“Greenwash Earth” gives Luton airport its “Greenwasher of the Month” award for its expansion carbon claims

There are a lot of contenders for a “greenwashing” award, with many in the aviation sector. Now the group, Greenwash Earth has awarded its gong of “Greenwasher of the Month” to Luton airport for its crazy claims. They won the award for claiming they can develop a “sustainable” airport.  The term “sustainable” used to mean something, when first introduced 20 or so years ago – but has now been debased into meaninglessness.  Luton claims increasing the capacity of the airport to 32 million passengers per year, by building a new terminal and making the best use of the existing runway, will somehow be “sustainable” and not emit any more carbon.  It is nonsensical to pretend that more flights will not raise carbon emissions, and make it harder for the UK to meet climate targets, or for the earth not to heat more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.  Greenwash Earth say there is similar nonsense being promoted by other airports, such as Bristol and Heathrow. 
.

 

Screenshot 2022-02-04 at 10.05.43.png
From Greenwash Earth
February 2022

In a close run competition, Luton Council have triumphed in this month’s ‘Greenwasher of the Month’ competition. This is their reward for claiming they can develop a sustainable airport. Airport expansion and the nonsensical arguments about sustainable airports, sustainable aviation fuels and growth in flights that will help keep overall temperature rises to 1.5°. You will find similar nonsense at Bristol Airport and at Heathrow.

or maybe a sustainable airport …..

The proposal is to increase the capacity of the airport to 32 million passengers per year, by building a new terminal and making the best use of the existing runway.

Councillor Javeria Hussain, Chair of Luton Rising, said: “Our proposals will reflect the sustainability values, both of Luton Rising, and our sole shareholder, Luton Council. We want to maximise the social and economic benefits of growth and we firmly believe there is a way to grow an airport in a sustainably responsible way.”

Never mind that flying can never be sustainable – as long as there are economic benefits then who cares about the consequences. Sound familiar?

Luton Airport currently emits c2.2million tonnes of CO2 plus another c200,000 tonnes of other greenhouse gasses. The projection is for this level of pollution to almost double with planned expansion in operation.

Cllr Derrick Ashley, executive member, growth, infrastructure, planning & the economy said: “We remain extremely concerned over the impact of an expanded Luton Airport both on residents through inadequate access and particularly on the wider environmental impact of noise and pollution. In the current climate, low cost flying is not an option for a sustainable future”.

Bim Afolami, MP for Hitchin and Harpenden added: “London Luton Airport’s plan to work around previous planning conditions to increase passenger numbers from 18 million to 19 million is poorly timed and ill-judged. I am firmly opposed”.

Herts Advertiser 2020

https://www.greenwash.earth/


See earlier:

Luton Airport expansions deemed ‘unjustified’ and ‘unmerited’ by Hertfordshire opposition groups

Anti-noise groups are encouraging proposed developments to London Luton Airport to focus on “building back better” in the next stage of oppositions against the present plans.

London Luton Airport Operations Limited (LLA) hopes to welcome 19 million passengers per annum in the future, despite currently running at a third of capacity.

In a bid to mitigate noise and reduce the airports overall carbon emissions, campaigners are pressing for a reassessment of expansion plans, in a time where passenger levels have significantly decreased due to the pandemic. Local community groups have rejected the current proposals on the basis of them being “unjustified and unmerited”.

Andrew Lambourne, speaking for community group LADACAN (Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise), said: “Airport growth going forward has to be more responsibly managed than in the past. The industry is innately carbon-inefficient at present due to outdated airspace design, which forces planes into holding stacks and causes Luton departures to be held low sometimes for 15-20 miles.”

After exceeding noise control limits for three successive years, Luton Airport has now signalled it wants permission to break four more of the planning conditions laid down by Luton Borough Council in 2013.

John Hale, speaking for STAQS (St Albans Quieter Skies), said “The airport has to meet legally agreed noise reduction targets, and should undo its recent mistake of allowing airlines like Wizz to introduce even larger and noisier planes like the Airbus A321-neo.

“Luton Council needs to send Luton Airport a really clear signal that noise conditions are there for a purpose, which might focus some effort on growth balanced by mitigation, as the government requires.”

HCC has now sent a robust 18-page rejection of the plans, including “very serious concerns relating to the mismanagement of the operations of LLA resulting in it failing to comply with its 2014 planning consent and the knock-on adverse implications this has had for communities”.

HCC recently launched the ‘sustainable Hertfordshire strategy 2020’, which includes the short-term ambition “clean air for all by 2030”.

Neil MacArthur, chairman of HarpendenSky, added: “This significant and laudable HCC aim supported by thousands of Hertfordshire residents is clearly threatened by Luton Airport and airport owner Luton Borough Council planning for substantial air traffic growth over the same period.”

Luton Airport currently emits c2.2million tonnes of CO2 plus another c200,000 tonnes of other greenhouse gasses. The projection is for this level of pollution to almost double with planned expansion in operation.

Cllr Derrick Ashley, executive member, growth, infrastructure, planning & the economy said: “We remain extremely concerned over the impact of an expanded Luton Airport both on residents through inadequate access and particularly on the wider environmental impact of noise and pollution. In the current climate, low cost flying is not an option for a sustainable future”.

Bim Afolami, MP for Hitchin and Harpenden added: “London Luton Airport’s plan to work around previous planning conditions to increase passenger numbers from 18 million to 19 million is poorly timed and ill-judged. I am firmly opposed”.

A spokesperson from Luton Borough Council said in response to statements by those who oppose the expansion: “The council’s airport company, London Luton Airport Limited, has recently consulted on future expansion plans for which a development consent order will be required. Whether or not to approve that order will be determined by the secretary of state on the recommendation of the planning inspectorate. It will not be decided by Luton Borough Council.”

A spokesperson for LLA said: “Our consultation provided the first opportunity for the local community, passengers and business partners to feedback on our proposals, ahead of a formal application, which will follow the relevant planning process. An environmental impact assessment is also being carried out to identify any potential effects and possible mitigations to ensure we deliver a sustainable plan for the future of the airport and its continued contribution to the local community.

“While current circumstances mean we are unlikely to see this number of passengers for several years, it’s essential we take steps now to safeguard the airport, jobs and support the region’s post COVID recovery. The changes we are proposing will not result in any visible difference to the airport, and will work entirely within existing infrastructure.”

This proposal is put forward by the airport operator and is separate from Luton Council’s more ambitious plan for 32m passengers.

For more information about Luton Airport’s expansion plans, visit Central Bedfordshire’s website.

https://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/luton-airport-opposition-to-expansion-6622174

.


See also:

Luton Airport consultation about expansion plans, to increase to 32 million annual passengers

Luton airport has started another public consultation (ends 4th April) on further expansion plans.  It now wants to increase its annual number of passengers (from 18.2 million in 2019) to 32 million (mppa). The proposals by the airport owner Luton Rising [the new name the company that owns Luton airport has started using] involve expanding the existing terminal, building a 2nd terminal and making “best use” [ie. more use] of the existing runway.  At the start of December 2021, Luton council, which conveniently owns the airport, gave it permission to increase from 18 to 19 mppa. If approved, the Phase 1 would be  expansion of Terminal 1 and associated facilities to increase capacity to approximately 21.5 mppa.  Phase 2 would involve construction of new Terminal 2 and associated facilities to increase airport capacity to 27 mppa.  Then a later further phase would be more expansion of Terminal 2, to increase to 32 mppa. Opponents of the airport’s growth say the latest consultation is “a huge waste of public money”.  The level of aircraft noise in 2019 was severe, and residents are horrified of it becoming even worse – as well as the local congestion etc. It makes no sense to encourage aviation expansion, when the UK must cut its carbon emissions, fast.

Click here to view full story…

Local MP, Bim Afolami, and community groups ask Gove to call-in Luton expansion plans

Bim Afolami, MP for Hitchin and Harpenden, has called on the government to review plans to allow for a million more passengers per year through Luton Airport, rising from 18 million to 19 million. On 2nd December, Luton Borough Council (which owns the airport and decides its planning applications) approved the airport’s expansion plans and varying the noise conditions it operates under.  Now Bim Afolami has asked Communities Secretary Michael Gove, at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to “call-in” the decision. The DLUHC says it would consider requests for a call-in, taking the decision from the council, to government.  This is usually when an application has wider impacts than just the local area, which Luton’s extra flights definitely would. Another reason for call-in is if an application conflicts with a national policy – climate in this case. Bim said the decision to approve the expansion “completely ignores the environmental and cross-boundary impact”. Local groups, including the Luton and District Association for Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN) and Harpenden Sky, have also written to the Minister asking for call-in.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Airbus hoping to have a “green” hydrogen-fuelled test flight “in a few years”

There are huge technical problems for the aviation industry, in trying to fly commercial airliners on hydrogen. Some are that hydrogen is a tiny molecule, and needs very strong, heavy tanks to keep it in; it has to be compressed and kept cold, and needs large tanks. But now Airbus says it has signed a partnership agreement with CFM International, to try to produce a hydrogen demonstration programme, hoping to manage a test flights “in the new few years.” The demonstration will use an A380 flying testbed.  It is hoped that the technology can be used “to assist with zero-emission flights by 2035.”  Airbus first produced futuristic concept designs for a hydrogen- fuelled plane in 2020.  At the time, Airbus hoped they could operate commercial hydrogen-powered flights by 2035.  Of course, Airbus wants a lot of government investment (ie. taxpayer money) to increase the production of hydrogen and create hydrogen transport and refuelling systems.  Hydrogen could only be a low-carbon jet fuel if it is produced entirely using low-carbon electricity. There are many other more important demands on renewably generated electricity.  Under 1% of the hydrogen produced in 2019 was made using 100% renewably-powered processes.  
.

 

See further down the page for more on why this is unlikely and probably unhelpful.

Airbus turns to hydrogen to assist zero-emission flight vision

25 February 2022

source edie newsroom

Airbus has agreed to a new partnership with engine manufacturers to enable the use of hydrogen in combustion engines, with an overall aim of integrating it into a zero-emission aircraft by 2035.

Airbus has signed a partnership agreement with CFM International, a 50/50 joint company between GE and Safran Aircraft Engines. The companies will work on a hydrogen demonstration programme, with an aim of delivering a test flight in the new few years.

Both ground and flight tests will be issued for a direct combustion engine fuelled by hydrogen. The demonstration will use an A380 flying testbed equipped with liquid hydrogen tanks prepared at Airbus facilities in France and Germany.

It is hoped that the technology can be used to assist with zero-emission flights by 2035.

“This is the most significant step undertaken at Airbus to usher in a new era of hydrogen-powered flight since the unveiling of our ZEROe concepts back in September 2020,” Airbus’ chief technical officer Sabine Klauke said.

“By leveraging the expertise of American and European engine manufacturers to make progress on hydrogen combustion technology, this international partnership sends a clear message that our industry is committed to making zero-emission flight a reality.”

Airbus first unveiled futuristic concept designs for zero-emission aircraft with hydrogen as the primary power source, back in 2020. At the time, the organisation claimed that they could operate commercial flights by 2035.

Airbus said in a statement that it believes hydrogen “holds exceptional promise as a clean aviation fuel” and has been working to design the concepts for several months.

Airbus has called the range of aircraft ‘ZEROe’ – short for zero-emission. It has said that governments and airports will need to provide “significant” investment in green hydrogen generation infrastructure and hydrogen transport and refuelling systems if the designs are to become a commercial reality in the coming decades.

On the former, less than 1% of the hydrogen produced in 2019 was made using 100% renewably-powered processes, according to Wood McKenzie.

Airbus is in alignment with the Air Transport Action Group’s climate ambitions to get the aviation industry to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Matt Mace

https://www.edie.net/news/8/Airbus-turns-to-hydrogen-to-assist-zero-emission-flight-vision/

.


See earlier:

 

Unless hydrogen is “green” hydrogen, or all CO2 produced is genuinely stored for ever, it is not a low carbon fuel

The DfT is pushing the idea of planes fuelled partly by hydrogen, as part of its “Jet Zero” strategy – hoping to find ways in which people can continue to fly, without huge carbon emissions that make reaching the UK target of net zero impossible. However, the Government’s “Jet Zero Council” said, at the end of June, that government was launching “the first round of £3 million Zero Emission Flight Infrastructure (ZEFI) competition, supporting development of infrastructure required to aid electric and hydrogen aircraft such as charge points for planes.” Hydrogen can be produced in various ways, most using a fossil fuel and producing CO2 in the process. The hydrogen could only be a “low carbon” fuel if all this CO2 is captured and stored, for ever – not just reused (which is what usually happens at present.) Now a study by academics at Cornell and Stanford universities in the US, warned that blue hydrogen (produced by ‘steam reforming’, needing carbon capture and storage for the CO2 created) could be up to 20% worse for the climate than fossil gas owing to the emissions that escape during its production, multiplied by the amount of gas required to make the equivalent amount of energy from hydrogen. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2021/08/unless-hydrogen-is-green-hydrogen-or-all-co2-produced-is-genuinely-stored-for-ever-it-is-not-a-low-carbon-fuel/

.


 

Airbus tells the EU hydrogen won’t be widely used in planes before 2050

Airbus has told the EU that most commercial planes will rely on traditional jet engines until at least 2050. They say they plan to develop the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft by 2035, but have not publicly said whether the technology will be ready for the replacement for the medium-haul A320, due to be rolled out in the 2030s. That seems unlikely, especially for long or medium haul flights.  In its presentation to the EC, Airbus did not give details of its hydrogen technology, and how it could be introduced into small, short haul aircraft.  The technology is very much still on the drawing board. Although research remains at an early stage, possible paths to replacement of the A320 are already a major focus of debate as rival Boeing ponders how to get lower carbon emissions from the competing 737 MAX and engine makers focus on evolving gas turbines. Boeing’s Chief Executive has said they will not be flying planes on hydrogen on a significant scale before 2050.  A key problem for using hydrogen in future is the infrastructure needed globally to support it, as well as ensuring hydrogen is “green”, ie. made only from genuinely renewably sourced surplus electricity. In the meantime, airlines want to use “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF), hoping some can be genuinely low carbon. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2021/06/airbus-tells-the-eu-hydrogen-wont-be-widely-used-in-planes-before-2050/


See earlier:

Hydrogen very unlikely to be used in long-haul planes; huge problems even for short-haul

There is a lot of hype around about planes eventually being fuelled by hydrogen. This is dangerous, because it gives the false impression that a solution to aviation CO2 is just around the corner, and no measures need to be taken to reduce demand. There are immense problems of using hydrogen in aircraft. Liquid hydrogen, which is easier to store onboard than gas, has to be kept at -253C or it boils off. The tanks to contain it are not only heavier but x4 the size of conventional fuel storage. This imposes constraints on range and capacity for airlines.  It might be necessary to remove 25% of the passengers from a conventional single-aisle aircraft to fit in fuel tanks.  If it proves possible, in a decade or more, to use hydrogen, its use would be confined to short-haul, and could not be used on long-haul, which produce the most CO2 (+ non-CO2 impact). Flights of over 1,500km account for roughly 80% of the sector’s carbon emissions, according to the industry’s ATAG.  Even for the shorter-range aircraft, hydrogen’s deployment would require huge costs for new infrastructure, transport and storage. Airlines could face increased operational complexities and higher costs from mixed fleets. And burning hydrogen generates water vapour, which adds to aviation’s non-CO2 climate impact. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2021/03/hydrogen-very-unlikely-to-be-used-in-long-haul-planes-huge-problems-even-for-short-haul/

.


Primary colours of the rainbow of hydrogen:

Green hydrogen

Green hydrogen is extracted using a method that does not produce GHG emissions. As the name suggests, its production is sustainable and environmentally friendly. Green hydrogen is most commonly produced using a device called an electrolyser. Electrolysers use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The key to this method of producing green hydrogen is that the electricity that powers the electrolyser comes from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, which have no associated GHG emissions. There are also pathways to produce green hydrogen from waste biomass.

Blue hydrogen

Blue hydrogen is produced using a process called ‘steam reforming’, which uses steam to separate hydrogen from natural gas. This process does produce GHGs, but carbon capture and storage technologies capture and store those emissions.

Grey hydrogen

Grey hydrogen is also extracted from natural gas using steam reforming but in this case, relevant technologies don’t capture resulting emissions. Instead, they are released into the atmosphere.

Brown and black hydrogen

Brown hydrogen (made from brown coal) and black hydrogen (made from black coal) are produced via gasification. It’s an established process used in many industries that converts carbon-rich materials into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. As a result, gasification releases those by-products into the atmosphere.

However, if technology ends up storing those emissions, that hydrogen can sometimes be called blue.

Turquoise hydrogen

Turquoise hydrogen describes hydrogen produced when natural gas is broken down into hydrogen and solid carbon via pyrolysis. This method uses heat to break down a material’s chemical make up. It’s seen as ‘low carbon’ as the hydrogen production process doesn’t emit any GHGs. But there can be emissions associated with the mining and transport of natural gas that is used as the starting product.

https://blog.csiro.au/green-blue-brown-hydrogen-explained/

.

.

 

Read more »

Reply to a Parliamentary Question shows during 18 months of Covid, around 15,000 “ghost flights” flew from UK airports

It has been difficult to obtain the data, from airlines, of the number of flights they operate that have no passengers, or are under 10% capacity. These are termed ghost flights, and are a terrible unnecessary source of carbon emissions. Now MP Alex Sobel has asked a parliamentary question, replied to by Robert Courts (Aviation Minister), giving some recent date for the UK. The responses, through the DfT and CAA, was that almost 15,000 “ghost flights” took off from the 32 UK airports between March 2020 and September 2021.  Heathrow was top, with 4,910 ghost flights in that 18 month period.  Manchester and Gatwick were the next highest. There were an average of 760 ghost flights a month over the period, although the data covered only international departure and not domestic flights. During the pandemic the slot use rules that had required 80% of slots to be used were completely suspended. Airlines did not have to operate flights to retain the slots, but nonetheless flew about 14,470 ghost flights. This was partly as demand for flying was so low, planes flew with just a handful of passengers.
.

 

Airline emissions

Almost 15,000 ‘ghost flights’ have left UK since pandemic began

Exclusive: Thousands of near-empty planes flown since March 2020, new figures reveal

By Damian Carrington,  Environment editor  (The Guardian)  @dpcarrington

Tue 22 Feb 2022

Almost 15,000 “ghost flights” have departed from the UK, according to newly revealed official figures.  [Link to the data ]  

The ghost flights, defined as those with no passengers or less than 10% of passenger capacity, operated from all 32 airports listed in the data.

See link for better quality image

Heathrow was top, with 4,910 ghost flights between March 2020 and September 2021. Manchester and Gatwick were the next highest. There were an average of 760 ghost flights a month over the period, although the data covered only international departure and not domestic flights.

Flying is one of the most carbon-intensive activities people can undertake and ghost flights have angered those campaigning for action on the climate crisis. The German airline Lufthansa recently warned it would have to fly 18,000 “unnecessary” flights by March in order to keep its landing slots at airports. Under current rules, airlines lose their valuable slots if they are not sufficiently used.

However, during the pandemic-hit period covered by the new UK data, the rules that had required 80% of slots to be used were completely suspended. Airlines did not have to operate flights to retain the slots, but nonetheless flew 14,472 ghost flights.

“Flights may operate with a low number of passengers for a range of reasons,” said the aviation minister Robert Courts, who produced the data in response to a parliamentary question. “Since the onset of the pandemic, the government has provided alleviation from the normal slot regulations. This means that airlines have not been required to operate empty or almost empty flights solely to retain their historic slots rights.”

The Labour MP Alex Sobel, who asked the question and is chair of the net zero all-party parliamentary group, said: “To really tackle the climate emergency we need to ensure that our aviation sector is as efficient as it can be with its carbon output.”  Slot rules were partially restored in October 2021, requiring 50% usage, and this will rise to 70% at the end of March.

Anna Hughes, at Flight Free UK and whose parliamentary petition on the issue now has 11,000 signatories, said: “At a time of climate emergency we need to be drastically reducing our use of fossil fuel, not burning it in empty planes.”

“If more than 14,000 empty flights took off from UK airports when there was no requirement to retain landing slots, how many more will have taken off since?” said Hughes. “Of course, all flights harm the climate, which is why we also campaign for a reduction in demand, a tax on aviation fuel and more affordable trains. But preventing planes from flying empty should be an easy win for policymakers and the climate.”

Tim Johnson at the Aviation Environment Federation said: “Information [on ghost flights] is hidden from public view, with airlines avoiding scrutiny by claiming the data is proprietary. No doubt airlines fear reputational damage, but the public and consumers should be informed. It shouldn’t take a parliamentary question to expose the scale of this wasteful practice.”

“The number of flights may be small in comparison to the overall total, but the effects on our climate add up when you consider the average short-haul flight emits between 13 and 20 tonnes of CO2,” he said.

The Guardian asked the Department for Transport for data on ghost flights in January, but was told the DfT did not hold this data. The Civil Aviation Authority, which provided the new data to the government, refused a freedom of information request from the Guardian, saying it did not have the consent of the airlines to release it. Slot rules are monitored and enforced by a company called Airport Coordination Limited, but it told the Guardian passenger numbers on flights could come only from the airlines themselves.

British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and easyJet told the Guardian they did not operate ghost flights to retain slots, but declined to provide data on the occupancy of their flights.

A spokesperson for Virgin Atlantic said: “Covid-19 had an unprecedented impact on customer demand, with wide-ranging global restrictions that limited international travel. For three months during 2020, Virgin Atlantic did not operate any passenger flights. Any lower-occupancy flights that operated outside of this window were not ‘ghost flights’ – they supported the global movement of people including returning foreign citizens and repatriated UK citizens.”

Both airlines said the increase in the required slot usage to 70%, the highest in the world, would lead to low-occupancy flights. Luis Gallego, the chief executive at IAG, BA’s parent company, said: “This decision would force airlines to operate flights with low load factors, which will generate unnecessary CO2 emissions. This is bad for the environment and detrimental to aviation’s efforts to tackle climate change.” Ryanair did not respond to requests for comment. (But it says it does not fly ghost flights, or low occupancy flights).

Tim Johnson said the slot system was unsustainable and outdated and that reform was needed, adding “Slots at congested airports can exchange hands for millions of pounds each so there are very strong incentives for airlines to keep using them, even when passenger demand is very low. The government should rule out airport expansion and instead focus on slot reform and other efficiency improvements.”

This article was amended on 23 February 2022 to include reference to easyJet among the airlines that told the Guardian they did not operate ghost flights to retain landing slots.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/22/almost-15000-ghost-flights-left-uk-since-pandemic-began


 

Parliamentary question and response on 10th February 2022

Alex Sobel MP asked: 

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the number of empty or almost empty flights that have left the UK by airport in each month since March 2020.

 

Robert Courts, MP – Transport Minister, replied: 

The number of departing international passenger flights operating with no more than 10% of their available seats filled since March 2020 by airport and by month is presented in the attached document. This is based on data collected by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on commercial flight operations, and is currently complete until September 2021.

Departing flights may operate with a low number of passengers for a range of reasons. Since the onset of the pandemic, the Government has provided alleviation from the normal slot regulations that require airlines to operate 80% of their slots in order to retain them for the following season. This means that airlines have not been required to operate empty or almost empty flights solely to retain their historic slots rights.

As the pandemic has gone on and aviation demand has increased, the Government wants to encourage recovery. A draft Statutory Instrument setting out arrangements for Summer 2022 was published on 24 January 2022. To reduce the risk of airlines operating environmentally damaging empty or near-empty flights, this legislation includes an enhanced justified non-utilisation provision, meaning that airlines will not be required to operate slots where markets are substantively closed to passenger traffic.

See link to the data

https://qna.files.parliament.uk/qna-attachments/1420453/original/March%202020%20-%20September%202021%20-%20Attachment.xlsx

.


See earlier:

DfT reinstates 70% slot use rule from end of March – with some flexibility for future Covid impacts

The Department for Transport has announced that airlines will have to hand back airport take-off and landing slots if they were not used 70% of the time from March 27th, for the summer period, up from the current threshold of 50%. Before Covid, airlines had to use 80% of their slots, or risk losing them. This limit was removed entirely for the first part of the pandemic, but reverted to 50% use. Airlines have warned they will be forced to run empty or half-empty and polluting “ghost flights”  in order to meet the 70% limit, even if there is not enough demand for flights. This makes no sense, in terms of trying to reduce carbon emissions from the sector. However, the DfT has said there will be more flexibility, so airlines will be allowed to miss the 70% limit if there are real Covid travel restrictions in future, limiting travel.  Airports like Gatwick are keen to have a high slot use requirement, so airlines that can  not meet the quota have to relinquish slots to others – thus new airlines can start up routes. But for the airlines, high slot use requirements mean losing money – and higher CO2 emissions. They are against the re-imposition of high slot use requirements. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2022/01/dft-reinstates-70-slot-use-rule-from-end-of-march-with-some-flexibility-for-future-covid-impacts/
.


European airlines having to fly empty flights due to continuing slot use requirement

During the height of the Covid pandemic, the EU suspended the normal slot allocation process for airlines, that had forced them to use at least 80% of their slots – or lose them. The aim is to ration space at busy airports. During Covid, most airports had below half as many flights as in 2019.  Now the EU has decided to start reinstating the slot use rules, and in December the European Commission set the threshold to 50% for the winter travel season.  Lufthansa Group, which includes Brussels Airlines, Austrian Airlines, Eurowings and Swiss said it would have to run18,000 unnecessary flights from mid-December to mid-March to comply.  That is crazy in terms of carbon (and airline costs, for zero benefit).  Lufthansa said it plans to cancel 33,000 scheduled flights by the end of March because of a slump in demand caused by Omicron.  In the US, slot rules are still suspended. In the UK the partial suspension (50% use) continues until the end of March 2022. Greenpeace called the empty flights “absurd” and pointed to “a new low for the sector that is kept afloat with government support”.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Car and airline adverts helped produce something like 200-600 million tonnes CO2 per year due to increased sales

New research by Greenpeace and the New Weather Institute reveals the extent of the climate impacts from cars and airline adverts.  Of course, advertising increases demand and therefore carries a climate and ecological impact associated with the greater purchase and use of the advertised products. The research has tried to work out the amount of money companies make from the higher sales, against the extra carbon produced. A report by the Purpose Disruptors group, ‘Advertised Emissions: the carbon emissions generated by UK advertising’, used a similar reasoning to measure the CO2 emissions (estimated at 186 million tonnes CO2 equivalent for 2019) associated with the increased spend driven by advertising activities in the UK.  They say at a global level, car advertising could be responsible for some 570 million tonnes of CO2 (ie. 27 million tonnes higher than Australia’s entire GHG emissions in 2019). Airline advertising globally, which has a lower climate impact than car ads, may be associated with about 34 million tonnes of CO2 – a bit less than all UK annual aviation emissions, pre-Covid.
.

 

NEW REPORT: ADVERTISING CLIMATE CHAOS – MEASURING THE CO2 EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ADVERTS FOR CARS & AIRLINES

New research by Greenpeace and the New Weather Institute http://www.greenpeace.se/carbon-in-ads reveals the extent of the climate impacts from cars and airline adverts by giving a global and European estimate on their contribution to CO2 emissions.

Quantifying the impact, assessing the damage

More on more research is demonstrating the common-sense understanding that advertising a product increases its demand.  At Badvertising, we have evidenced this link in two reports using statistical analysis – one looking at the advertising for tobacco and beef products, the second focusing on adverts for SUV vehicles. The findings all point to one conclusion: advertising drives demand and therefore carries a climate and ecological impact associated with the consumption of these products.

What has so far been missing is a clear estimate of how much advertising contributes to fuelling the climate crisis. The advertising insiders at Purpose Disruptors have attempted to fill this gap by proposing a metric to quantify the CO2 impacts of adverts via a ‘Return on Carbon’ (ROCO²) – modelled on the common financial Return On Investment (ROI)- which would measure the revenue per amount of carbon emitted in the project (calculated as ‘Incremental revenue from advertising’/’Uplift in greenhouse gas emissions driven by advertising’ = ‘Revenue per ton of CO2’).

The group’s latest reportAdvertised Emissions: the carbon emissions generated by UK advertising used a similar reasoning to measure the CO2 emissions (estimated at 186 million tonnes CO2 equivalent for 2019) associated with the increased spend driven by advertising activities in the UK.

The latest research released by Greenpeace and the New Weather Institute substantiates those previous efforts by putting a figure on the estimated carbon emissions generated by advertising for some of the most damaging products – namely cars and airlines.

Based on publicly available data on greenhouse gas emissions, advertising spend and a few selected typical ratios for the returns on advertising spend (ROAS), the study finds that globally car and airline advertising in 2019 could account for adding up between 202-606 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) – or the equivalent to the entire GHG emissions of the Netherlands to about twice that of Spain’s total emissions for 2019.

For adverts aired in Europe alone, the largest estimate amounts to a whopping 122 MtCO2e of emissions, more than Belgium’s total GHG emissions in 2019.

Image: British Airways promoting climate-damaging air travel with the caption: “There’s no time like now to book”

At a global level, car advertising is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The research finds it could be responsible for as much as 572 million tonnes of CO2 – or 27 million tonnes higher than Australia’s entire GHG emissions in 2019.

Airline advertising, despite having a lower impact, is still an important player in driving up global emissions. It is estimated that the sector’s advertising could be associated with as much as 34 million tonnes of CO2.

“Advertising is fanning the flames of a warming world by promoting major polluters, like the aviation and car industries, just as it once blew smoke in people’s faces by selling cigarettes. The easiest way to start cutting carbon emissions is by ending the excesses that only happen because adverts are pushing higher consumption. We ended tobacco advertising to save lives, now it’s time to do the same for adverts by major climate polluters.” – Andrew Simms, New Weather Institute

Greater transparency and a ban on fossil fuel ads

The reports’ authors highlight the limited scope of the study to fully assess advertising’s global climate impact given its main focus on carmakers and airlines’ adverts associated emissions as well as its omission of historical emissions from the calculations. As a result, the overall impact of fossil fuel advertising could be far greater than assessed in this study.

Due to carmakers and airlines withholding their actual returns on advertising spending, the researchers had to use a few selected typical ratios rather than a single figure. The lack of transparency surrounding high-carbon companies’ returns on advertising spending is problematic as it prevents these industries from greater scrutiny on the real impacts of their advertising activities. This calls for companies making those figures publicly available.

There is a growing movement around Europe calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship. A European Citizen Initiative is currently gathering signatures which, if adopted as a law after passing the threshold of 1 million signatures, would prevent the most polluting companies from driving up unsustainable consumption and high-carbon lifestyles.

Badvertising campaigns to end advertising fuelling the climate emergency in the UK and at the international level

https://www.badverts.org/latest/new-report-advertising-climate-chaos-measuring-the-co2-emissions-associated-with-adverts-for-cars-amp-airlines

.


From the Greenpeace report.

“Advertising Climate Chaos”

https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-sweden-stateless/2022/02/d423c8a6-advertising-climate-chaos-report.pdf

GLOBAL

• Greenhouse gas emissions influenced by
airline advertising in 2019 could be up to
34MtCO2e globally. This is the equivalent
of 17,000,000t of coal burnt.13

• The full range of the global emissions that
could be influenced by airline advertising
is between 11MtCO2
e and 34MtCO2e.

• This means at our minimum estimate, the
GHG emissions influenced by global airline
advertising in 2019 would be the equivalent to burning 5,510t of coal.14

EUROPEAN

• Greenhouse gas emissions influenced by
airline advertising in 2019 could be up to
9MtCO2e in the EU. This is the equivalent
to burning 4,510t of coal.15

• The full range of the European emissions
that could be influenced by airline companies’ advertisements is estimated to be
between 3MtCO2
e and 9MtCO2 e

• This means at our minimum estimate, the
GHG emissions influenced by EU airline
advertising in 2019 would be the equivalent of burning or 1,500t of coal.16

https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-sweden-stateless/2022/02/d423c8a6-advertising-climate-chaos-report.pdf

.


Report: Car and airline adverts helped produce twice the emissions of Spain in 2019

By Cecilia Keating (Business Green)

23 February 2022

Adverts for cars and flights helped drive emissions equivalent to more than double the national greenhouse gas output of Spain, fresh research from Greenpeace Nordic and the New Weather Institute has claimed.

In a new report, the two campaigning organisations attempted to estimate the impact car and airline advertising had on carbon emissions in 2019, both in the EU and globally.

It concluded that car and airline advertising helped drive sales that resulted in between 202 million and 606 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, a window which ranges from the Netherlands’ entire annual greenhouse gas output to twice the emissions generated each year by Spain.

Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Weather Institute, said the findings strengthened the case for ending advertising of products that push consumption of high-carbon products. “Advertising is fanning the flames of a warming world by promoting major polluters, like the aviation and car industries, just as it once blew smoke in people’s faces by selling cigarettes,” he said.

“The easiest way to start cutting carbon emissions is by ending the excesses that only happen because adverts are pushing higher consumption. We ended tobacco advertising to save lives, now it’s time to do the same for adverts by major climate polluters.”

Car advertising is responsible for the lion’s share of emissions covered by the report, which estimates that greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the promotion of carbon-intensive vehicles in 2019 could have been as high as 572 million tonnes of CO2, a figure 27 million tonnes higher than Australia’s total greenhouse gas emission.

Airline advertising emissions were found to be lower than those generated by car advertising, but by no means small. At 34 million tonnes of CO2, the upper range of estimated emissions attributed to advertising for flights is roughly the equivalent of the emissions generated by burning 17 million tonnes of coal.

The findings are published as pressure continues to mount on public relations and advertising firms to stop promoting carbon intensive products and services.

In recent months, the Clean Creatives campaign has corralled a growing number of companies, young marketers, scientists, and celebrities behind its mission to get agencies in the US and UK to drop their fossil fuel clients. Meanwhile, a separate call for EU lawmakers to ban fossil advertising and sponsorship has now amassed 180,000 signatures.

Georgia Whitaker, lead campaigner for Greenpeace for the European Fossil Free Revolution campaign, said the figures published this morning highlighted the urgent need to ban advertising of high-carbon goods.

“Advertising is a very powerful tool, this report shows that if we allow the unchecked advertising of high-carbon products, major polluters will succeed in boosting sales through social media, print and broadcast media channels, and on billboards, resulting in a clear increase in carbon emissions,” she said. “Scientists have issued a code red for humanity, now it’s crucial to take away the microphone from an industry that is actively profiting from climate wrecking commodities.”

The report is published as regulators have pledged to step up the fight against ‘greenwash’ in marketing, with the UK’s Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) announcing plans last month to launch a major probe into misleading green claims in the fashion industry.

And just this morning, UK’s advertising regulator has banned an advert from drinks maker Innocent on the grounds it misleadingly claimed that purchasing its smoothies would have a positive environmental impact.

The Advertising Standards Authority said it had received complaints from 26 different viewers, who claimed the ad, which aired on TV, Youtube, and through on-demand services, implied that drinking smoothies from a disposable plastic bottle was good for the environment.

Ruling in favour of the complainants, the ASA said Innocent had failed to demonstrate its products had a net positive environmental impact over their full lifecycles, despite the advert in question suggesting there was “a direct association between choosing Innocent drinks and taking positive action to help the environment”.

“Although we acknowledged that Innocent were undertaking various actions which were aimed at reducing the environmental impact of their products, that did not demonstrate that their products had a net positive environmental impact over their full lifecycles,” the regulator said. “We also noted that their drinks bottles included non-recycled plastic and that the extraction of raw materials and subsequent processing of those materials in order to produce the bottle would have a negative impact on the environment.”

Innocent, a subsidiary of Coca-Cola, argued the ad set out a “purpose-led message” and a call to action to consumers to join the company in “working towards a healthier planet”, but had not suggested that purchasing Innocent products themselves would lead to a positive environmental impact.

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4045402/report-car-airline-adverts-helped-produce-twice-emissions-spain-2019

 

Read more »

ICAO contemplates tougher emissions standards on CO2 and noise for aircraft

UN aviation experts at ICAO are again discussing toughening emissions standards for commercial aircraft, less than six years before a previously agreed standard takes effect.  Support for a new emissions standard could put pressure on plane-makers, which need years to adapt to rule changes due to long production cycles, to cease producing their least efficient models. Some ICAO member countries back the introduction of more stringent standards. One source said ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) agreed to draft new standards. However, it is not clear when these might come into force – it is hoped before 2025 – nor how tough the standards would be. ICAO is seeking broad agreement this year on a long-term aviation carbon reduction goal, but there are differences with countries such as China (with a young, growing aviation sector) not enthusiastic. ICAO’s governing council has already backed emissions rules for new planes, with a cut-off date of 2028 for planes that do not comply with the standard, unless exempted.
.

UN aviation experts contemplate tougher emissions standards for aircraft

By Allison Lampert (Reuters)

18.2.2022

MONTREAL, Feb 17 (Reuters) – UN aviation experts are again discussing toughening emissions standards for commercial aircraft, less than six years before a previously agreed clampdown takes effect.

Support for a new emissions standard could put pressure on planemakers, which need years to adapt to rule changes due to long production cycles, to cease producing their least efficient models, two sources familiar with the talks said.

Experts from the United States and some European countries backed tougher emissions standards during a virtual gathering of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) group this week, according to working papers and sources.

One of the sources said ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) agreed on Thursday to draft new standards for civil aircraft, as part of broader efforts through 2025 to update rules for aircraft noise and emissions.

But it remains unclear when the proposed standards for commercial aircraft, such as those made by plane-makers Boeing Co (BA.N) and Airbus SE (AIR.PA), would be drafted and take effect, and how stringent they would be, the source said.

“It’s a real struggle to see it all getting done by 2025,” the source said.

The meeting comes as ICAO is seeking broad agreement this fall on a long-term climate goal amid differences between Europe and China and growing pressure for aviation to curb emissions.

While any standard would take years to draft, win support from countries and wind its way through ICAO, the prospect of tougher emissions rules could potentially become one more headache for pandemic-weary planemakers.

“Any new standard creates pressure for planemakers,” said the second source. “What we don’t know is how much pressure.”

Montreal-based ICAO sets standards on everything from runway markings to crash investigations, which its 193 member states typically translate into regulatory requirements.

ICAO declined comment ahead of an official announcement.

ICAO’s governing council has already backed emissions rules that would be phased in for existing aircraft built from 2023, with a cut-off date of 2028 for planes that do not comply with the standard, unless exempted.

Boeing Co (BA.N) has already said it is weighing an exemption for its 767-300F, a popular freighter model that would otherwise have to cease production in 2028.

ICAO experts also supported the drafting of new standards for supersonic jets, the first source said.

Aircraft makers wanted new noise and engine emissions standards for supersonic jets, to help the fledgling industry.

Reporting By Allison Lampert in Montreal; Additional reporting by Eric Johnson in Seattle; Editing by Leslie Adler

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/un-aviation-experts-contemplate-tougher-emissions-standards-aircraft-2022-02-18/

.


Back in 2017:

 

ICAO Council adopts new CO2 emissions standard for aircraft 

​The 36-State ICAO Council  convenes regularly at the Headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal, Canada. Alongside the ICAO 39th Assembly’s landmark agreement last October on the new Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), this latest CO2 standard for aircraft confirms the air transport sector’s leadership and concrete actions toward ensuring a sustainable end environmentally responsible future for global civil aviation.

Montréal, 6 March 2017 – The 36-State ICAO Council has adopted a new aircraft CO2 emissions standard which will reduce the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate.

Contained in a new Volume III to Annex 16 of the Chicago Convention (Environmental Protection), the aircraft CO2 emissions measure represents the world’s first global design certification standard governing CO2 emissions for any industry sector.

The Standard will apply to new aircraft type designs from 2020, and to aircraft type designs already in-production as of 2023. Those in-production aircraft which by 2028 do not meet the standard will no longer be able to be produced unless their designs are sufficiently modified.

“International civil aviation has once again taken pioneering action to address the impact of aviation CO2 emissions on the global climate,” stressed ICAO Council President Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu,  “making air transport the first industry sector globally to adopt a CO2 emissions design certification standard. Alongside our 39th Assembly’s landmark agreement last October on the new Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), this latest development confirms our sector’s leadership and concrete actions toward ensuring a sustainable end environmentally responsible future for global civil aviation,” President Aliu added.

“This historic accomplishment places aviation in an even better position as we look forward to a greener era of air transport development,” commented ICAO Secretary General Dr. Fang Liu. “The dedicated work of  the ICAO Secretariat, the hundreds of experts who compose ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), and the State representatives on our Air Navigation Commission has been highly appreciated.”

https://www.icao.int/newsroom/pages/icao-council-adopts-new-co2-emissions-standard-for-aircraft.aspx

.

Background Details: new CO2 Standard for Aircraft

Effective date: July 2017
Applicability date: 1 January 2018

 

Embedded applicability date(s):

Subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg maximum take-off mass for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2020, except for those aeroplanes of less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less;

Subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg and less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less, for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

All propeller-driven aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 8 618 kg maximum take-off mass, for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2020;

Derived versions of non-CO2-certified subsonic jet aeroplanes of greater than 5 700 kg maximum certificated take-off mass for which the application for certification of the change in type design was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

Derived versions of non-CO2 certified propeller-driven aeroplanes of greater than 8 618 kg maximum certificated take-off mass for which the application for certification of the change in type design was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

Individual non-CO2-certified subsonic jet aeroplanes of greater than 5 700 kg maximum certificated take-off mass for which a certificate of airworthiness was first issued on or after 1 January 2028; and

Individual non-CO2-certified propeller-driven aeroplanes of greater than 8 618 kg maximum certificated take-off mass for which a certificate of airworthiness was first issued on or after 1 January 2028.


https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT-ICAO_policy-update_revised_jan2017.pdf

.

.

 

Read more »

Campaigners label Heathrow’s new “Sustainability” strategy as “patently underwhelming” in its ambitions, or plans for action

Heathrow has announced its updated environmental “sustainability” strategy, called “Heathrow 2.0: Connecting People and Planet”.  It wants to do a bit to encourage wildlife near the airport (not birds of course, as they get killed or deterred for safety …) and get airlines to use allegedly “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF).  Lots of hope …. The “elephant in the room” of their rising carbon emissions from flights, is not properly addressed. Local campaign, the No 3rd Runway Coalition, consider the strategy to be  “patently underwhelming” and the “goals to reduce emissions are pifflingly small…”  Heathrow has unrealistic hopes of “decarbonising” flights, and also “improving the area around the airport for those who live and work in it’.  Heathrow wants to cut “at least 45% of on the ground emissions” which make up about 5% of the total. The increased use of SAF, which is only available in tiny amounts, would need government assistance, says Heathrow. Stop Heathrow Expansion says the plan ‘does not deliver for communities around the airport’ and does not offer any real commitments to end ‘highly disruptive night flights’ , instead of better restrictions on flights between 11pm and 7am.
.

 

This is their Net Zero plan

https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/Heathrow%20Net%20Zero%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf


CAMPAIGNERS LABEL HEATHROW PLAN ‘PATENTLY UNDERWHELMING’

By Áine McGinty

Thu, Feb 10, 2022

Heathrow Airport’s updated environmental sustainability strategy released on 10th February has been labeled ‘patently underwhelming’ by campaigners from the No 3rd Runway Coalition.

The airport this week released its plan for the decade ahead – Heathrow 2.0: Connecting People and Planet. The programme of work outlines how the airport will build back better with, they say, ‘sustainability front of mind’. The airport’s plan sets out what they are calling ‘an ambitious series of goals over the next decade to tackle the growing climate emergency, decarbonise flight and continue to improve the area around the airport for those who live and work in it’.

Heathrow say their ambition is to ensure 2019 was the year of peak carbon at the airport. Through the strategy, Heathrow has committed to two ‘industry-leading goals to cut carbon by 2030’ – cutting up to 15% of carbon from flights compared with 2019 and reducing at least 45% of on the ground emissions.

Heathrow 2.0 also commits the airport to a UK airport first, introducing a Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) based incentives programme for airlines, encouraging their partners to invest in SAF, reducing their carbon footprint and helping to hit carbon reduction targets. They say the government will need to work with them to support the delivery of Heathrow 2.0 by injecting pace into their SAF policy making and supporting the airport’s case for a regulatory settlement from the Civil Aviation Authority, which enables the necessary investment to achieve the commitments set out in their plan.

Over this decade, Heathrow 2.0 also commits the airport to, over this decade, moving Heathrow towards becoming Zero Waste, introducing an airside ultra-low emission zone by 2025 and generating at least £6.5m in funds for the independent Heathrow Community Trust charity.

Heathrow’s Chief Executive John Holland-Kaye said: “The launch of our refreshed Heathrow 2.0 strategy is a landmark moment in our sustainability journey, one which accelerates the shift in our industry towards a greener future. Decisive action needs to be taken this decade to remain on track for net zero and 2.0 sets out the roadmap to get us there. Not only will we cut carbon, but our ambitious strategy will maintain Heathrow’s leadership in innovation, social mobility and community engagement.”

The No 3rd Runway Coalition has criticised the sustainability commitments stating that the plan includes ‘no analysis of which delivery mechanisms will be required to achieve it’ as well as a lack of analysis of ‘prospective dates when new aircraft, which could help achieve the SAF target, might be introduced to the fleet’. Turnover of the aircraft fleet is, of course, campaigners stress, wholly outside of Heathrow’s control.

In addition, any of the targets requiring financial commitments are contingent on what the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), permits Heathrow to raise by way of increases to Heathrow passenger charges. The CAA recently disallowed an increase requested by Heathrow.

A second anti-expansion group, Stop Heathrow Expansion, has also criticised the plan stating that despite the airport’s claim, the plan ‘does not deliver for communities around the airport’. They have pointed out that the plan fails to offer any real commitments to end ‘highly disruptive night flights’ saying that Heathrow could demonstrate its commitments to providing a better environment for local residents by imposing its own reduction in these flights, between the hours of 11pm and 7am.

Heathrow, however, claim they are introducing measures which will minimise noise, improve local air quality and invest more in the airport’s local communities. They also commit to developing a Nature Positive Airport Plan to continue to strengthen and showcase biodiversity management at the airport and launching a new Giving Back Programme detailing their community investment strategy and volunteering programmes that will benefit at least 1 million residents.

Heathrow has also announced the launch of its Sustainable Travel Zone, a network of subsidised travel routes to and from the airport.

Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said: “These goals to reduce emissions are pifflingly small in the limited areas where the airport could make a difference, and only ambitious in respect of technological developments over which they have no control.

“There’s a section on Sustainable Aviation Fuels, but these can only be delivered – if at all – by plane manufacturers when the current fleet comes out of service in twenty years’ time. The target to increase environmentally friendly access to the airport, which depends on others delivering Crossrail, only envisages a 4% advance – paltry to some, but doubtlessly reflecting the airport’s abject failure to increase it by more than 1% over the last decade.

“Heathrow are trying to make the right noises but it’s little more than a ticking box exercise. And what else can it be when virtually all the unsustainable emissions come from the planes?”

Geraldine Nicholson from Stop Heathrow Expansion, added: “We want Heathrow to be a better, not bigger Airport. But this plan is, sadly, a rehash of existing underwhelming measures that do not give us any confidence that the airport is truly interested in being a better neighbour. It does not deliver for communities around the airport.

“In this plan, we would like to have seen a commitment to significantly reducing or ending highly disruptive night flights. That would have been a positive start, followed by re-supporting local public transport initiatives such as the Free Travel Zone that it scrapped during the pandemic. Then, of course, followed by scrapping the 3rd runway project becoming a better neighbour and employer, as passenger demand rises this year.”

To find out more and view the Sustainability Strategy in full, visit heathrow.com/company/about-heathrow/heathrow-2-0-sustainability-strategy

https://hounslowherald.com/campaigners-label-heathrow-plan-patently-underwhelming-p15553-95.htm

.


Heathrow accused of ‘risky’ sustainability strategy that relies too much on undeveloped technology

15 FEB, 2022

BY CATHERINE KENNEDY (New Civil Engineer)

Aviation experts have criticised Heathrow’s new sustainability strategy, claiming it does not adequately factor in expansion emissions and relies too heavily on the development of negative emission technologies.

Heathrow Ltd published its new sustainability strategy – Heathrow 2.0: Connecting People and Planet – last week.

The strategy sets ambitious targets such as reducing carbon from flights by up to 15% compared with 2019 and to cut at least 45% of on the ground carbon emissions by 2030.

However, those targets have been questioned by aviation and environmentalists alike who claim that they are based on undeveloped technology.

New Economics Foundation (NEF) senior researcher Alex Chapman also pointed out that these targets “ignore the airport’s proposed new runway”.

“The emissions from the new flights [the new runway] would create would blow the minimal reductions proposed out of the water,” he said. “As long as the expansion remains on the table, strategies like this should be seen as nothing less than greenwash.”

According to the strategy, it is “possible to take the carbon out of flying through ongoing efficiency improvements, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), zero carbon aircraft and carbon removal projects”. However to achieve this, it adds that the government will need to work in tandem with Heathrow to inject pace into the SAF policy.

Aviation Environment Federation director Cait Hewitt dubbed this reliance on technology “risky”.

“A climate strategy that pins its hopes on a huge rollout of either SAFs or negative emission technologies coming good in the long term, neither of which are yet really in play at all, is risky at best,” she said. “There is absolutely no guarantee here that these technologies would be in place before a third runway is operational.

“If airlines were actually made to cover the cost of investment in these novel technologies and fuels, that would have a significant impact on demand, and therefore on the financial case for airport expansion.”

The strategy adds that, by 2050, Heathrow’s goal is that carbon from flights falls by over 80%, even with a new runway. This would leave less than 20% of carbon emissions to be removed from the atmosphere to reach net zero.

It says: “These figures are based on a set of detailed assumptions regarding ongoing fleet efficiency improvements, roll-out of zero carbon aircraft from 2035 and, most significantly, the scale-up of SAF to replace 90% of the remaining kerosene by 2050. However, our collective goal should be to reach absolute zero by 2050 if possible.

“It takes time to scale up SAF and introduce zero-carbon emissions flight, so we must also fund projects that avoid causing emissions, reduce emissions or directly remove them from the atmosphere.”

Overall, Hewitt said that the strategy makes “some truly heroic assumptions about future emissions reductions from aviation, particularly about the take-up of sustainable aviation fuels by airlines – numbers that go way beyond the projections from either the Climate Change Committee or the government”.

She added: “And it’s on the basis of these speculative figures that Heathrow tries to argue that even with a third runway, UK aviation emissions can hit net zero by 2050.”

Chapman added that the initial target to reduce carbon from flights by 15% is, in itself, not enough.

“To put the inadequacy of this target in context, the UN estimates that globally we need to achieve a 55% reduction over the same period in order to have a chance of limiting warming to 1.5oC, as agreed in Paris,” he said.

Following the launch of the strategy, Heathrow chief executive John Holland-Kaye said it was “a landmark moment” in the airport’s “sustainability journey”.

He added: “Decisive action needs to be taken this decade to remain on track for net zero and 2.0 sets out the roadmap to get us there. Not only will we cut carbon, but our ambitious strategy will maintain Heathrow’s leadership in innovation, social mobility and community engagement.”

A Heathrow spokesperson added: “Aviation can and will decarbonise and Heathrow is aiming to make 2019 the year of peak carbon with ambitious goals to reduce emissions both on the ground and in the air in the next decade. Sustainable Aviation Fuel will play a critical role in cutting carbon to achieve our goals in the near term, and now policy support from Government is essential to scale-up production and usage at pace.

“The UK Government’s independent Climate Change Committee has set a pathway for a 15% reduction in carbon emissions from flying, and a 46% reduction for the rest of the economy by 2030. Our refreshed sustainability strategy is aligned to those goals. We have been clear that expansion can only be delivered if it meets strict, legally-binding environmental targets.”

The sustainability strategy follows research from the NEF last month which revealed that emission clean up costs from departing flights at the eight airport expansions underway across the UK have more than doubled to £73.6bn.

The government has, however, committed itself to achieving net zero within the aviation sector in its recently-published Transport Decarbonisation Plan. It has also recently consulted on a Net Zero Aviation Strategy, setting out how industry will play its part in delivering the country’s net zero commitments.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/heathrow-accused-of-risky-sustainability-strategy-that-relies-too-much-on-undeveloped-technology-15-02-2022/ 

.


Heathrow:
Ready for a decade of difference: Heathrow launches refreshed sustainability strategy

10th February 2022 (Heathrow airport press release) 

  • Heathrow launches Heathrow 2.0: Connecting People and Planet kicking off a decisive decade of difference to help the airport build back better from the pandemic, with carbon reductions and ensuring Heathrow is a great place to live and work top of the agenda
  • Heathrow is already delivering against the goals of its plan, announcing today the airport’s full direct supply chain will benefit from a London Living Wage, and relaunching subsidised public transport routes near the airport for colleagues and passengers
  • Strategy includes two industry-leading goals to cut carbon by 2030, a vital waypoint to the global aviation sector target to reach net zero emission by 2050. The airport has committed to cut up to 15% of carbon from flights and reduce at least 45% of on the ground carbon emissions by 2030

After the most difficult two years in its history, Heathrow has today released its plan for the decade ahead with a refreshed sustainability strategy – Heathrow 2.0: Connecting People and Planet. The programme of work outlines how the airport will build back better with sustainability front of mind, as the nation and aviation industry emerges from the pandemic and ramps up to recovery. The airport’s plan sets out an ambitious series of goals over the next decade to tackle the growing climate emergency, decarbonise flight and continue to improve the area around the airport for those who live and work in it.

The programme of work builds on Heathrow’s previous sustainability strategy launched five years ago, this time offering a streamlined framework divided into two leadership pillars of work, targeting net zero aviation and ensuring Heathrow is a great place to live and work. The objectives set out in Heathrow 2.0 are the result of consultation with local and national stakeholders. Achieving these goals will enable the airport to remain a sustainable employer for future generations and protect the benefits of aviation in a world without carbon.

To keep the airport on track to deliver net zero aviation by 2050, Heathrow’s ambition is to ensure 2019 was the year of peak carbon at the airport. To deliver on this commitment, our goal is to reduce carbon from flights by up to 15% compared with 2019 and to cut at least 45% of on the ground carbon emissions by 2030. Government will need to work in tandem with Heathrow to support the delivery of Heathrow 2.0 by injecting pace into their Susaintable Aviation Fuel (SAF) policy making and supporting the airport’s case for a regulatory settlement from the Civil Aviation Authority, which enables the necessary investment to achieve the commitments set out in this plan.

Heathrow is introducing measures which will minimise noise, improve local air quality and invest more in the airport’s local communities to enable our closest neighbours to share in the benefits and success of having the UK’s Hub on their doorstep. The airport’s sustainability strategy is also resolute in its commitment to creating an inclusive and diverse workplace, with colleague wellbeing placed at the heart of the business’ priorities, providing everyone with the tools to thrive at Heathrow.

The airport is already delivering against the goals of the plan, with Heathrow today announcing an extension of the London Living Wage, illustrating its great place to work credentials. Heathrow already pays at least this rate to directly employed staff, and this latest development ensures everyone working in Heathrow’s direct supply chain will be guaranteed to earn at least the London Living Wage from the start of April. At least 1300 of employees at the airport will benefit from the wage boost when it comes into effect and the move will put nearly over £4.5million extra into the pay packets of staff at direct suppliers including Mitie and Apcoa.

Heathrow has also announced the launch of its Sustainable Travel Zone, a network of subsidised travel routes to and from the airport to make it more attractive for colleagues and passengers to take public transport, reducing congestion on local roads and improving local air quality.

John Holland-Kaye, Heathrow’s Chief Executive said:

“The launch of our refreshed Heathrow 2.0 strategy is a landmark moment in our sustainability journey, one which accelerates the shift in our industry towards a greener future. Decisive action needs to be taken this decade to remain on track for net zero and 2.0 sets out the roadmap to get us there. Not only will we cut carbon, but our ambitious strategy will maintain Heathrow’s leadership in innovation, social mobility and community engagement.”

Katherine Chapman, Director, Living Wage Foundation said:

“We are delighted that Heathrow has extended their payment of the London Living Wage to now include everyone within Heathrow’s direct supply chain. Heathrow’s move will provide a stable and secure rate that will ensure over 1,300 workers and their families earn what they need to get by. In the backdrop of rising costs of living and spiralling inflation, this extra financial buffer will prove even more important.

As we redefine what good business looks like in the wake of the pandemic and in the face of new economic uncertainty, we are thrilled to see forward-looking employers like Heathrow, and the over 9,000 other Living Wage Employers, leading the way in how they support their staff. We all ought to earn enough to support our lives, and I would encourage any business able to do so to consider accrediting with the Living Wage Foundation.”

In 2022, Heathrow 2.0 commits the airport to:

  • In a UK airport first, introduce a Sustainable Aviation Fuel based incentives programme for airlines, encouraging our partners to invest in SAF, reduce their carbon footprint and help to hit our carbon reduction targets
  • Develop a Nature Positive Airport Plan to continue to strengthen and showcase biodiversity management at the airport
  • Launch a new Giving Back Programme detailing Heathrow’s community investment strategy and volunteering programmes that will benefit at least 1 million residents.

Over this decade, Heathrow 2.0 commits the airport to:

  • Set industry-leading carbon targets, committing to cut ‘in the air carbon’ by up to 15% compared with 2019 levels and reducing ‘on the ground carbon’ emissions by at least 45% compared with 2019 levels
  • Maximise the materials used at the airport that are repurposed, moving Heathrow towards becoming Zero Waste
  • Introduce an airside ultra-low emission zone by 2025.
  • Generate at least £6.5m in funds for the independent Heathrow Community Trust charity
    Reduce areas affected by noise, introduce new alternation patterns, and increase nights without aircraft relative to 2019
    Provide 10,000 external jobs, apprenticeships and early career opportunities for local people
    Provide 15,000 experiences of the workplace
    Ensure diversity levels within all rungs of the leadership ladder reflect the diversity levels of our local community

 

For further information and to view our sustainabiltiy strategy in full, please click here. https://www.heathrow.com/company/about-heathrow/heathrow-2-0-sustainability-strategy

https://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/13730

.

.

 

Read more »

Leeds Bradford airport public inquiry to start 13th September – GALBA crowdfunding for £100,000 for the fight

On 19th January 2022, Michael Gove (Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) granted GALBA’s request to hold a public inquiry into Leeds Bradford airport’s  expansion plans.  It will start on 13th September 2022.  GALBA has gone into full-on preparation mode for fundraising. They hope to raise £100,000 through a crowdfunder, to pay for legal advice and experts to give evidence to the public inquiry.  The planning inspectors will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State whether or not to allow the airport to expand. GALBA has described the public inquiry into LBA’s expansion plans as a ‘real life David vs Goliath battle’.  Chris Foren, chair of GALBA, said: “The airport is owned by an Australian based multinational corporation which can literally spend millions on lawyers if it wants to. GALBA is just a group of concerned citizens – no one is paid, everyone involved does it because they care deeply about our communities and our climate. So it will be a real life David vs Goliath battle at the inquiry. … the future of our planet depends on struggles like this – people power really can make a difference! If we all work together, we can build a better future for our children and grandchildren.”

GALBA fundraising – https://www.galba.uk/

.

“David vs Goliath” battle against expansion at Leeds Bradford Airport

By Annette McIntyre  (Wharfedale Observer)

7th February 2022

CAMPAIGNERS against Leeds Bradford Airport expansion are preparing for a “David vs Goliath” battle at a public inquiry by launching a crowdfunder appeal

The Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport is asking for donations to help pay for legal advice and experts to give evidence to the public inquiry later this year. GALBA says it needs to raise £100,000 as soon as possible.

In January Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, granted a request to hold a public inquiry into LBA’s controversial plans. The inquiry will begin in Leeds on September 13. Evidence will be presented to planning inspectors, who will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State whether or not to allow the plans to go ahead.

Chris Foren, chair of GALBA, said: “The airport is owned by an Australian based multinational corporation which can literally spend millions on lawyers if it wants to. GALBA is just a group of concerned citizens – no one is paid, everyone involved does it because they care deeply about our communities and our climate. So it will be a real life David vs Goliath battle at the inquiry. That’s why we’ve launched a crowdfunder on our website – galba.uk – to raise funds for our legal and other costs.”

He added: “We are absolutely determined and we know thousands of people support our campaign. We also know that the future of our planet depends on struggles like this – people power really can make a difference. If we all work together, we can build a better future for our children and grandchildren.”

LBA’s planning application for a new £150 million terminal was approved by Leeds City Council in March 2021.

After the announcement that a public enquiry would be held Vincent Hodder, CEO of Leeds Bradford Airport, said: “While we are disappointed to see this decision taken after 10 months of deliberation, we remain convinced in the economic, environmental and customer service cases for our replacement terminal. Our proposals are robust and we are committed to being an outstanding airport for passengers. We hope this decision does not signal a lost opportunity to level up the North of England. The plans not only comply with national and regional legislation, but also present a faster way for us to meet our Net Zero Strategy and a welcome boost for the UK tourism industry to bounce back from the Pandemic.”

https://www.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk/news/19906070.david-vs-goliath-battle-expansion-leeds-bradford-airport/


 

Campaigners against Leeds Bradford Airport expansion prepare for ‘David vs Goliath’ battle at public inquiry by launching crowdfunder appeal

8th February 2022

GALBA

https://www.galba.uk/

Image

The Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) has described the public inquiry into LBA’s expansion plans as a ‘real life David vs Goliath battle’. Today, they launched a crowdfunding appeal on their website. All donations will help pay for legal advice and experts to give evidence to the public inquiry later this year. GALBA says it needs to raise £100,000 as soon as possible. 

On 19 January 2022, Michael Gove (secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) granted GALBA’s request to hold a public inquiry into LBA’s controversial expansion plans. The inquiry will be held in Leeds and will begin on 13 September. LBA, GALBA and others with an interest in the decision will present evidence to planning inspectors, who will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State whether or not to allow the airport to expand.

Chris Foren, chair of GALBA, said: “The airport is owned by an Australian based multinational corporation which can literally spend millions on lawyers if it wants to. GALBA is just a group of concerned citizens – no one is paid, everyone involved does it because they care deeply about our communities and our climate. So it will be a real life David vs Goliath battle at the inquiry. That’s why we’ve launched a crowdfunder on our website – galba.uk – to raise funds for our legal and other costs.” 

He added: “We are absolutely determined and we know thousands of people support our campaign. We also know that the future of our planet depends on struggles like this – people power really can make a difference! If we all work together, we can build a better future for our children and grandchildren.”

https://www.galba.uk/

Notes for editors

Expert policy advice: Lord Deben, chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) said last year, “There is not any space for airport expansion” if the UK is to meet its climate goals. The CCC’s policy recommendation is for “no net expansion of UK airport capacity unless the sector is on track to sufficiently outperform its net emissions trajectory and can accommodate the additional demand”. That test has not been met and will not be met for many years to come. 

Public Inquiry into LBA expansion: the decision to ‘call in’ LBA’s planning application and hold a public inquiry was announced by Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, on 19 January and will commence on 13 September. 

Climate science and LBA expansion: the Leeds Climate Commission and experts in climate science from the University of Leeds have calculated that LBA’s proposals mean greenhouse gas emissions from the airport would exceed the amount allowed for the whole of Leeds, as set out in the Leeds Carbon Reduction Roadmap, from 2026 onwards. See the report here.


See earlier:

Leeds Bradford Airport development plans at last to go to public inquiry – date unknown

Leeds Bradford airport Leeds Bradford submitted plans for new terminal building & more passengers (4m to 7m a year) in May 2020. There has been intense opposition to the plan, led by local opposition group, GALBA.  In March 2021 the terminal plan was approved by Leeds City Council, but in April 2021 the government issued a direction to the Council, preventing councillors from granting the planning permission without special authorisation. There have been numerous requests for the application to be called in. Now it has been announced by the DLUHC – headed by Michael Gove – that the application will indeed go to a public inquiry – though the date is not yet decided.  It is a triumph for the persistent pressure by opponents, managing to achieve this significant delay. The inquiry means the arguments against the expansion will be properly and fully heard.  Some of the matters that Mr Gove “particularly wishes to be informed about” included the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with government policies for “protecting green belt land” and “meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change”. Airport expansion can only increase carbon emissions.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Luton Airport consultation about expansion plans, to increase to 32 million annual passengers

Luton airport has started another public consultation (ends 4th April) on further expansion plans.  It now wants to increase its annual number of passengers (from 18.2 million in 2019) to 32 million (mppa). The proposals by the airport owner Luton Rising [the new name the company that owns Luton airport has started using] involve expanding the existing terminal, building a 2nd terminal and making “best use” [ie. more use] of the existing runway.  At the start of December 2021, Luton council, which conveniently owns the airport, gave it permission to increase from 18 to 19 mppa. If approved, the Phase 1 would be  expansion of Terminal 1 and associated facilities to increase capacity to approximately 21.5 mppa.  Phase 2 would involve construction of new Terminal 2 and associated facilities to increase airport capacity to 27 mppa.  Then a later further phase would be more expansion of Terminal 2, to increase to 32 mppa. Opponents of the airport’s growth say the latest consultation is “a huge waste of public money”.  The level of aircraft noise in 2019 was severe, and residents are horrified of it becoming even worse – as well as the local congestion etc. It makes no sense to encourage aviation expansion, when the UK must cut its carbon emissions, fast.
.


Consultation ends 4th April 2022

Consultation form is at

https://magpielanding.traverse.org.uk/surveys/FutureLuToN


Views sought on major London Luton Airport expansion

9 FEB, 2022

BY ROB HORGAN (New Civil Engineer)

London Luton Airport’s expansion plans have gone out to public consultation, with the airport operator seeking feedback on proposals to increase capacity to 32M passengers per year.

Proposals put forward by airport owner Luton Rising [the new name the company that owns Luton airport has started using] involve expanding the existing terminal, building a second terminal and making best use of the existing runway.

It comes after the local council signed off on plans to increase passengers from 18M per year to 19M in December.

The next stage of expansion would be delivered in two phases. The first phase would see the expansion of Terminal 1 and associated facilities to increase capacity to approximately 21.5M passengers per annum.

Phase two, meanwhile, would involve construction of new Terminal 2 and associated facilities to increase airport capacity to 27M passengers per annum.

Consultation documents add that there will later be further expansion of Terminal 2 and associated facilities to increase to 32M per year.

Luton Rising chair Javeria Hussain said: “Our proposals reflect the sustainability values, both of Luton Rising, and our sole shareholder, Luton Council.

“We want to maximise the social and economic benefits of growth and firmly believe there is a way to grow an airport in a sustainably responsible way.”

He added: “Our consultation sets out how we propose to achieve this. Sustainability is about more than environmental issues – it’s social and economic impacts too. Our airport is a vital part of the economic ecosystem of the region and beyond, directly and indirectly supporting tens of thousands of jobs.

“The proposed expansion will generate thousands more jobs and an extra £1 billion in economic activity in Luton and the neighbouring counties. We want more local people to be able to access these jobs, so our proposals also include an extensive Draft Employment and Training Strategy to make that possible.”

Campaigners fighting against the expansion of London Luton Airport say the latest consultation is “a huge waste of public money”.

Andrew Lambourne of Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN), said: “The last thing people who live in this area want, having been barraged by a constant stream of ever-noisier flights, clogged roads and standing room only on trains, is the prospect of the situation getting far worse than that.”

Meanwhile, work to connect the airport to the Luton Parkway train station via an autonomous rai link continues to gather pace ahead of its opening later this year.

As previously reported by NCE, work to fit out the stations is nearing completion, with ventilation fans and cabling being installed in the tunnel section of the Luton’s Direct Air-Rail Transit (Dart) project.

The Dart has been constructed to allow it to be easily extended should Luton Airport’s expansion progress.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/views-sought-on-major-london-luton-airport-expansion-09-02-2022/

.


Campaigners hit back at latest plans for expansion of London Luton Airport

Consultation has now opened on plans to increase passenger numbers to 32 million a year

By Lynn Hughes   (Luton today)
8th February 2022,

Campaigners fighting against the expansion of London Luton Airport say the latest consultation is “a huge waste of public money”.

The consultation, which launched today (Tuesday), is for plans to increase the number of passengers flying out of the airport, from the current 18 million a year, to 32 million.

Luton Rising, the owners of the airport, want to build a new terminal and make the best use of the existing runway.

But speaking on behalf of local communities who say they have been badly impacted by the airport, Andrew Lambourne of LADACAN (Luton And District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) said: “The last thing people who live in this area want – having been so badly affected in 2019 by a constant stream of ever-noisier flights, clogged roads and standing room only on trains – is the prospect of the situation getting far worse than that.

“Rather than economic benefit, it could blight the area. No effective mitigations have been put in place, and people are utterly fed up with the reckless commercial greed being shown.”

He went on: “This plan continues to invest in the past rather than creating a more sustainable local economy.

“Kerosene-fuelled passenger aircraft aren’t magically going to be replaced overnight; so called sustainable fuels are very expensive and use biomass essential for other purposes; planting young trees is not going to solve the climate crisis; and Luton needs a more diverse local economy rather than just constantly returning to the obsessive vision of a decade ago. The world has moved on, and Luton Airport’s owners need to think differently. Look at their lack of resilience: the airport owning company was almost bankrupted by COVID, the town brought to its knees, and hundreds of millions of pounds of debt has been run up. The vision for the future needs to change.”

Launching the consultation last week Councillor Javeria Hussain, Chair of Luton Rising, said: “Our proposals will reflect the sustainability values, both of Luton Rising, and our sole shareholder, Luton Council. We want to maximise the social and economic benefits of growth and we firmly believe there is a way to grow an airport in a sustainably responsible way.

“We set out details on how we propose to achieve that in our consultation. Sustainability is about more than environmental issues – it’s social and economic impacts too. Our airport is a vital part of the economic ecosystem of the region and beyond, directly and indirectly supporting tens of thousands of jobs. The proposed expansion will generate thousands more jobs and more than a £1 billion increase in economic activity in Luton and the neighbouring counties. We want more local people to be able to access these jobs, so our proposals also include an extensive Draft Employment and Training Strategy to make that possible.

“Our airport is the most socially impactful in the UK. Since 1998, we have contributed £257 million to support frontline services, and since 2002, we have contributed £155 million to support local community organisations and charities – 20x per passenger more than any other UK airport. These organisations help make life-transforming changes for people, and our proposals include the new Community First fund, which will allow for much greater support for community projects in Luton and the neighbouring counties impacted by airport operations.”

But campaigners say plans for the latest consultation have already cost the airport more than £40 million. They say the plan is “a huge waste of public money” given the current expansion plan has not yet been completed, there is uncertainty about future demand in light of climate change, and lack of progress with vital airspace modernisation.

John Hale for STAQS (St Albans Quieter Skies), said: “When Luton Airport got permission to expand to 18 million passengers, residents were promised action would be taken to alleviate the noise nuisance – but since then the situation has worsened. Now the airport owner wants to increase the noise and environmental damage this Airport already causes. It is time to say NO to further expansion and to stop wasting taxpayers’ money on this scheme.”

The detailed proposals, consultation materials and the virtual consultation room are now live on the website at lutonrising.org.uk

https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/business/campaigners-hit-back-at-latest-plans-for-expansion-of-london-luton-airport-3559043

.


The Luton Rising website

https://lutonrising.org.uk/consultation/

“This is your chance to have your say about Future LuToN, our proposal to expand London Luton Airport’s maximum passenger capacity to 32 million, building a second terminal, and making best use of our single runway.

Our proposals include changes made to the scheme since the previous consultation in 2019. We now want your feedback on our updated proposals before we submit our application for development consent.

The full set of boards and videos, as seen at the in-person consultations, can be seen in the virtual exhibition room”.

https://lutonrising.org.uk/consultation/ 

.


See earlier:

Local MP, Bim Afolami, and community groups ask Gove to call-in Luton expansion plans

December 15, 2021

Bim Afolami, MP for Hitchin and Harpenden, has called on the government to review plans to allow for a million more passengers per year through Luton Airport, rising from 18 million to 19 million. On 2nd December, Luton Borough Council (which owns the airport and decides its planning applications) approved the airport’s expansion plans and varying the noise conditions it operates under.  Now Bim Afolami has asked Communities Secretary Michael Gove, at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to “call-in” the decision. The DLUHC says it would consider requests for a call-in, taking the decision from the council, to government.  This is usually when an application has wider impacts than just the local area, which Luton’s extra flights definitely would. Another reason for call-in is if an application conflicts with a national policy – climate in this case. Bim said the decision to approve the expansion “completely ignores the environmental and cross-boundary impact”. Local groups, including the Luton and District Association for Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN) and Harpenden Sky, have also written to the Minister asking for call-in.

Click here to view full story…

Luton Council approves plans for Luton to increase from 18 to 19 mppa

In February, Luton airport submitted a planning application to Luton Borough Council (its owner) to increase the annual cap on passenger throughput from 18m to 19mppa. Also to expand the day and night noise contours by 11.3% and 15.3% respectively until 2028. Now Luton Borough Council has approved the plan to increase to 19 million – and the plans to change the noise contours, to the huge disappointment of many local groups already negatively affected by aircraft noise. The Council said this application did not affect the airport’s long term proposals to increase capacity to 32 million per year, which would be determined by government, through a DCO, not the council. The airport is owned by a company that has changed its name to Luton Rising – and that is owned by Luton Council.  How well the airport will do in future years is unknown, with the impact of Covid, targets for aviation to become “carbon neutral” and growing awareness of the climate impact of air travel.  Luton’s passenger numbers dropped almost 70% between 2019 and 2020 due to Covid.

Click here to view full story…

Luton airport continuing to be a financial drain (maybe £550 million+) to owners Luton Council

In the last few days, the company (owned by Luton Borough Council) that owns Luton Airport, has changed its name from London Luton Airport Ltd, to “Luton Rising”. That will be its trading name. The company that operates the airport is London Luton Airport Operations.  London Luton Airport Operations has obtained agreement from Luton Rising that it can retain £45 million over three years.  This will support the airport’s recovery from the pandemic.  The money would have been paid by the operator to Luton Rising (ie. the council) if it had not been for the impact of Covid reducing passengers and flights. Luton council usually, pre-Covid, made a good profit from the airport, but that has now been reversed. The Council in 2019 receiving a £19.1m, and £15.8m servicing debt.  In September 2020 there was a £60m loan by Luton Borough Council to its airport company and it was expected that another £23 million would be paid. Then in June 2021 Luton Council loaned a further £119m to the airport. Now this is another £45 million, over three years. The airport is not looking like a great investment for the council …

Click here to view full story…

.

 

Read more »

NEF analysis suggests huge future costs to taxpayer of Southampton airport and its flights

New analysis by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) has calculated the cost to society of the carbon emissions generated by UK aviation, and UK airports. These are the costs of the impacts of an altered climate, on infrastructure, extremes of weather, water and energy etc. NEF has used the new carbon values, set out by the government in September 2021. Instead of costing the societal damage done by 1 tonne of carbon at a bit of £70, the price has been put at between a low of £124 to £240 as a medium price, for 2022. Those numbers rise steeply up to 2050 (prices after that have not been considered).  That means most airport expansion schemes, including Southampton’s, are likely not to be viable, and the economics need to be re-calculated. For Southampton, NEF says that just looking at the 2021 prices, the carbon cost to society would not be £421 million (2025 – 2050) by more like £921. And of the £921 only £212 million would be paid in traded emissions. That leaves £742 which would be the cost to the taxpayer – as the cost of an expanded Southampton airport, with more flights and more passengers.
.

 

Think tank: Airport expansion will cost you £742 million

by Stephen Slominski  (Eastleigh News)

January 28, 2022

New analysis shows planning application underestimated true cost of carbon clean up says New Economic Foundation

Eastleigh’s Councillors approved the extension of the airport runway north towards the town centre – Pic: Google Earth.

An Independent national think-tank says the cost of cleaning the extra carbon emissions generated at Southampton Airport as a result of extending its runway has been underestimated and will end up costing tax-payers £742 million.

The New Economics Foundation has released its latest analysis using new government guidance which they say shows the true climate cost of Eastleigh Borough Council’s decision to green light airport expansion plans in April last year.

Since then, NEF say the climate costs of the plan have more than doubled. As a result, the planning application is now based on out-of-date estimates of the cost of the climate crisis by not taking account of the government’s uplifted carbon values.

The clean-up costs of Southampton’s airport expansion says the foundation, have now more than doubled, from £421 million to £954 million but only 22% of it will be paid for by the aviation industry. The remaining £742 million, the think-tank warns, will have to be paid for by the tax-payer.

Alex Chapman, researcher at the New Economics Foundation, said:

In light of this new evidence all active UK airport expansions should immediately be paused, and re-evaluated in line with the new guidance. In addition, loopholes in current carbon taxes should be closed, and a Frequent Flyer Levy introduced to make sure the costs of cutting carbon emissions are passed on to the biggest polluters and the wealthiest in our society.

The latest NEF report can be found here.

Eastleigh Borough Council’s decision to grant permission to Southampton Airport is currently facing a legal challenge. Campaigners opposed to airport expansion who are waiting for a date for a Judicial Review have almost crowdfunded £100,000 in total to cover the cost.

https://www.eastleighnews.co.uk/2022/01/think-tank-airport-expansion-will-cost-you-742-million/

.

Old 2020 departing emissions value (£m)New 2021 departing emissions value (£m)Increase factorStatus
Heathrow24,99849,2122.0Approved by parliament and courts, awaiting application
Gatwick4,5029,1962.0Development consent order application process started
Luton2,6155,2312.0Application for first stage submitted, second stage pending
Manston2,4955,1312.1Secretary of state for transport redetermining application
Stansted*1,0912,4022.2Application approved at appeal
Southampton4219542.3Application approved by Eastleigh Borough Council
Leeds Bradford4239132.2Application approved by council but paused by secretary of state
Bristol2946452.2Awaiting outcome of planning appeal following council rejection

Cost of emissions from departing flights (£m)Forecast price paid for traded emissions (£m)Proportion of climate cost paidImplied cost to wider society and taxpayer (£m)
Heathrow49,2137,40115.0%41,812
Gatwick9,1966346.9%8,562
Luton5,2311,36726.1%3,864
Manston5,1311,29225.2%3,840
Stansted2,40255923.3%1,843
Southampton95421222.2%742
Leeds Bradford91322024.1%693
Bristol64515123.4%494
Total:73,68511,83616.1%61,850

Source: NEF analysis of Department for Transport, and planning documents submitted by Gatwick airport, Luton airport, Manston airport, Southampton airport, Leeds Bradford airport, Bristol airport. *Emissions from Stansted airport have been adjusted as described in NEF, 2021.


See earlier:

 

Realistic cost of carbon emissions likely to make airport expansion plans unviable

The government’s new higher, more realistic, carbon values – putting a cost on carbon emissions from aviation – are likely to make many airport expansion schemes non-viable. The carbon value was increased in September, in an attempt to move towards “net zero” by 2050. The anticipated economic benefits will be drastically cut, if carbon emissions (and their negative impact on society and the planet) are costed properly. The planning law is currently inadequate and ambiguous, but campaigners hope planning authorities will take greater account of the impact of emissions on the economic case of proposed projects. The New Economics Foundation has found that the economic cases for 6 of the 7 major airport expansion proposals — including Heathrow and Gatwick — use either the old carbon value, or none at all.  As yet, planning law in England does not explicitly require carbon values to be used. But the relevant planning authority can demand they are included in applications.  If the anticipated outcome of Bristol’s appeal gave a “clear line” on carbon values, it is very likely to inform other airport expansion decisions.

Click here to view full story…

Public to foot £62bn bill for climate damage from airport expansions – which the aviation sector should pay for

Analysis by Alex Chapman, working for the New Economics Foundation (NEF) has found that in allowing airports around the country to expand, the government is letting the aviation industry off the hook for £62bn of damage to the climate. The amount of carbon that airports, and mainly aircraft, emit has a negative impact on the global climate – and thus to society.  Governments can put a figure on this cost, for each tonne of emitted carbon. In September 2021 the government increased the carbon value figure from around £70 per tonne to £245 per tonne (central value) for 2021 rising to £378 per tonne by 2050. The new NEF analysis found the aviation industry will only pay for 16% of the emissions clean-up costs of the 8 airport expansions currently moving through UK planning processes (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Bristol, Southampton, Leeds Bradford and Manston). The higher, more realistic, price for carbon makes these expansion schemes uneconomic, if the carbon is properly paid for.  The government does not have a comprehensive mechanism for recouping these costs from the aviation industry.

Click here to view full story…

.

BEIS sets new much higher prices for the valuation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in policy appraisal

The government (BEIS) sets the price it uses for the valuation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in policy appraisal. This has been updated in September following a cross-government review during 2020 and 2021. Greenhouse gas emissions values (“carbon values”) are used across government for valuing impacts on emissions resulting from policy interventions. They represent a monetary value that society places on one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (£/tCO2e). They differ from carbon prices, which represent the observed price of carbon in a relevant market (such as the UK Emissions Trading Scheme). To reach net zero in 2050 and meet UK 5-yearly carbon budgets, there needs to be a realistic value on GHG, in order to reduce emissions. The price has now been set, for 2021, at £245 per tonne (central value) rising to £378 per tonne by 2050. Even that may be too low. The prices now are around £70. This will have significant implications for the forecast economic costs/benefits of future infrastructure, such as airport expansion projects. The claimed economic benefits will be lower, with the realistic carbon prices, than the current low levels.  Airport expansion plans will need to be reassessed. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2021/09/beis-sets-new-much-higher-prices-for-the-valuation-of-greenhouse-gas-ghg-emissions-in-policy-appraisal/

Annex 1: Carbon values in £2020 prices per tonne of CO2

YearLow seriesCentral SeriesHigh Series
2020120241361
2021122245367
2022124248373
2023126252378
2024128256384
2025130260390
2026132264396
2027134268402
2028136272408
2029138276414
2030140280420
2031142285427
2032144289433
2033147293440
2034149298447
2035151302453
2036153307460
2037156312467
2038158316474
2039161321482
2040163326489
2041165331496
2042168336504
2043170341511
2044173346519
2045176351527
2046178356535
2047181362543
2048184367551
2049186373559
2050189378568

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal/valuation-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-policy-appraisal-and-evaluation

.

.

 

Read more »

Bristol local campaigners feel betrayed by Bristol Airport approval by the Planning Inspectorate

Despite huge opposition to the plans to expand Bristol airport, from a cap of 10 million annual passengers to 12 million, the plan was approved by the Planning Inspectorate on 2nd February, after an appeal by the airport to refusal by North Somerset Council. Residents and campaigners say that this decision flies in the face of the evidence that was presented to the inquiry by climate experts and local residents. It means about 20,000 more annual flights.  It also makes a mockery of the planning decision taken locally by North Somerset Council and the expressed opinions of the local MPs and surrounding councils. The voices of some 8,900 people who objected in writing to the proposals and the many thousands more who marched in solidarity against the plans has also been ignored in what is a terrible blow to local democracy and accountability.  The expansion would result in hugely more CO2 (at a time of climate crisis), more noise, more car journeys and road congestion. Stephen Clarke from Bristol Airport Action Network (BAAN) said: ” It means that the airport and the planning inspectorate have totally ignored the climate crisis we are currently in.”
.

 

LOCAL CAMPAIGNERS FEEL BETRAYED BY BRISTOL AIRPORT DECISION

3rd February 2022

From the Bristol Airport Action Network (BAAN)

The people in the region who are concerned about the environment were dismayed to hear that Bristol Airport’s plans to expand by two million passengers a year have been approved by the planning inspectorate after the recent three-month appeal inquiry in Weston-super-Mare.

Residents and campaigners are saying that this decision really flies in the face of the evidence that was presented to the inquiry by climate experts and local residents. It also makes a mockery of the planning decision taken locally by North Somerset Council and the expressed opinions of the local MPs and surrounding councils. The voices of some 8,900 people who objected in writing to the proposals and the many thousands more who marched in solidarity against the plans has also been ignored in what is a terrible blow to local democracy and accountability.

So what does this decision mean?

Stephen Clarke from Bristol Airport Action Network (BAAN) said:

‘It means that the owners of Bristol Airport , the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, can now start to put in place their plans to have more than 20,000 extra planes a year to fly into the airport; this will lead to massive amounts of extra carbon in the delicate high atmosphere, an extra 10,000 plus car journeys on the congested roads around the airport and many extra night flights disturbing the sleep of local residents. It means that the airport and the planning inspectorate have totally ignored the climate crisis we are currently in. Some of the promises that were made at COP26 climate talks in Glasgow only a couple of months ago have already been broken and the members of BAAN are outraged at this decision.

This is not the end of the story though; BAAN consider that the process and the decision taken may well have been unlawful under national and international law and we are taking legal advice to see what action can be taken to stop this self-destructive development’.

Tarisha Finnegan Clarke also from BAAN said:

‘Bristol Airport (BA) are certainly world-class at one thing; Greenwash! That is, they say they care about the local community and the ecological crisis whilst all the time they go against the communities wishes and increase harmful toxic emissions. They say that electric and hydrogen planes will save the day, despite the contrary evidence from scientists and engineers. They claim to be net-zero but they don’t include the emissions from the aircraft in their calculations. They even say people will be healthier if this expansion is allowed to go ahead (see the transcripts of the inquiry!). 

It is unforgivable that the Government’s Inspectorate has been apparently taken in by Bristol Airport’s self-serving lies and exaggerations. Nothing will be healthier because of this expansion other than the airport’s wallet. 

We will continue to fight these damaging plans on behalf of local residents and those suffering from the effects of climate change nationally & around the globe.’ 

Richard Baxter from BAAN and Bristol Greenpeace said:

‘Last November, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson warned world leaders at the COP26 climate summit that it is now “one minute to midnight” in the race to prevent global heating from surpassing a critical threshold. He called for immediate action yet he presides over a government that is seriously failing UK citizens in tackling the problem. 

Reducing carbon emissions is an urgent priority over the next decade for all sectors of industry and it needs to start now, not in several years time in the hope that technology and offsetting emissions will do the trick. Bristol Airport is gambling with our long term future in return for short-term profits. We feel the odds are against them achieving their flimsy promises. The only sure way to reduce carbon emissions this decade and achieve local and national targets is to operate less flights.’

ENDS


Notes for Editors

Bristol Airport Action Network (BAAN) comprises of members of local Extinction Rebellion groups who have been campaigning against the airport for over three years.  They were a Rule 6 party of the 10-week long planning inquiry which was initiated when Bristol Airport appealed following the rejection of their application to expand to cater for 2million extra passengers per year.

For further information contact Stephen Clarke on 07876 740864 or Richard Baxter on 07795 435576

BAAN Website:  https://bristolairportactionnetwork.wordpress.com/

Bristol Airport Action Network – BAAN  on Twitter at   @baancc
.

See earlier:

Bristol Airport expansion allowed by Planning Inspectorate, on appeal – called “devastating” by opponents

The 36-day public inquiry into Bristol Airport’s proposal to expand from 10 to 12 mppa, and add thousands more car parking spaces, took place in September and October 2021. Now the Planning Inspectorate have announced their decision to allow the appeal by the airport against refusal by North Somerset Council. This has been condemned as devastating by opponents and extremely disappointing by local councillors. North Somerset Council leader Don Davies said the decision “flies in the face of local democracy”.  His authority had given sound planning grounds for refusing permission in February 2020, and warned that the detrimental effect of the airport expansion of the airport locally – as well as the wider climate impacts – outweighed the narrower benefits,  which would be almost entirely the commercial interests of the owners, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan..  The plan to expand the airport was opposed by thousands of residents, as well as Bristol City Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council and the West of England Combined Authority. Don Davies said the council is seeing if there are any grounds for challenging the PI ruling.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.


Read more »

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.