wants to tell the Poles, sorry lads, growth has stopped?" he asked.

Tim Johnson, director of the Aviation environment federation, said the only way for aviation to avoid accusations of undermining emission reduction efforts in other sectors would be for it to be included in a post-2012 Kyoto protocol successor agreement. Aviation emissions are not covered by the Kyoto greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

One of the world's most important mechanisms for tackling climate change is set to be undermined for a second time because of short-sighted plans to allow European companies to buy their way out of making reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions, a new WWF report shows. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is among the most ambitious projects designed to tackle climate change. Carbon trading is sound in principle, but the first phase of the EU scheme (2005 to 2007) has been seriously undermined by weak political decisions.

WWF's new report, Emission Impossible, shows that there are now significant concerns that the second phase (2008 to 2012) will also fail to deliver any significant emissions reductions within the EU - because of the potential for very heavy use of imported credits.

The EU ETS was designed to drastically reduce Europe's emissions by capping the amount of carbon dioxide that businesses are allowed to emit. Bigger emitters are able to buy carbon allowances - which, in effect, allow them to pollute - from companies that have reduced their emissions.

However, EU governments handed out far too many allowances to their industries in Phase 1. This caused the carbon market to virtually collapse and means that very little, if any, emission reductions will be made as a result of the scheme.

For Phase II, the European Commission has sought to set stricter caps than those proposed by many Member States. However, this is being weakened by a decision to allow industries to buy massive amounts of credits from projects outside the EU, meaning that European industry may not have to reduce its own emissions at all.

Emission Impossible looks at the carbon reduction plans of nine EU member states (UK, Germany, Poland, Ireland, France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal and Italy) and estimates that 88-100% of these countries' combined emissions reductions targets under the scheme could be met by buying credits from outside the EU.

Dr Keith Allott, head of WWF-UK's Climate Change Programme said: "There is a real danger that this will lock the EU in to high carbon investments and soaring emissions for many years to come. If the ETS is to fulfil its potential, we must ensure it leads to real carbon emission reductions within Europe. Climate change is an urgent priority, and we can't afford to waste another five years before we get Europe's emissions on a downward path."

The EU's carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies and failed to cut greenhouse gases, it is claimed.

An investigation by BBC Radio 4's File on 4 programme has found that after two and half years the scheme has yet to cut in carbon dioxide emissions.

But a government minister has promised that the scheme's next phase will be a big improvement.

The EU's Emission Trading Scheme - a key part of the UK Government's drive to combat climate change - began in 2005 and created a trade in carbon allowances.

It is essentially a permit to pollute.
Power generators received their allowances free of charge but were allowed to reflect the value of those in increased prices to customers, as if the companies had actually had to buy the allowances.

'Windfall profits'
And according to one government estimate, that delivered windfall profits of up to £1.3bn to the generators in that year - higher than environmental campaigners had claimed last year.

However, so far the carbon scheme has brought no clear payback in terms of cutting emissions.

Provisional government figures from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) suggest CO2 output in Britain actually went up, by 1.25% last year wiping out a slight drop of 0.01% in 2005.

It is also reckoned that CO2 emissions across the EU also rose by between 1 and 1.5% over the last two years.

Carbon reduction
The chief executive of Energywatch, Allan Asher, said , "Consumers increasingly accept the need for reductions in carbon.

"However they are paying the price and not seeing the benefits. The big generators are banking huge amounts of money and consumers aren't benefiting."

But the Minister for Climate Change, Ian Pearson, told File on 4 that the carbon trading scheme has been an administrative success yet concedes there have been problems in the first three year phase to the end of 2007.

"If you are saying to me it hasn't achieved a massive amount so far when it comes to CO2 reductions, well I agree with you and I think Phase Two will be a big, big improvement...and a key instrument in helping us all to achieve our carbon reduction targets across Europe."

It is 20 months now since British Airways proudly announced a new scheme to deal with climate change: for the first time, passengers could offset their share of the carbon produced by any flight by paying for the same amount of carbon to be taken out of the atmosphere elsewhere. "I welcome warmly this move from BA," said the then environment minister, Elliot Morley.

And how much carbon has BA offset from the estimated 27m tonnes which its planes have fired into the air since that high-profile moment in September 2005? The answer is less than 3,000 tonnes, less than 0.01% of its emissions - substantially less than the carbon dispersed by a single day of its flights between London and New York. The scheme has been, as BA's company secretary, Alan Buchanan, put it to a House of Commons select committee earlier this year, "disappointing".

The project has failed, according to one well-placed BA executive, because one part of the company wanted to improve its image by going green while another part wanted to protect its image by saying nothing at all about the impact of air travel on global warming. The result was that the scheme was launched and then banished to a dark corner of BA's website.

That tension - between the demands of the planet and the imperatives of commerce - lies at the heart of the global response to climate change and, in particular, of carbon offsetting. The idea that we might cancel our own greenhouse gases by paying for projects that reduce the gases elsewhere was born in the early years of climate politics. It was adopted by the corporate lobby at the Kyoto summit in 1997 and has grown into a large but deeply troubled adolescent - confused, unpredictable, and difficult to trust.

Separately from the "compliance market" on which nations and corporations trade carbon credits in an attempt to hit their Kyoto targets, there has grown a smaller, voluntary market in which airlines, banks, car makers and energy companies queue up to offset their carbon and to encourage their customers to do the same. A Guardian investigation suggests that many of the schemes on offer here are well-meaning but thoroughly unreliable.

One company, Equiclimate, which is run by Christians and recommended by the government, has sold thousands of tonnes of offset which are now worthless in financial and environmental terms. It bought up some of the special permits which allow European companies to emit specified amounts of carbon. The idea was to sell them to customers who would "retire" them, thus cutting the amount of carbon which those companies could produce. But the European commission distributed 170m too many of the permits and so the thousands which have been bought by Equiclimate's customers make no difference at all. People may believe they are offsetting the emissions from their patio heaters by signing up to the Calor Gas offsetting scheme, but the sad fact is that Calor Gas is relying on 5,000 tonnes of EU permits which it bought from Equiclimate when most of the permits were already worthless. "We chose them because they were recommended by government," a Calor Gas executive said.

The British government itself has been caught out over emissions from its presidency of the G8 in 2005. The then environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that all carbon emissions from all meetings and travel linked with the one-year presidency would be neutralised. Delegates to the Gleneagles summit in July 2005 were given certificates declaring that all their carbon emissions were being offset. But it hasn't happened. The plan was to spend £150,000 in Kuyasa, a suburb of Cape Town in South Africa, refitting shack-like homes with insulated roofs instead of corrugated iron, and providing solar panels for electricity and long-life bulbs for light. But the project, which would cut carbon emissions as well as helping needy people, has run into bureaucratic, financial and practical problems. The environment department, Defra, says it is keeping it under review. The project's leader, Shirene Rosenberg, says she is still fighting to keep it alive with no start date on the horizon.

Following a phone call from the Guardian, the Science Museum has withdrawn its Climate Relief Gift Pack, which included a certificate offsetting 100kg (220.5lb) of carbon and an opportunity to offset a tonne more. The pack promised to "instantly reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and help reduce global pollution". This was nonsense. The offset, like Equiclimate's, was based on "retiring" EU carbon permits whose supply easily exceeds demand. It was also overpriced. While the Science Museum was offering them at £30 a tonne, EU permits were for sale at 19p a tonne. The company behind the scheme, Moon Estates of St Austell in Cornwall, also withdrew the product from sale on its website. A company executive admitted they had sold some 3,000 tonnes, at a potential total of £90,000.

Atmosfair, a German offsetting group which is well regarded for its commitment to the environment, undertook to rewrite a section of its website following a phone call from the Guardian. Since 2004, it has been offering air travellers offsets which carry the gold standard awarded by a Swiss-based group backed by dozens of environmental NGOs. In an uncertain market, this gold standard is highly desirable. But none of the five projects on which Atmosfair is relying has yet produced a single verified gold standard reduction in emissions. One project was never intended to reach gold standard; one has been withdrawn; one is stalled. The remaining two - solar-powered kitchens in India and energy from palm oil waste in Thailand - are up and running, but neither has yet completed the gold standard process. Atmosfair's founder, Dietrich Brockhagen, acknowledged that what he was selling was "forward" credits even though the two projects might fail finally to generate them. "You have a point, that the customer might not understand this," he said.

The problem with offsetting is twofold. First, these schemes are unregulated and wide open to fraud. There is nothing but the customer's canniness to stop a company claiming to be running a scheme which does not exist; claiming wildly exaggerated carbon cuts; selling offsets that have already been sold; charging hugely inflated prices. EasyJet, the cut-price airline, backed out of offsetting in April on the grounds that "there are too many snake-oil salesmen in the business".

Second, as all the examples above show, even the most well-intentioned schemes suffer from basic weaknesses in the idea of carbon offsetting - an idea which flows not from environmentalists and climate scientists trying to design a way to reverse global warming but from politicians and business executives trying to meet the demands for action while preserving the commercial status quo. It fails on at least three essential points.

First, it requires an accurate measure of the emissions to be offset. That turns out to be riddled with uncertainty. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found a margin of error of 10% with measuring emissions from making cement or fertiliser; 60% with the oil, gas and coal industries; and 100% with some agricultural processes. Measuring emissions from aircraft is especially fraught with disagreement about what exactly should be measured and aggravated by variations in each flight's height, cargo load and weather conditions. When Tufts University in Maine analysed offsetting websites, it found emissions for flights between Boston and Frankfurt being calculated at anything between 1.43 tonnes and 4.14 tonnes.

Second, it requires an accurate measure of the carbon saved elsewhere. Most of the earliest offset projects involved planting trees, which naturally ingest carbon, a complex and unpredictable process which forbids accurate measurement.

Projects that focus on energy efficiency are even trickier. Carbon Offsets Ltd, another company recommended by the government, is selling offsets from a South African project known as Basa Magogo. This encourages poor households who make coal fires in perforated cans called imbawulas to build the fire in a different way: instead of using paper, then wood with coal on top, they are to build them with most of the coal on the bottom, thus producing more heat and less smoke. But how does anybody check how many have built their fires this way? And how many imbawulas must burn this way for how long before a tonne of carbon is saved? Hugh Somerville, one of the founders of Carbon Offsets Ltd and clearly genuinely keen to offer a decent service, confessed that nobody had asked this question before.

Finally, the very idea of offsetting relies on what is known as additionality - evidence that a carbon reduction would not have occurred in the natural order of commercial life. One of the biggest UK offsetters, Climate Care, which is used by the Guardian, distributed 10,000 energy-efficient lightbulbs in a South African township; offered the carbon reductions as offsets; and then discovered that an energy company was distributing the same kind of lightbulbs free to masses of customers, including their township, so the reduction would have happened anyway.

The result of these fundamental problems is a crisis of legitimacy in the voluntary market, as offsetters lay claim to certainties that are beyond their reach. Dan Welch, a Manchester journalist who investigated offsetters for Ethical Consumer magazine, summarised it neatly: "Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened."

The early forestation projects, so beloved of rock bands, have been discredited. Apart from their inability to make accurate measurements of carbon saved, companies were offsetting immediate emissions with reductions that would occur only during the 100-year life span of a tree. One of the first, Future Forests, was selling offsets from a forest at Orbost in Scotland. Customers may have thought that they were paying for new trees to be planted, but the company's contract with the forest's owner reveals that all they were paying for was the right to claim ownership of carbon absorbed by trees which were planted anyway. The Advertising Standards Authority in November 2002 ruled that Future Forests had misled customers into thinking that their offset money would be used to grow new trees.

Some tree-planting projects in Guatemala, Ecuador and Uganda have been accused of disrupting water supplies; evicting thousands of villagers from their land; seizing grazing rights from farmers; cheating local people of promised income; and running plantations where the soil releases more carbon than is absorbed by the trees. The founder of Climate Care, Mike Mason, told the environment audit select committee in February: "I think planting trees is mostly a waste of time and energy." And yet Climate Care relies for some 20% of its online sales on forestry. Mr Mason explained apologetically: "People love it unfortunately."

The idea of buying and retiring EU carbon permits is becoming equally discredited. The first phase permits, which run to the end of this year, are now worthless. The second phase, due to cap the carbon emissions of European companies from 2008 to 2012, are high-risk investments. Nobody knows whether the European commission has got its calculations right this time. Nor can anybody forecast the demand for carbon-heavy production, which will fluctuate with the weather and the economy. Andreas Arvanitakis, who monitors the market in these permits for the specialist analysts Point Carbon, would not use them for offsets: "I have a completely green tariff, I offset my flights and I make sure that I am getting the absolute top stuff. I wouldn't touch this."

Projects that use renewable energy or efficient energy to cut carbon are beset with the uncertainties of measurement and additionality. And many companies are selling speculative "forward" credits: they have hooked up with some third-world project and started selling offsets on the assumption that the project will probably materialise and succeed.

Defra wants to rescue the market by introducing a voluntary standard. But its credibility is low. In January, it recommended four named companies, including Equiclimate with its worthless EU permits, and Carbon Offsets Ltd, which had not even started business at the time.

One measure of the crisis is the progress of the gold standard scheme, which is backed by Greenpeace and other environmental groups as a particularly rigorous process to ensure that emission reductions are verified, additional and consistent with sustainable development. When the scheme was launched three years ago, it was widely derided. Jasmine Hyman, the gold standard marketing director, said: "The irony is that three years ago, we were defending our right to exist and everybody was saying, 'Stop it with all your rules' and now we are the darling of the dance floor."

The scheme has registered seven projects, two of which have so far produced some 350,000 tonnes of verified gold standard carbon reductions. And suddenly, as so many other projects struggle with uncertainty, it has unfilled orders for eight million more.

Dozen of historic thatched and half-timbered buildings in some of Britain's most beautiful villages are being bought up by airport owner BAA at premium prices as part of the company's plan for a massive expansion involving a second runway at Stansted in Essex.

Homeowners close to the airport are being approached by the company with offers well above market prices, as well as the tempting prospect of no legal fees or stamp duty. The firm, which owns Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick, now has more than 100 homes, including 18 Grade II listed buildings.

Entire villages, known for their Tudor red-brick chimneys and half-timbered buildings in black and white, are being drained of homeowners, and heritage experts say some of the oldest buildings are falling into disrepair. Many will be demolished if the government gives the go-ahead for the second runway.

Even areas outside the proposed expansion zone are affected. One community, Bamber's Green, has been described as a 'ghost village', with 30 homes now no longer owner-occupied. The secretary for the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, Philip Venning, said: 'It is a terrible scandal, which will involve the destruction of buildings that have been with us for hundreds of years and which can never be replaced.'

BAA has bought 107 properties, many of them old cottages or farm buildings. If the firm is given the go-ahead for a runway, it will be able to use compulsory purchase orders to demolish the buildings, including medieval houses.

One couple spoke of the terrible decision they have to make as to whether to sell to BAA. John and Rosemary Welch, who are retired, have spent decades carrying out intricate repairs to their home, Le Knells, a beautiful Grade II listed 17th-century house in the village of Takeley. The peaceful life they have enjoyed there for more than 30 years is now threatened. If they don't sell to BAA, they might still find themselves fighting a compulsory purchase order.

'It's devastating the community,' said Mrs Welch. 'People are deciding to sell - it's such a temptation. We just keep fighting, and hoping. The people who are coming into the area and renting are not part of village life. But people are thinking, "Oh well, the expansion's going to come anyway," and become despondent.'

A public inquiry is under way over plans to expand capacity at Stansted which could take the number of passengers using it from the present 23 million to some 35 million.

Next year is likely to see the start of a second inquiry, to look at the proposal for a second runway costing £2bn. A decision on this is not likely until 2011.

BAA argues that it has no choice but to expand Britain's airports. It points out that Heathrow is now full all the time and Gatwick and Stansted cannot take any more flights. At the same time, demand for cheap flying continues unabated. In south-east England, it is predicted to increase from 117 million passengers in 2000 to 300 million in 2030.

Stansted would need an extra 486 hectares (1,215 acres) of land to build a second runway. That would mean demolishing 73 homes, 18 of them listed buildings. However, 580 homes are affected in total. Owners of more than two-thirds of them have now applied to sell their homes to BAA, many attracted by the lucrative offers. A four-bedroom cottage in the area will sell for more than £700,000, with the best properties going for more than £1m.

A BAA spokesman denied it had bought properties to reduce resistance to the plans or to gain more land. 'We are doing what we were told to do by government in the white paper,' he said. 'We've maintained the properties well, letting them out to tenants with agreements that they have to maintain them properly. 'We have to offer proper prices for the property, but have no desire to own lots of properties.'

The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings has begun to keep a tally of the threatened homes, barns and churches, and is looking at how the buildings are falling into disrepair. In its magazine, Cornerstone, it points out that by buying up so many homes the authority is also 'diluting local opposition to its plans'.

Forty years ago, when the area first came under threat from development, John Betjeman wrote of its beauty: 'It is a quiet, prosperous agricultural area of old stone and flint churches, pargeted cottages with red tiled roofs, spreading farms and gabled manor houses.'

It happened in the Big Ben to Eiffel Tower plane/train race HACAN and NOTRAG staged yesterday.

The racers set off, in the full glare of the TV cameras, from Westminster as Big Ben struck 11 o'clock.

The train people settled comfortably in their seats and left Waterloo on time just after midday.

The plane people made their way to Heathrow and then... the plane sat on the tarmac for an hour because of heavy showers in Paris.

So, at the moment the train arrived at the Gare du Nord around 3.00pm, the plane was just taking off from Heathrow.

Just after 3.30pm (UK time) the train people emerged from the metro near the Eiffel Tower to an enthusiastic welcome from the French campaigners and the French media.

Around 4.00pm the plane people disembarked at Charles de Gaulle Airport and then... because of an immigration alert at the airport, could not retrieve their luggage until 5.00pm, i.e. another hour's wait.

Meanwhile the train people, having had a civilised beer on the Champs Elysees, were making their way back to the Gare du Nord to catch the train home.

At 6.30pm, the train people were relaxed, on Eurostar, speeding through the French countryside on their way home while the plane people were just arriving at the Gare du Nord, having abandoned any attempt to rendez-vous at the Eiffel Tower.

The opening of the Public Inquiry into the expansion of London's third airport was a landmark occasion marked by a protestor's demonstration waving their banners outside the entrance to Endeavour House - where the inquiry is being held - and surronded by a collection of media cameras and press representatives normally only seen at the airport terminal to interview VIPs or report an airport emergency. Endeavour House is not far from the terminal and, from the inquiry room on the second floor, one can watch planes taking off and landing. Surrounded in noise proof windows, all the participants to the inquiry can relax in quiet if not in peace.

The arguments for and against expansion are to date being marshalled by members of the legal profession, representing Uttlesford District Council, BAA, Stop Stansted Expansion, the National Trust, and the Stansted Airlines Consultative Committee. Saffron Walden & District Friends of the Earth, and Much Hadham Parish Council are presenting their own case, and from time to time whole sessions will be devoted to the many individuals and groups who wish to contribute their own views in person but do not wish to present formal evidence on all the aspects of the effects of an expanding airport.

Presiding over the inquiry are Alan Boyland, the Lead Inspector, and his Assistant Inspector, Terry Phillimore, aided by the Programme Officer, Simon Osborn, who has been responsible for providing all the facilities, and the never-ending supply of documents and information needed to fuel, feed and service the participants.

The first half hour of the inquiry was devoted to a mass of TV cameras, radio recorders and press interviewers. The heavily edited versions of the inquiry's aims and assorted views were reported in all the media during the next day - since then, only one or two members of the press have survived the first week.

On the first morning all the main parties presented their opening statements, endeavouring to compress - not always successfully ? their case into a short speech. Six against and one for airport expansion. The Stansted airlines are not against expansion in the long term, but not now and not on BAA's (now Ferrovial) terms ? they are afraid of the effects on the charges they pay. The rest of the objectors have no such dilemma to wrestle with - they do not want more planes or more passengers using the existing runway. They are saying with one voice that Stansted needs to stop expanding and must make the best use of its existing caps, which are very generous for flights (241,000) and must also remain within its limit of 25mppa. More flights and more passengers will make life just too unpleasant for too many people and will seriously damage the irreplaceable Hatfield Forest.

The first week was devoted to Uttlesford Council's case against the expansion. Planning Head John Mitchell listed all the sufferings of local residents and the effects of increasing the number of flights in terms of noise, fumes and traffic. Objections had been received from individuals and from Parish and town councils representing over 170,000 people. Yet BAA had made no attempt to assess the effects on the quality of Life of the residents of Uttlesford and East Herts. He was followed by detailed evidence on noise levels and air pollution from the Council's consultants, Stephen Turner, Dr Gibson and Stephen Moorcroft. The Council's case was rounded off by Roger Harborough who expressed doubts about the expected economic benefits listed by BAA as the main justification for expansion.

All witnesses were subjected to deceptively polite but third degree cross questioning by BAA's QC Michael Humphries, and the lines of dissent soon became very clear. BAA is claiming almost statutory powers for the Air Transport White Paper, and selected passages are read out with reverence. Apparently our respect for the policies enshrined in this ATWP must also be extended to other pronouncements such as those that maintain that airport expansion is essential for the economic well being of the UK as well as the Eastern Region. Government by White Papers? So it seems. It will be interesting to hear the arguments put forward when White Papers and Government policies relating to sustainable development and climate change are discussed.

BAA also painted a picture of clean airport air helping to restore any damage in Hatfield Forest once those responsible for the present pollution (car and lorry drivers) had, by 2014, purchased new low-emission vehicles. Unfortunately this vision was temporarily spoilt by the revelation that some air monitoring is being carried out in the depths of Hatfield Forest and, since Xmas, levels have been recorded that actually rose above the statutory level for the protection of vegetation, i.e. Hatfield Forest's ancient and irreplaceable trees. BAA has questioned these results and to date only 4 months are available. They do, however, support the objectors' questions about the reliability of BAA's forecasts on air quality which conveniently show that the statutory level is only reached just outside the north eastern tip of the Forest. BAA also suggest that, even if they were correct, the expected improvement in poolution from vehicle and aircraft emissions will still mean that all is well in 2014.

In relation to noise levels we are back with the same old arguments. The standard noise level indicator in the UK is still the average levels measured during the day and the night (lower levels are recognised at night). The actual noise experienced during an overflight is not recognised as a serious issue either by BAA or at the moment by the government. So, somewhat ridiculous arguments continue about how much extra annoyance is created by up to 60,000 more flights (from todays' levels) when these are measured in averages and not in actualities. When is a larger number of individual annoyances more annoying when expressed in terms of average increases overall? More research is urgently needed to develop suitable annoyance statistics!

With regard to that elusive indicator Quality of Life, BAA does not recognise it. They did produce an assessment for the previous application for up to 25mppa but now, they claim, the government has rejected it as too vague a concept to be of value when determining a planning application. Clearly such a concept cannot be expressed in objective statistics, but neither can the concept of annoyance from average noise levels, embraced so enthusiastically by BAA.

All these arguments are going to be repeated many times in the course of the inquiry and there will be developments in the depths of Hatfield Forest. This week BAA's own witnesses are in the box starting with John Rhodes who will bear the brunt of the first onslaught from Uttlesford and SSE's barristers, supported by their many advisers, both professional and amateur. They need support from residents and from Councillors! Why not spend a relaxing day listening to the arguments ? bring your own sandwiches as the supply is variable, though the drinks machine can be relied on.

A senior director at the world's largest airline has warned that the industry has "lost the battle" in the environmental debate and it could take a decade for carriers to restore their reputation.

Leo van Wijk, vice-chairman of Air France-KLM, the world's biggest airline by turnover, said the industry passed up an opportunity to take the initiative in the green debate eight years ago and now it would pay the price. In an extraordinary outburst at the annual general meeting of the Iata airline Trade Association, Mr van Wijk dismissed executives? opinions on the issue as "BS".

He said: "What I hear is a lot of BS ? I think we have lost this battle already. I don't think the customer is interested to hear that we have a great story. We know that in a reasonable time-frame there is no way we can diminish carbon emissions."

Mr van Wijk, who is well known for his outspoken views, said he warned executives about global warming in 1999 and was greeted with "lukewarm applause". Although aviation only accounts for 1.6% of global CO2 emissions, it dominates most of the debate on climate change and campaigners target it as an industry that must be reined in.

"Because we have let 6 or 7 years go by without taking the issue seriously, I think that until 5 or 10 years down the line we will be on the defensive. In the meantime politicians will have a free reign to do what they want" he said. The Air France-KLM director also criticised airlines for turning to the topic only recently: "Within 6 months we have all these believers in the audience".

His outburst came as Iata set a zero-emission target for 2057, including building biofuel-powered aircraft and creating emissions trading for the industry.

Idris Jala, chief executive of Malaysia Airlines, told the annual meeting: "Realistically, technologically, I don't believe we can achieve zero emissions." But, he said, striving for the target would make the industry a "winner" because it could still produce massive environmental benefits. Michael Cave, vice president of Boeing, the world?s biggest planemaker, called the target a "bridge too far" and said a carbon neutral target was more realistic.

The environmental issue has gone from a side issue at last year's Iata meeting to the dominant subject in the industry. Even a small panel of executives had differing opinions yesterday, with Emilio Romano, chief executive of the airline Mexicana, blaming the environmental row on "protectionist" European states, only to be contradicted by Wolfgang Mayrhuber, chief executive of Germany's Lufthansa. However, the panel agreed that the airlines had to be more active in the environmental debate or they would face firmer government action, such as the UK's recent doubling of air passenger duty.

Steve Ridgway, chief executive of Virgin Atlantic, said airlines were "behind" in the green public relations battle and "need to be in the forefront as much as we can".

He said European governments alone could do more by combining more than 20 different traffic control systems in a "single skies" move that would make flying across the continent much more efficient and save an estimated 12m tonnes of CO2 a year.

OUR COMMENT: Well, they could start with a campaign on achieving the last objective.

Shares in low cost carrier Ryanair nose-dived yesterday after its flamboyant chief executive Michael O'Leary said the industry was on course to hit severe turbulence that would dent its profits growth.

As the airline reported a 33% rise in pre-tax profits to £306m yesterday, Mr O'Leary said he expected only a 5% increase this financial year and said Ryanair could make a small loss over the coming winter.

He said the market had "softened" in April, a trend that continued in May, with figures showing Ryanair's load factor ? how full their planes were ? had fallen from 82% to 80% last month.

The down beat message was amplified by figures from British Airways, where passenger load fell to 73.3%, 1.5% down on a year earlier.

The Ryanair blamed a series of factors for the softening of market conditions: rising UK interest rates; "swingeing" increases in charges for using Stansted; the doubling of airline passenger duty in the UK; a one-off increase in the number of crews, and long queues to clear security. "At this time with no visibility of winter bookings and yields we believe that the company and our shareholders should remain cautious and conservative", Mr O'leary said yesterday.

"The vast majority of our profits will be generated in the first half of the year, with the consequent reduction in profitability and maybe even small losses being recorded in quarters 3 and 4."

Ryanair shares fell more than 7% after the warning, but analysts were more sanguine. "Ryanair often make cautious noises early in the year, and while we expect the negative newsflow to persist over the early summer months, we still believe in the long-term low-cost growth story", analysts at Dresdner Kleinwort said in a research note.

Mr O'Leary was typically robust in his reaction to market conditions. Ryanair would continue to respond with aggressive promotions, he said, putting pressure on higher cost rivals. "Ryanair will lead and win every fare war in Europe. It's never going to be cheaper to fly across Europe than this summer and winter. I like it when our customers win and our competitors lose. We have never yet lost money by reducing fares to the travelling public."

Despite the problems facing the industry in the short term, Mr O'Leary remained optimistic for the long term, saying Ryanair expected to double the number of passengers and profits over the next 5 years, buying more planes and opening up routes and places across Europe.

He expected the European Commission to block his attempt to take over Irish rival Aer Lingus. Asked how he would respond to a rejection by the commission and any attempt to force Ryanair to sell its 25.2% stake, Mr O'Leary said it would be the same to both. "We'll see you in court". He accused Brussels of breaking its own competition rules to support the Irish Government's determination not to let Ryanair take over Aer Lingus. He dismissed any suggestion his warning of troubled times to come was a machiavellian attempt to rattle Brussels.

"If I stood buck naked in the street, I don't think Brussels would look more favourably on Ryanair's bid for Aer Lingus. It would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for Ryanair to get a fair hearing at Brussels."

He attacked what he called "hysteria" in the UK over the industry's emissions of greenhouse gases, ascribing much of it to "the guilt ridden middle classes who drive the SUVs to Sainsbury's and buy kiwi from New Zealand and Kumquats from Latin America".

Aviation contributed 2% of greenhouse gases, he said. "The people who are worried about the environment are right to be worried. But the self-abusers who think taxing air transport is going to do anything for the environment are eco-nuts".

The Ryanair chief gave further details of what he described as a "small retirement project", to involve setting up a long-haul low-cost business. It would depend on the open skies deal between the US and the European Union turning into a reality, he said, plus the availability of cheap aircraft capable of long haul journeys. Ryanair would not be involved, nor would he run the business, but he claimed it would have to provide fares as low as £10.

Mr O'Leary ended his message to the aviation world by saying he would retire in the next 2 or 3 years, "though that tends to be a bit of a rolling stone".

OUR COMMENT: Let's hope it stops rolling before the long haul market is flooded with cheap flights aggravating climate change even more.

Leaders of the world's eight leading industrialised nations on Thursday agreed that "strong and early action" from all major emitters within a UN framework is needed to prevent dangerous climate change. Global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by "substantial" reductions, says the final communique.

It envisages major emitters agreeing on a "detailed contribution" for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would feed into a global agreement under the UN framework convention on climate change by 2009.

The document was welcomed by all leaders. "I think that so far we can say the G8 summit in Heiligendamm has given us excellent results," European commission president Jose Manual Barroso told reporters.

"In terms of targets, we agreed on clear language ... that recognises that [increases in] CO2 emissions must first be stopped and then followed by substantial reductions," said German chancellor Angela Merkel.

"Now we have an agreement that there will be a climate change deal, it will involve everyone, including the US and China, and it will involve substantial cuts," said British prime minister Tony Blair. "There has been quite significant progress," said France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, "President Bush accepted that the solution [to climate change] had to be found within the UN."

"The United States will be actively involved, if not taking the lead, in a post-Kyoto framework," the Financial Times reported Mr Bush as saying earlier in the day.

Despite the apparent harmony, the declaration does not contain any of the EU's three original goals. There is no commitment to limit temperature rises to two degrees, or to halve emissions by 2050, or to move towards a global emission trading system.

The communique only says, "We will consider seriously the decisions made by the EU, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050."

Emission trading is included as one possible market mechanism through which to achieve a future target and drive low carbon technology development.

Greenpeace reacted angrily to the lack of a clear target. The deal is "clearly not enough to prevent dangerous climate change" said Daniel Mittler, climate policy advisor of Greenpeace International. The group welcomed the political mandate for the start of serious negotiations in Bali in December however.

The remainder of the climate communique builds on earlier commitments on energy efficiency, also in transport and buildings, plus deforestation, adaptation and technology.

On Friday G8 leaders meet with other heads of government including the "+5" emerging economies China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil.

Council negotiations on proposals to include aviation in the EU emission trading scheme are "progressing well", a senior official in the German environment ministry revealed on Thursday.

Astrid Klug, Germany's parliamentary state secretary for the environment, told a workshop organised by the Institute for European environmental policy in Brussels that the council's discussions were currently focussing on potential allocation methods for airlines in the scheme.

During a technical meeting last week, "most member states agreed that an average benchmarking approach is a good starting point", said Ms Klug. This would mean setting emissions targets on the basis of the sector's average performance, although Ms Klug suggested the exact level of the benchmark could still be amended.

The main priority should be to ensure that the system avoids any unnecessary complication or "too many special rules", she said. "The scheme needs to be simple, easy to use and as transparent as possible". All carriers into and out of the EU must be treated equally to avoid distorting competition, she added.

Creating a global trading scheme for aviation is another priority, according to Ms Klug, who called on member states to support the European commission in its negotiations with the international civil aviation organisation (Icao).

Jos Dings of campaign group Transport & Environment warned that Icao had so far done little to promote the idea and he "didn't expect any big change" in their approach.

The lead spokesperson for most of the world's airlines on Monday challenged the commercial aerospace industry to develop a passenger aircraft with zero carbon emissions.

Giovanni Bisignani, director general of the International Air Transport Association (Iata), said the industry must develop such an aircraft within the next 50 years. Aviation's carbon footprint was growing, he said, and that was not "politically acceptable, for any industry. Climate change will limit our future."

In an attempt to galvanise the aviation industry to respond to the growing environmental pressures on air travel, Mr Bisignani told the Iata annual meeting in Vancouver that climate change was a real concern for airline customers and had become a political priority for many governments.

Some of the potential building blocks for a carbon-free future were already available, he said, including fuel cell technology. The first solar powered aircraft had been built and it was possible to make fuel from biomass.

The leader of Iata, the trade association for most of the world's airlines, also called on the global leaders in aerospace, the US, Europe, Canada, China, Brazil, Russia and Japan to co-ordinate basic research and then to compete to apply it effectively.

A green industry was "absolutely achievable," he said. The aerospace sector had already proven that it could produce "amazing results" by going "in a short 50 years from the Wright brothers to the jet age."

Mr Bisignani said the industry already had a good track record, having reduced aircraft noise by 75 per cent in the last 30 years and improved fuel efficiency by 70 per cent in the last 40 years. The billions of dollars being invested by airlines in new aircraft would also make carriers 25 per cent more fuel efficient by 2020.

He said aviation had had a poor record in communicating the improvements, however, and was facing "a reputation crisis. That make us an easy target for politicians who think green and see cash."

He accused many governments of pursuing "schizophrenic" policies on the environment.

The UK had doubled air passenger duty in the name of helping the environment, but in practice had only helped the UK budget. Airline customers were paying a billion pounds for the "green credentials" of Gordon Brown, the UK chancellor. "What has he done for the environment? He hasn't planted any trees, but he is lost in the woods," said Mr Bisignani.

European governments had been "irresponsible and inconsistent", he said. They were rushing to include aviation in emissions trading but were dragging their feet over "real measures" to help the environment, such as completing the project to create a "single European sky" by removing the national boundaries governing the airspace and air traffic control over Europe.

The "single European sky" reform could cut emissions by around 12 per cent and save up to 12m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. "But instead of action, we have a European circus, 15 years of talks, talks and nothing but talks... It's time to deliver some real results."

Iata is seeking to persuade European governments to pursue through the International Civil Aviation Organisation a global emissions trading scheme for aviation rather than the partial scheme being promoted by the European Union. Global airline profits are recovering faster than previously forecast, as demand for air travel remains strong despite a weaker US economy thanks to stronger than expected economic growth in Asia and Europe, Iata said on Monday.

It has revised upwards its March forecast for net profits this year of $3.8bn to $5.1bn, compared with a net loss of $500m last year, and forecast a net profit of $9.6bn for 2008. The industry is forecast to break back into net profit this year for the first time since 2000 after accumulating net losses of $42.1bn in the last six years.

US president George Bush threw global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions into confusion on Thursday by announcing plans for a new international negotiation effort outside the UN.

The announcement came days before a G8+5 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, where the EU, led by German chancellor Angela Merkel, has been trying to get the US to sign up to binding emission reduction targets and carbon trading.

Britain, Japan, Canada and Australia all welcomed the US proposal, even though it rejects both binding caps and carbon trading. Germany, which will host the G8 summit, reacted more warily.

"It could mean a change in the American position, but it could just be fog to hide real intentions," German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel said on Friday at the start of an informal meeting of EU environment ministers.

"If the American proposal is a way to prepare an agreement [at UN climate negotiations in December] in Bali, then it's good. If it's a means somehow to get over the Heiligendamm summit and hamper an international climate change agreement, then it's dangerous," Mr Gabriel said. "It's very important to look at the proposals and see if there are clear targets to reduce emissions."

"For the first time [America] is setting its own domestic targets, for the first time it is saying it wants a global target for the reduction of emissions and therefore for the first time we've got the opportunity of getting a proper global deal," UK prime minister Tony Blair told Sky News during a visit to South Africa.

"I believe that the United States is finally getting serious in dealing with global warming," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was quoted as saying by Kyodo News.

"We have to have some targets, but in the short-term there needs to be flexibility in targets and methods of reaching them,'' affirmed Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, expressing his support for Bush's proposal.

Australian environment minister Malcolm Turnbull said the US plan presents a "practical road map" for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. "The reality is we need commitments from the whole world... but we need those commitments in the form that they're prepared to give them," Mr Turnbull said.

European commission president Jose Manual Barroso told the Financial Times newspaper that the US had "crossed the Rubicon" in accepting the threat of climate change but was still not fully facing up to its responsibilities. The US goal to solve global warming with technology would only work if it signed up to a global system of "measurable, binding, enforceable targets", he said.

Green groups condemned the plan. Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, called the proposal "a complete charade". "It is an attempt to make the Bush administration look like it takes global warming seriously without actually doing anything to curb emissions," he said according to newswire Associated Press.

Greenpeace International called the US plans a dangerous sham. "[It] is also a desperate attempt to head off the start of international negotiations on the next stage of emissions reductions after 2012," said John Coequyt of Greenpeace USA.

US Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the senate committee on environment and public works, welcomed the move. She offered to share with the president expert testimony gathered by her committee on the importance of a mandatory gap on emissions and market mechanisms to put a price on carbon.

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.

The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.

Tony Blair flies to Berlin today to prepare for the summit with its host, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. They will discuss how to tackle President Bush, who last week called for action to deal with climate change, which his critics suggested was instead a way of delaying international agreements.

Yesterday, there were violent clashes in the city harbour of Rostock between police and demonstrators, during a largely peaceful march of tens of thousands of people protesting against the summit.

The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.

The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

On the ground, a study by the University of California's National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.

In yesterday's clashes, masked protesters hurled flagpoles, stones and bottles and attacked with sticks forcing police to retreat. The police said they were suffering "massive assaults" and that the situation was "very chaotic". They put the size of the demonstration at 25,000; organisers said it was 80,000.

Food miles: The produce we buy in supermarkets has often travelled half way around the world.
Conscientious consumers are being urged to buy locally sourced food in the battle against climate change. But, as Richard Gray discovers, produce from the other side of the world can actually have a smaller carbon footprint.

Take a look in the average supermarket trolley and the food there will probably have travelled farther than most people clock up in a decade. A selection of just 26 items can have covered a total of 150,000 miles before reaching the British kitchen.

With beef from Brazil, beans from Kenya, apples from New Zealand, chicken from Thailand and strawberries from Spain, shoppers can enjoy year-round produce. But with such astonishing "food miles" being accumulated, it is little surprise that their environmental impact is coming under scrutiny and sparking a backlash.

Already, the major supermarkets are crawling over each other to highlight their "locally sourced" produce, while Marks and Spencer has begun labelling air-freighted products with logos of aircraft. Yet some startling research is emerging that shows food miles might not be as bad as consumers have been led to believe.

Analysis of the industry reveals that for many foods, imported products are responsible for lower carbon dioxide emissions than the same foodstuffs produced in Britain. Even products shipped from the other side of the world emit fewer greenhouse gases than British equivalents.

The reasons are manifold. Sometimes it is because they require less fertiliser; sometimes, as with greenhouse crops, less energy; sometimes, as with much African produce, the farmers use little mechanised equipment. The findings are surprising environmental campaigners, who have, until now, used the distance travelled by food as the measure of how polluting it is.

One study by Lincoln University, in New Zealand, found that 2,849kg of carbon dioxide is produced for every tonne of lamb raised in Britain, while just 688kg of the gas is released with imported New Zealand lamb, even after it has travelled the 11,000 miles to Britain. Researchers and farmers in Britain have raised doubts over the accuracy of the New Zealand figures, but they concede that sheep farming in New Zealand is more efficient than in our own country.

"They have slightly better weather," said Prof Gareth Edwards-Jones, from the department of agriculture at Bangor University, in Wales. "This means their grass can grow for longer and they don't have to give their sheep as much feed as they do in the UK."

"With meat in the UK, there is also a supermarket issue. Each of the supermarkets runs its own abattoir, so if you sell your lamb to Tesco, you have to send your lamb to Tesco's abattoir, even if you pass several local abattoirs on the way. As a result, the meat picks up a huge amount of 'in-Britain' food miles from farm to abattoir then to packaging before it gets to its final destination."

"If we could sort it out so that meat was slaughtered and packaged locally, it could make the whole process far more efficient."

On the extensive rolling fields of Pigeon Hills sheep farm, 40 miles from Nelson on New Zealand's South Island, the lush grassland needs little fertiliser to provide food for the livestock. Farmer David McGaveston, 55, rears more than 10,000 sheep and 500 beef cattle for export to the UK.

The style of farming in New Zealand is considered to be less intensive than in Britain because of the large areas of land. Mr McGaveston uses small amounts of hay to help supplement his sheep through the cold winter months and sends his lambs to be slaughtered and packaged at a plant just 40 miles away. Most of the electricity used is also supplied from a hydroelectric plant, which has minimal carbon dioxide emissions.

He said: "I understand the debate that is going on over food miles in the UK at the moment, but if we really are producing meat with less carbon dioxide then that is surely a good thing."

British apples are better for the environment during autumn and winter, but not in spring and summer Figures from the Lincoln University study also revealed that both dairy products and apples imported from New Zealand had less of an impact on the environment than those produced in Britain.

Prof Caroline Saunders, who led the research, said: "Food miles are a very simplistic concept, but it is misleading as it does not consider the total energy use, especially in the production of the product."

But other studies of fruit and vegetable production have revealed a more complex picture. Research by the centre for environmental strategy at Surrey University has shown that British apples are better for the environment during autumn and winter, but in spring and summer it is "greener" to import them.

Dr Llorenç Milà I Canals, of Surrey University, said: "By May, apples harvested in Britain have been kept in refrigerated storage for more than six months, which uses a lot of energy. At that point, it becomes better to import from New Zealand."

He has also found similar results for the production of lettuces, which showed that the energy used to produce out-of-season lettuces in winter in Britain was greater than importing lettuces from Spain. He added: "If you are producing lettuce in a heated glasshouse in the UK, the amount of energy you are using is huge, so in that case buying British produce over winter is a bad idea."

Similarly, British farmers who grow tomatoes and strawberries often rely on heated greenhouses to produce crops outside the short fruit season in Britain. Dr Adrian Williams, an agriculture expert from Cranfield University, in Bedfordshire, said: "If you produce something in an unheated greenhouse abroad or in a field, you make a considerable saving, as you are not having to use large amounts of energy heating a greenhouse. You could expect there to be a difference even if you allow for the transport from Spain."

Earlier this year, Mr Williams revealed that growing roses in Kenya produces just 17 per cent as much carbon dioxide as growing them in Holland. Importing beans by air from Uganda or Kenya is also more efficient.

Prof Edwards-Jones explained why: "In Uganda, they tend to have small farms that export beans. They don't use tractors, as it is all done by hand, they use cow muck instead of fertiliser and don't use hi-tech irrigation systems."

For some products, however, it is better to buy British. British onions, for example, produce 14kg per tonne less CO2 than those imported from New Zealand.

What is clear is that the so-called "carbon footprint" left by a product is a good deal more complicated than simply looking at the distance it has travelled. Food miles have become the villain in the environmental debate over the global food market, with campaigners counting every mile their organic blueberries and sugarsnap peas have travelled.

But even the method of transport is generating controversy. Some researchers claim shipping is better than air freight, but others insist that for perishable goods, packing them into a plane for a quick journey is better than refrigerating them on a cargo ship. Air freight contributes just 0.1 per cent to Britain's carbon dioxide emissions.

The disagreement over exactly how to measure the carbon footprint of food has lead to the Government stepping in. Last week, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced it was developing a standard carbon calculator that all manufacturers and retailers could use to label their products. But a study by Bangor University, due to be completed this year, is set to complicate matters further. Researchers have found that the number of times a patch of soil is ploughed, and even the type of soil a vegetable is grown in, radically alters the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

This could mean that clay soil in one part of the world may release more greenhouse gases than sandy soil elsewhere. Indeed, calculations of carbon dioxide emissions could also include the footprint left by employees involved in the production of food. Per capita carbon dioxide emissions in Britain are 9.2 tonnes, while for Kenya the figure is 0.2 tonnes and for Uganda it is 0.1 tonnes. By this method, importing from Africa would be far less environmentally damaging.

Despite this, supermarkets have been eager to demonstrate their commitment to British food with Waitrose, Sainsbury's and Tesco all running campaigns to emphasise that they buy much of their produce locally. A spokesman for Tesco said: "Transportation is only a very small part of the carbon emissions created by food production. We try to use food from local sources because our customers like it."

Yet many blame the supermarkets for creating the problem with food miles in the first place, by pandering to consumer demand for produce out of season. Dr Jonathan Scurlock, the chief adviser on climate change for the National Farmers Union, said: "Consumers are given the expectation that you can get anything at any time of year. Farmers feel there is an unfair flooding of UK retailers with imported products like lamb as a result. "

Anti-poverty groups, however, fear that a return to seasonal, locally sourced produce could end up harming the economies of developing countries. More than one million people in Africa are dependent on the trade supplying fresh fruit and vegetables to Britain.

Ian Bretman, the deputy director of the Fairtrade Foundation, said: "The voices of people from developing countries who do depend on exporting food must be heard. There should be a balance between environmental impact and the sustainability of a product."

Regardless of the carbon footprint issue, farmers on both sides of the world are united on one subject: the way that supermarkets are driving down prices. According to David McGaveston, the New Zealand sheep farmer: "The returns are not what they used to be and the price of lamb has dropped considerably over the past two years. It seems the price in the UK has stayed the same, but the supermarkets are paying us less for the meat. There are just too many exporters being played off against each other. It's not sustainable."

Lamb
UK = 2,849kg CO2 per tonne of carcass
New Zealand = 688kg CO2 per tonne of carcass

Lettuce (winter)
UK = 3,720kg CO2 per tonne of lettuce (indoor production)
Spain = 3,560kg CO2 per tonne of lettuce

Apples (in May when off season in UK)
UK = 271kg CO2 per tonne of apples
New Zealand = 185kg CO2 per tonne of apples

Roses
Netherlands = 35,000kg CO2 per 12,000 stems
Kenya = 6,000kg CO2 per 12,000 stems

OUR COMMENT: These figures need to be carefully checked. How do you estimate the energy used when sheep are reared on Welsh hills? Apple Trees are not heated in winter, some apple varieties keep, others don't. A lot depends on the time of year, and, there is an ethical issue too - is it better for Kenyans to use land for rose growing or keep it for local food. Who makes the profits and why?

Sir, The public inquiry, which opens today, into BAA's proposals to increase the number of flights using Stansted airport by 80,000 a year has implications far beyond the borders of North Essex. It forms the first major part of the Government's plans, outlined in its 2003 air transport White Paper, to almost treble the number of passengers using UK airports by 2030.

These plans will have significant implications for climate change, noise, biodiversity and the quality of life for communities. At the proposed rate of growth, aviation will wipe out the emissions savings made from all other sectors, consigning the Government's climate change targets to the dustbin of history.

It is ironic that the inquiry starts just days after the end of National Noise Week where people were urged to be considerate neighbours and at a time when hardly a day goes by without a government minister exhorting us to reduce our carbon emissions.

Aviation policy needs to go in a new direction to meet the realities of the 21st century. Rejecting the proposals to expand Stansted would be a good place to start.

He may seem like an unlikely witness for what is, essentially, a planning dispute over the future of a woodland in Essex. But the repercussions are considered so profound for the UK, that an Inuit former minister from Greenland is expected to be among the speakers demanding protection for Hatfield forest.

Beyond the historic trees under threat, the direction of the government's aviation policy over the next 10 years is being put at stake too.

Environmental campaigners yesterday revealed how they are preparing to lobby a public inquiry starting tomorrow into plans to expand Stansted airport; its owner, BAA, is seeking permission to increase the number of passengers flying in and out from 25 million to 35 million a year.

Both sides recognise that the public inquiry decision could have consequences throughout Britain. Air passenger numbers are predicted to more than double in the next 20 years to 465 million and at least 20 other British airports, including Gatwick, Heathrow, Bristol and Norwich, are planning to expand.

Campaigners say the government's 2010 target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% is contradicted by its aviation policy, which is committed to new runways at Heathrow and Stansted if environmental standards are met. "At the heart of this issue is the contradiction between the government's aviation policy and its climate change policy," said Brian Ross, of the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign.

Tomorrow's opening hearing at Stansted airport will hear statements from BAA, Friends of the Earth and the local council, which threw out the initial application on environmental grounds. Aqqaluk Lynge, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council and a former minister in the government of Greenland, is also expected to make an appearance during the inquiry to argue against the expansion.

The National Trust will claim at the opening session that one of England's oldest forests is at serious risk from the expansion of cheap air travel.

The trust, which has 3.3 million members, will argue that the 1,000-acre Hatfield forest, on the edge of the airport, will be critically affected both by noise and increased chemical pollution. Hatfield attracts 200,000 visitors a year, and uniquely in Europe, has more than 800 trees which are more than 500 years old. The airport expansion is expected to increase the number of daily flights to up to 720 a day in 2014, a 40% increase.

The Stansted inquiry is seen as a test case of the government's commitment to environmental protection but also to allow business growth. While the government does not want to disappoint BAA, which also owns Gatwick and Heathrow, it is equally wary of upsetting the millions of National Trust members who make up a significant portion of middle England.

Over the next three months, the trust will join local communities to mount a case against the expansion plans. The trust's pollution consultants say the increases in nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere will severely stress the older trees in the forest, making them more susceptible to infection and disease, and less able to cope with other stresses.

They will also argue that the airport expansion plans will ruin the enjoyment of the 200,000 people a year who visit the forest, described as "the only place where you can step back into the Middle Ages to see what a forest used to look like".

"At the moment there are respite times between the takeoffs and landings. But the increases in flights that BAA proposes for Stansted means there will be continuous noise. It would be like being under the Heathrow flightpath," said Ade Clarke, Hatfield forest property manager. "It is becoming increasingly difficult to experience the peace and tranquillity of the forest. There is already no longer a single day in the year when a visitor can experience any major period of peace and tranquillity."

Keith Turner, the trust's area manager, said: "The real concern of the National Trust is that expansion of the airport could degrade the aesthetic, historic, scientific and social values beyond critical points."

But the argument from the other side will be equally strident, drawing on the government's planning guidelines, and research into the effect that a refusal to expand would have on the economy.

A BAA spokesman said the government's aviation policy, set out in a white paper four years ago, insisted that environmental issues must be taken into account in airport expansion decisions: "We have seen environmental issues come to the fore and the UK become more socially aware of their impact, but that does not mean that the policy was created without environmental issues in mind." In an update on the white paper, the government announced a new mechanism to help inform decisions on building new runways and airports.

The "emissions cost assessment" will consider whether the aviation sector is meeting its climate change costs.

The spokesman added that BAA had listened to residents' and green groups' concerns and had reduced the amount of land required for the expansion by a third, while halving the cost of the project.

UK airlines, led by British Airways, will present research which argues that expanding airports would boost the British economy by £13bn a year, while airport congestion costs passengers and airlines £1.7bn a year. Willie Walsh, the BA chief executive, warned that the environmental argument against expanding Heathrow was "short-sighted doom-mongering that cannot go unchallenged". A consultation on a third runway at Heathrow, the biggest concern of green groups, is also expected this year.

From Plantagenet hunting parties to the 250,000 ramblers who now stroll among its ancient trees, Hatfield Forest has coexisted with humanity for generations without coming to much harm.

But this week the forest, among the last remaining of its type in Europe, faces what its custodians at the National Trust say is the sternest test yet of its survival, the ever-increasing thirst for air travel.

The 1,000 acres of woodland and pasture in north Essex stands less than a mile from Stansted airport, beloved of millions of users of no-frills airlines and the proposed site for a £2.7bn second runway to cater for a massive expansion of passengers and aircraft in south-east England.

A public inquiry begins tomorrow into urgent proposals by the British Airport Authority to expand the permitted number of passengers by 10 million to 35 million a year and flights by more than 20,000 to 264,000 a year.

The present limit of 25 million is expected to be reached by 2008. If the second runway is built, 68 million passengers are forecast for Stansted by 2030.

But in what will be the most demanding test yet for the Government's plans to expand aviation, environmental groups and residents say the proposals must be refused to avoid an increase in pollution which would destroy the forest for little or no economic gain.

Described as a Stonehenge of the tree world, Hatfield Forest is among the few surviving havens of ancient woodland in Britain, with nearly 2,000 trees that are more than 600 years old. From huge oaks to pollarded hornbeams, experts say it is a vital habitat unchanged since the last Ice Age, and documents show it was declared a royal hunting forest by Henry I in the 12th century.

But nitrogen levels around the forest generated by air pollution from aircraft and vehicles is already twice that at which environ-mental damage, including tree death, is caused, says the National Trust.

Ade Clarke, who manages the forest for the Trust, said: "Hatfield Forest is internationally important. It is the most complete medieval royal hunting forest."

"It is irreplaceable. Ancient trees cannot react quickly to rapid rises in nitrogen levels. Even now, we are at a tipping point, so expansion, with all the extra flights, car journeys and emissions, is a huge threat to the forest's survival."

The woodland includes nearly 900 ancient trees, which have their own conservation plan. Some are estimated to be 1,200 years old.

The woodland is also home to several hundred species of rare insects, plants and lichen as well as 65 species of birds.

Campaigners say Hatfield Forest highlights a contradiction in the policies of the Government, with plans including the construction of new runways at Stansted and Heathrow to cater for up to 460 million passengers using UK airports in 2020, up from 189 million in 2002. But Labour has vowed to cut carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Aviation accounts for 11 per cent of Britain's emissions and is the fastest-growing contributor. But globally, it produces just 1.6 per cent of all emissions.

Peter Sanders, chairman of the Stop Stansted Expansion group, said: "There is a stark clash between warning that global warming is going to destroy the planet and calmly advocating building another runway at Stansted. It does not stack up on environmental grounds. Stansted is used as an airport for tourism, in which Britain now has a £19bn trade imbalance."

The planning inquiry, will last until October. Last year, a decision was made by the local authority, Uttlesford district council, to reject BAA's original request to maximise its use of Stansted's present single runway.

If BAA is successful in its appeal, with a decision expected early next year, passenger numbers will reach the 35 million limit by 2015.

But a decision to maintain the present limit would be a significant setback for BAA and the Government by challenging the necessity for a second runway.

Tony Blair would need to plant 7,200 trees ? a veritable forest ? to offset the amount of carbon dioxide that he is burning up as he embraces the Earth to say goodbye, The Times has calculated.

For Mr Blair, who sees himself as a champion of the crusade against climate change, is leaving one almighty carbon footprint as he strides the world stage in the twilight of his premiership.

He has flown to Washington to bid farewell to President Bush, to Iraq to address stony-faced British troops; and he plans an odyssey across Africa, revisiting the scene of past triumphs.

He was quick to shake the hand of Nicolas Sarkozy, before he became President of France. International summits in Germany and Brussels beckon. In eight separate trips between announcing his departure and leaving No 10 next month for the last time he will have clocked up 34,300 miles.

Worse, his carbon footprint is not like those of ordinary citizens. As Prime Minister, he generally flies on commercially chartered aircraft, usually a British Airways Boeing 777.

A leading carbon offsetting company calculated that 34,300 miles in such an aircraft, with about 20 take-offs and landings, would burn 600 tonnes of CO2 best practice, this should be doubled to take account of the impact of flying at high altitude, equating to 1,200 tonnes of CO2 (equivalent). Another carbon offsetting specialist suggested a rule of thumb that one tree would, over a lifespan of 99 years, soak up three quarters of a tonne of CO2 footprint amount to 900 more mature trees.

Here, however, things get tricky. Allowing for death, disease, felling and other mishaps, experts suggest you need to plant 5, 8 or even 12 trees to produce a single mature specimen. Taking a conservative figure of 8, Mr Blair would need to plant 7,200 saplings to ensure enough survived to old age. Blair-wood Forest, perhaps?

Alas, the final legacy of Mr Blair's swansong is unlikely to be as tangible. The Prime Minister is an enthusiastic, if some would say late, convert to ?green? travel. But in the fast-moving world of carbon offsetting, tree planting is so 1990s.

Like many such schemes, the Government?s own offsetting fund, through which Mr Blair is offsetting all his official travel since April 2005, focuses on so-called clean development: small renewable energy projects in developing countries.

Rather than a forest in his name, Mr Blair may help to endow a digester that turns pig effluent into methane gas to generate electricity in Mexico, or hydroelectricity generators in Fiji. Both are supported by EEA fund management, the Government?s recently appointed carbon offsetting broker.

His carbon credits may even end up financing wind turbines on the tin roofs of mud huts in Indian villages, a neat contrast with David Cameron?s own contribution to saving the planet in Notting Hill.

Europe's emissions trading scheme has been a success, in spite of the widely publicised problems in its first years of operation, a group of prominent environmental economists has concluded.

The verdict was given in the journal Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. The economists call the trading scheme "by far the most significant accomplishment in climate policy to date", and say the scheme will be "central to future global climate negotiations".

The economists, including Denny Ellerman of MIT, Barbara Buchner of the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Frank Convery, Joseph Kruger and William Pizer, said the European Union scheme should form the basis of a "global framework for managing climate policy".

They say the key advantages of the scheme are its scale - it is the biggest mandatory emissions trading scheme in the world - and the number of countries and companies participating. The EU accounts for about 20 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and the scheme covers about half of the EU's emissions.

Under the scheme, companies in energy-intensive industries are issued with permits for the amount of carbon dioxide they may produce each year. Companies wanting to produce more must buy permits from cleaner businesses.

But the scheme fell into chaos last spring when it was revealed that member states had issued more emissions allowances than were required.

This glut of allowances caused their price to fall by about two-thirds within a short time of the data being released. The price plummeted from highs of about ?30 to about ?11, before gradually declining to end last year at about ?7. The price then fell further and has been hovering between ?0.50 and ?0.30.

But the economists said the persistently high price of carbon in the first year of the scheme was evidence that emissions were being reduced by companies. They estimated that companies had cut their emissions by about 7 per cent as a result.

A lobbying group chaired by former CBI boss Sir Digby Jones to represent the travel industry over climate change will launch by the middle of next month. Called Flying Matters, the coalition includes airports operator BAA, airlines British Airways, easyJet and Virgin Atlantic, as well as aerospace companies Airbus and Rolls-Royce. It will also represent trade unions, including T&G, and travel agents, and has appointed former energy minister Brian Wilson as vice chairman.

Environmentalists have been hammering airlines over the carbon emissions they cause. Currently, only carbon emissions resulting from UK domestic flights are included in government emissions figures. International flights departing from UK airports are excluded. Including all emissions from flights taking off from UK airports - domestic and international - the share of the UK's emissions caused by airlines could rise almost five-fold to 24 per cent by 2050.

Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, shocked the industry in December when he doubled air passenger duty on flights. Airlines pointed out that the tax was not directly linked to plane emissions. The industry believes that because it is losing the debate on climate change, this is allowing politicians to levy opportunistic "green taxes".

The lobbying group, which will have its own website, will try to influence the media and politicians.

The industry points out that improvements in fuel efficiency have led to a 70 per cent reduction in emissions per kilometre flown over the past 40 years. But further improvements in fuel efficiency are much harder to achieve.

Michelle Di Leo, campaign director of Flying Matters, said: "Flying isn't a luxury - it underpins our economy and contributes to our lives in so many ways. It is precisely because flying matters that this coalition has been formed to ensure we're part of a balanced and informed debate about our contribution to climate change and what we're doing about it."

There have been 1p sales before, but until now Ryanair has never paid people to fly. Yesterday it began a give-away of 1m flights where the airline pays the taxes, fees and charges, sparking an unprecedented rush of "binge buyers" clambering to book tickets for close to nothing.

The Ryanair website collapsed several times as 4m attempts were made to grab tickets in the first five hours after the offer went live at 10am yesterday. The airline said it had enjoyed its busiest day ever and "an unprecedented level of demand".

The give-away comes as Ryanair struggles to fill its planes amid an unexpected drop in demand across the low-cost airline industry during April. The airlines have been hit hard by the doubling of air passenger duty just as they have been taking delivery of new planes and opening up scores of new routes. What the airlines call "load factors" ? the proportion of seats filled in each plane ? have dropped across the board.

A Ryanair spokesman said: "This is about getting bums on seats. We are paying to get passengers into our planes ? we'll be paying the tax that they would normally have to pay. There?s no point in flying planes empty."

Typically Ryanair passengers flying from its London Stansted hub have to pay £35 to £40 in taxes, fees and charges for a return flight, including £10 in air passenger duty (APD) on outbound flights.

But Ryanair's move was immediately branded as "grossly irresponsible" by Friends of the Earth. Its aviation campaigner, Richard Dyer said: "Passengers may be getting a free ride , but the planet certainly isn't. It is unbelievable that Ryanair is resorting to such tactics."

The airline said it hoped to re-coop the taxes it will be paying on behalf of flyers by getting them to pay for add-ons such as on-board snacks, travel insurance, car hire and hotel bookings. "There has been a softening in the market and we're trying to get people back flying again."

Travellers hoping to take advantage of the offer yesterday had to battle not only a creaking website but also a myriad of add-on charges that made obtaining free flights difficult, though not impossible. The airline's booking system automatically adds travel insurance of £6.50 per person, a priority boarding charge of £4 or more, and £10 per bag put in the hold. However, these can be removed before proceeding to payment.

The offer covers flights from June 2nd to October 27th and includes most of the airline's routes, but the free flights are not available at peak travel times such as weekend getaways.

The cost of the give-away to Ryanair is likely to be around £10m. A 1m seat sale involves 500,000 outbound flights ? which at £10 APD adds up to £5. Other fees and charges ? such as Ryanair?s infamous wheel chair charge ? already go straight back to the airline's coffers.

City analysts said the move was further confirmation that demand for air travel is entering a period of turbulence. A week before yesterday's announcement Ryanair said it would discount 10m tickets over the summer, while easyJet said some ticket prices would fall due to intense competition. Industry observers have warned that a boom in capacity is not helping either. Buoyed by stronger profits after years of difficult market conditions, airlines are investing millions of pounds in new aircraft and prices are coming under pressure as the likes of Ryanair and easyJet struggle to fill their new planes.

"It's all further evidence of a softening of the demand. The Ryanair announcement is about launching an eye-catching promotion, grabbing the public's attention and getting people booking again," said Andrew Lobbenberg, an analyst at ABN Amro bank. An easyJet spokeswoman said the airline did not compete directly with Ryanair and would not be launching a similar offer: "As far as we are concerned it is just another publicity stunt."

British Airways added to fears of a widespread slowdown in the airline market by launching another major sale, its third in 4 months. The airline, Europe?s third largest, slashed fares for a number of European routes on its lucrative summer schedule. However, a BA spokesman said it was not a knee jerk reaction and had been planned for some time. "We often run tactical sales throughout the year and this is no different," he said.

Ryanair, easyJet and BA have admitted in recent weeks that they are struggling to fill their planes. Industry executives deny that the softer demand is due to a passenger boycott following an onslaught from the green organisations, who are urging the government to curb demand for air travel by raising taxes.

OUR COMMENT: Well, they would say that wouldn't they? If this reaction is the way the aviation market responds to the government?s ? very small ? taxing effort to curb demand, what hope for the battle against climate change? Only the government can influence this kind of behaviour. It should begin by curbing airport expansion! Stop Stansted expansion for a start!

The Inquiry into the refusal of BAA's application to expand the number of flights from Stansted airport by another 23,000 flights a year commences at Endeavour House, in the airport, on Wednesday May 30th and will continue, with a break in August, until October. Main evidence will be provided first by Uttlesford District Council (with the support of Essex and Hertfordshire County Councils), they will be followed by BAA, then by Stansted Airlines Association (who are actually opposing increased use of the one runway). SSE will be appearing in late July, followed after the break by Much Hadham Parish Council (who suffer from noise), the National Trust (defending Hatfield Forest) and Saffron Walden & District Friends of the Earth. During the course of the Inquiry very many individuals have booked to speak, both at Endeavour House and at a number of local Inquiry sittings arranged for those who might have difficulty in getting to the airport.

Virtually all EU countries will have to make large cuts in greenhouse gases to ensure "fair" contributions to the bloc's goal of a 20 per cent reduction by 2020, German researchers say.

Mediterranean countries that escaped lightly in the EU's existing "burden sharing" arrangement running up to 2008-12 will be hit hardest. The EU's ten most recent members will not escape.

EU leaders backed the 20 per cent by 2020 target at their summit in March. The European commission has begun the politically delicate task of working out how each country should be asked to contribute. No numbers have been put publicly on the table until now.

In its weekly bulletin published on 2 May, German economics research institute DIW took tried to fill this gap. Taking into account progress by each EU country since 1990 and national shares of emissions, it estimates that every EU-25 country except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania will have to cut emissions by between 13 and 28 per cent between 2004 and 2020.

Under the EU-15 burden sharing arrangement for Kyoto, national targets varied wildly from minus 28 per cent for Luxembourg to plus 27 per cent for Portugal. Performance against targets has also varied and many states are well off track to meet their Kyoto targets.

Under DIW's model, only Portugal among EU-15 countries (at plus 3 per cent) would be allowed any emissions increase between 1990 and 2020. Ireland, Greece and Spain, which were also permitted big increases up to 2008-12, would have to reduce by 6 per cent, 6 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. At the top end of the scale, the UK would have to reduce by 30 per cent and Germany by 31 per cent.

Taking into account countries' actual progress since 1990, or the lack of it, fair contributions to 20 per cent by 2020 would require even more equality, DIW calculates.

Among EU-15 countries, Germany, at 17 per cent, would actually have the easiest challenge, followed by the UK with 18 per cent. All other countries would have to reduce emissions by 20 per cent or more from 2004 levels. The countries with the toughest challenge would be Spain (28%), Portugal (27%), Ireland and Greece (both 25%), which were allowed the biggest rises up to 2008-12 ? and up to 2004 have overshot their limits by huge margins.

According to DIW, the EU-10 new member states will also have to make very meaningful contributions. Aside from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, required reductions from 2004 to 2020 will range from 13 per cent for Hungary and 14 per cent for Slovakia to minus 27 per cent each for Malta and Cyprus, two countries that, uniquely, have no Kyoto greenhouse gas target.

A difference of opinion between Germany and the US over the need for clear targets is already threatening to scupper hopes of a strong commitment on climate change emerging from next month's G8+5 summit.

According to media reports, German chancellor and summit host Angela Merkel is insisting on a mention in the summit declaration of at least one of two targets: either a commitment to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees this century, or to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared with 1990 levels.

Ms Merkel's top scientific advisor on climate change, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, told ENDS on Tuesday that a declaration including at least one of these elements was essential to "provide a long-term orientation for climate policy".

But the US government remains opposed to any mention of targets and timetables in the communique, which is expected to emerge from the summit in Heiligendamm on 8 June. British prime minister Tony Blair held talks in Washington on Wednesday with President George Bush aimed at reaching a breakthrough at the summit.

The EU would need "a sophisticated strategy and lots of patience" to reach an agreement at Heiligendamm, Mr Schellnhuber warned. "As a minimum, the meeting must not be seen as a nail in the coffin of a [post-Kyoto] agreement - we need a psychological result."

Germany and the UK have drawn up practical proposals for reducing emissions in the world's heaviest polluting countries, for potential inclusion in the summit conclusions. Mr Schellnhuber told ENDS action on energy efficiency would be a priority proposal.

He also detailed plans to encourage other countries and regions to establish carbon trading schemes along the lines of the EU's emissions trading scheme. These could then be linked in a "system of systems", with credits being traded between them using some form of exchange rate to create a global carbon price for carbon.

"Until we have a global price for carbon we cannot succeed", he said. of the UN's climate change convention, Yvo de Boer, the talks will "clear the brushwood" ahead of Bali.

Meanwhile officials from 166 nations are continuing discussions in Bonn this week, aimed at preparing the ground for formal negotiations on a post-Kyoto agreement in Bali in December.

In one of the most unexpected conversions since Saul of Tarsus hit the road to Damascus, Rupert Murdoch is turning into a green campaigner. He is making the whole of his worldwide operations carbon neutral and setting out to "educate and engage" his readers and viewers about global warming.

He believes his companies' "global reach" presents "an unprecedented opportunity to raise awareness and to stimulate action around the world". A former sceptic who confesses to having been "somewhat wary of the warming debate", he laid on his first global webcast for all his employees on Wednesday to tell them that he was "changing the DNA of our business". He added that he had started with himself, buying a hybrid car.

Mr Murdoch's conversion, which may surprise employees like Jeremy Clarkson, was heavily influenced by his son James - who took BSkyB carbon neutral a year ago this week - as well as by Tony Blair and former US vice-president Al Gore. All three attended his annual meeting for senior executives in Pebble Beach, California, last year where he was convinced to take the lead on the issue.

Mr Murdoch has bought a Toyota-made Lexus GS450H "green" car, and other practical measures include solar-powered golf carts to carry people round the Fox film lot in Hollywood, building environmentally friendly studios, replacing company fleets with hybrids, using renewable energy, and offsetting remaining emissions by financing windpower in India.

The world's most prominent media tycoon is being hailed by environmentalists as the most important of a chain of high-profile new recruits to the battle to control climate change, including Sir Richard Branson and Sir Terry Leahy, chief executive of Tesco.

His planned campaign "to change the way the public thinks about these issues" could be particularly effective because of the strength of his operations in the United States, China and India, the three most critical countries for tackling global warming. Mr Murdoch told his employees: "We must first get out own house in order."

News Corporation has a carbon footprint of at 641,150 tons a year and will now aim to be carbon neutral by 2010. News International, which publishes his British newspapers, and the publishers HarperCollins will achieve this goal by the end of the year and all books published by the imprint Fourth Estate are to be printed on recycled paper from 1 July.

But the main thrust of the campaign will be "to inspire people to change their behaviour" through films, television productions and news operations. It will aim "to weave this issue into our content, make it dramatic, make it vivid, even sometimes make it fun". As a start, MySpace is launching a channel devoted to climate change, and Fox television is developing "a solutions-based campaign". Today's Sunday Times and News of the World both major on plans by Gordon Brown for new eco-towns.

Mr Murdoch says: "Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just 1 per cent. That would be like turning the state of California off for almost two months."

EU greenhouse gas emissions fell in 2005, according to preliminary figures released by the European environment agency on Monday. The data mark a reversal in a trend of rising emissions over the previous two years.

In a preview of full figures to be published next month, the agency says releases of the six gases in the Kyoto protocol "basket" decreased from 2004 levels across the EU-27. It does not say by how much and it is unclear how the trend has been affected by the inclusion of new EU members Romania and Bulgaria in EU statistics.

Most of the reduction is down to decreases in emissions of gases other than CO2, it says.

Emissions from the EU-15 member states have also dropped for the first time in three years. Releases fell by 0.8 per cent in 2005. Their emissions now stand at 1.9 per cent below the Kyoto baseline level. The fifteen countries are bound through a burden-sharing agreement to meet a joint target of -8 per cent during 2008-12. The remaining EU members have an individual target or no target at all (Malta and Cyprus).

The agency says efforts in three sectors contributed to emission reductions in the EU-15 in 2005: heat and electricity production, households and services, and road transport. The same three were held responsible for emission increases in 2003, with road transport the key culprit in 2004.

Reductions in the energy sector stemmed primarily from lower levels of coal-fired power generation. Ongoing agency analysis shows this could have been down to lower gas prices, increased hydroelectric production or the influence of the EU carbon emission trading scheme.

The biggest cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 by country were in Germany, Finland and the Netherlands.

The first two also registered decreases in 2004. Spain recorded the biggest absolute increase in emissions in 2005, though there are indications that its carbon dioxide releases have subsequently fallen.

The new data were submitted to the UN framework convention on climate change last month as the EU's official greenhouse gas inventory for 1990-2005. The agency will further analyse the figures and publish them in a full report in mid-June.

The world has until 2020 to reverse the trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change, the world's top climate scientists warned yesterday.

Achieving this would reduce the world's annual gross domestic product by 3 per cent in 2030, the UN expert panel concluded. Emissions have been rising for the past 150 years.

Charles Kolstad, professor of environmental economics at the University of California and a lead author of the report, told the FT: "It is costly but affordable. You do not want to throw that kind of money away. But if you want to accomplish the goal, then the cost is acceptable."

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to the required level can be achieved with today's technologies but bringing them into widespread use is likely to require extensive changes in public policy, according to the report published in Bangkok, Thailand, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group convened by the UN.

The cost of cutting emissions to the required levels would be about $1,500bn a year from 2020, according to estimates made by the FT based on data published by the IPCC. Global GDP is projected to double from $45,000bn last year to about $90,000bn in 2020.

The IPCC also estimates that $20,000bn must be spent by 2030 on the world's energy infrastructure which, if used in ways that help to reduce emissions, will help defray the costs.

The report said the cost would be equivalent to shaving growth in the world's GDP by only 0.12 percentage points a year by 2030.

Most of the technology needed to achieve the necessary cut in emissions is already commercially available, including nuclear power, renewable energy generation and measures that promote energy efficiency.

Geoff Levermore of Manchester University, a lead author, said: "The [report] shows there is the technology available, it is affordable, but that improved government policies around the world are now required to help reduce emissions."

Michael Grubb of Cambridge University, another lead author, warned against underestimating the effort: "This is really urgent because emissions are galloping off in precisely the wrong direction: they are rising rapidly. That is very sobering."

If emissions were to peak in 2015, which is viewed as unlikely to be achieved, and thereafter fall by about 50-80 per cent over the next several decades, global warming would be limited to about2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC report found. The world has already warmed by about 0.7°C in the past century. But if emissions continue to grow until 2030, which is widely viewed as more likely, temperatures would probably rise by 3°C above pre-industrial levels.

This corresponds to a level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere equivalent to about 535 to 590 parts per million of carbon dioxide, according to the report.

Scientists fear that at levels above that, the likelihood of "feedback" effects which amplify temperature rises could result in runaway climate change - a rapid acceleration in temperature and effects such as more violent storms, desertification and a sharp reduction in agricultural productivity.

This is the third and final part of the most authoritative assessment of climate change to date, which has been six years in the making and drawn on the work of more than 2,500 scientists. The two previous parts of the IPCC's assessment were released earlier this year.

The key findings have been agreed unanimously by more than 100 governments, including those of the US, China, India and the European Union, and will form the basis for international policy.

They will also provide the framework for discussions, set to begin this December in Bali, on a successor to the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the main provisions of which expire in 2012.

Though the picture of climate change painted in the report is bleak, the report showed signs of agreement that the costs of avoiding the worst effects are not as great as had been feared.

Prof Grubb said: "You could not conceive that this report would have been agreed two years ago, when the US was in a completely different position regarding the economics of climate change."

In 1798 Thomas Malthus forecast that a huge increase in population would outpace food production by the mid-19th century, leading to a catastrophic famine. He was wrong. Malthus could yet be proved right, though not in the way he envisaged.

Today, scientists worry that global warming will lead to the sort of disaster Malthus predicted. If average temperatures keep rising, drought could devastate arable areas in developing countries where population growth is most pronounced, leading to widespread starvation. If the earth gets hotter, the polar ice caps will melt, causing sea levels to rise. The result will be floods that disrupt food production, and threaten life itself.

It may sound like a scene from a Hollywood disaster movie, but sober-headed City economists are beginning to publish reports that look at the implications of climate change as 'extreme weather events' become more commonplace.

A paper by Roger Brown, chief economic strategist at investment bank UBS, points out: 'The recent acceleration of inflationary pressure reflects a rise in food prices caused by a weather-induced global reduction in supply.' He says that 'a cursory glance at different countries shows that there has been a pronounced acceleration in food price inflation since mid-2006. Agricultural production may not continue to increase as rapidly as it has in the past while, at the same time, population growth accelerates, putting staple food prices under pressure.'

Brown adds that less developed regions are likely to show the most rapid rise in population, as well as the largest drops in agricultural production. 'The Asian and African river deltas are anticipated to be the areas most severely impacted by flooding.'

The effect of global warming appears to be with us already. There has been an exceptionally warm spring in Europe - Britain and Holland have had their warmest April on record. It raises the spectre of drought unless more rain falls. The consequences could be water-rationing and the threat of blackouts, as demand for air-conditioning and refrigeration soars in the summer, disrupting economic activity and potentially costing business millions.

While we could see a jump in inflation if fruit and vegetable harvests fail, a further point is that converting food crops to 'clean' fuel - ethanol and biodiesel - is pushing up the price of maize.

The short-term effect of higher food prices on the economy may be difficult to gauge but the big question is what happens in the longer term.