Committee on Climate Change writes to Sir Howard to say aviation CO2 emissions must not be over 2005 level by 2050
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has written to the Airports Commission (AC) in response to its consultation. The letter reiterates the Committee’s earlier recommendation that the Airports Commission’s economic analysis of the expansion options should reflect the need to restrain aviation growth in order to manage emissions from the sector. This in effect means that the costs of limiting emissions – which may be transferred to passengers or industry – are included in the cost-benefit analysis for each of the 3 runway schemes. The AC has yet to complete this assessment. The CCC is clear that the Government’s airports policy should reflect the need for aviation emissions to be no higher in 2050 than in 2005, this being the maximum level of emissions that would be compatible with the Climate Change Act. However, the ‘uncapped’ forecasts for national aviation emissions produced by the AC exceed the 2005 emissions levels under all three possible expansion options. In the absence of some unspecified policy that would limit emissions, therefore, a new runway would result in the UK failing in its legal climate commitments. The CCC letter says “Higher aviation emissions than 2005 levels in 2050 should not be planned for, since this would imply greater than 85% cuts in other sectors; there is limited confidence about the scope for this.”
.
Tweet
Climate change committee: is airport expansion viable when emissions are capped?
Feb 19 2015 (Aviation Environment Federation)
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has written to the Airports Commission in response to the recent consultation on shortlisted expansion options at Heathrow and Gatwick. The letter reiterates the Committee’s earlier recommendation that the Airports Commission’s economic analysis of the expansion options should reflect the need to restrain aviation growth in order to manage emissions from the sector. This in effect means that the costs of limiting emissions – which may be transferred to passengers or industry – are included in the cost-benefit analysis for each of the three expansion schemes. The Airports Commission has yet to complete this assessment.
The letter states that passenger growth could be constrained either directly through “limiting demand in a balanced manner across existing capacity” or indirectly through a form of carbon tax or carbon trading system. AEF’s response to the consultation highlighted how difficult either of these options would be in practice if a new runway was built. Limiting emissions to the level recommended by CCC could require:
– The introduction of a carbon tax, rising with time to between £329 and £1316 by 2050 according to the Commission’s own analysis,
– The introduction of planning caps on activity at regional airports
– Requirement of sectors other than aviation to make cuts in emissions beyond the level currently deemed feasible by the Committee on Climate Change, to allow for further leniency for aviation
The CCC is clear that the Government’s airports policy should reflect the need for aviation emissions to be no higher in 2050 than in 2005, this being the maximum level of emissions that would be compatible with the Climate Change Act. However, the ‘uncapped’ forecasts for national aviation emissions produced by the Airports Commission exceed the 2005 emissions levels under all three possible expansion options.
In the absence of some unspecified policy that would limit emissions, therefore, a new runway would result in the UK failing in its legal climate commitments..
.
.
Letter: Response to Airports Commission consultation on increasing the UK’s long-term aviation capacity
To: Sir Howard Davies, Chairman, Airports Commission
The CCC has written to the Airports Commission in response to their consultation on increasing the UK’s long-term aviation capacity. The letter recommends that given the need to limit aviation demand growth in a carbon-constrained world, this should be reflected in the economic analysis of infrastructure investments.
Letter to Sir Howard Davies from CCC
.
The letter says:
.
Sir Howard Davies
Airports Commission
Sanctuary Buildings
20 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT
.
3rd February 2015
.
Dear Howard,
I am writing to you in response to your consultation on increasing the UK’s long-term
aviation capacity.
In our letter to you in July 20131 we highlighted that in assessing appropriate
investments in aviation infrastructure, it is essential to recognise that aviation
emissions are included in the 2050 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
80% compared to 1990 levels, set in the Climate Change Act:
Our analysis has illustrated how the 80% target could be achieved with aviation
emissions at 2005 levels in 2050, and by reducing other sectors by 85%.
Aviation emissions at 2005 levels could be achieved with fuel and operational
efficiency improvements, use of sustainable biofuels and by limiting demand
growth to around 60% by 2050 compared to 2005.
Higher aviation emissions than 2005 levels in 2050 should not be planned for,
since this would imply greater than 85% cuts in other sectors; there is limited
confidence about the scope for this.
We therefore recommended that given the need to limit aviation demand growth in
a carbon-constrained world, this should be reflected in your economic analysis of
infrastructure investments. We do not have a view on airport capacity in specific
locations but, given our previous analysis, it would be appropriate to assess whether
investments still make sense if overall demand growth were to be limited to around
60% by 2050 on 2005 levels.
We note that, while you were not able to complete this analysis for your
consultation paper, you have recognised the need to undertake this work for your
final report in summer 2015.
For this assessment you should continue to work on the basis that demand growth is
limited to around 60% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels, as confirmed in the analysis
in your Interim Report.
This could be done in a range of ways, either directly (e.g. by limiting demand in a
balanced manner across available capacity) or indirectly (e.g. through a carbon price
mechanism). In the case of demand being limited indirectly, this should be done in a
way that does not distort the results of the assessment.
I am aware our two Secretariats have been working together to take this forward
and would be very happy to discuss this further with you and the Commission if that
would be helpful.
.
Yours sincerely,
.
Lord Deben
Chairman, Committee on Climate Change