Suffolk and Essex: MP Tim Yeo stands firm on Stansted expansion (cf. Heathrow)
Now here’s a surprise. Tim Yeo, having got himself a not of (not all positive) publicity with his comments on the PM, a mouse, and a 3rd runway at Heathrow, has come under fire for his opposite stance on a shelved plan for expansion at Stansted. He says he remains opposed to a 2nd runway for Stansted. which lies close to his South Suffolk constituency. Tim Yeo appears not to understand that the ETS is not likely to stop aviation emissions from rising, though he is Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. Details below. He claims the ETS will force airlines to use more environmentally friendly planes if they want to use new capacity at Heathrow (based on no evidence). Those wanting Stansted expansion are frustrated by Tim Yeo. Stansted currently cannot fill its existing runway, and has had shrinking passenger numbers for years. But an airport spokesman said “… there do appear to be some inconsistencies in Mr Yeo’s position”…
Suffolk and Essex: MP Tim Yeo stands firm on Stansted expansion
By Sarah Chambers
August 31, 2012 (EADT 24)
East Anglia Daily Times
A SUFFOLK MP at the centre of a media furore this week over his controversial support for a third runway at Heathrow airport has come under fire for his opposite stance on a shelved plan for expansion at Stansted.
Tim Yeo says he remains opposed to a second runway for Stansted the Essex airport, which lies close to his South Suffolk constituency.
Mr Yeo was previously a high profile opponent of Heathrow expansion but he now argues European Union carbon emissions caps will force airlines to use more environmentally friendly planes if they want to use new capacity at the airport. [Why Tim Yeo is wrong on ETS – Details below. ]
Having a hub airport enabled Britain to remain competitive with Germany and France in relation to connections with Asia, but this could not be achieved by developing Stansted, he said.
But Terry Farthing, managing director of Airport Lettings, an Essex-based residential property management and letting firm, said: “It is frustrating to hear that Tim Yeo now supports a new runway at Heathrow but remains steadfastly against growth at Stansted. His change of mind on Heathrow is based on environmental considerations but he seems to ignore the fact that Stansted has one of the best records on reducing its impact on the environment of any airport in the world.
“During what continues to be a challenging time economically for firms across the East of England, we have to look at ways to bring new business to our region. That is why Stansted has such a key role, that is why business continues to back the airport and its plans and that is why we need consistency from people like Tim.”
Stansted’s media head Mark Davison said: “We don’t want to reopen the debate about the second runway at Stansted as this is a question which needs to be addressed by Government when forming its aviation policy, due to be unveiled next year.
“However, on the face of it, there do appear to be some inconsistencies in Mr Yeo’s position as his opposition to a second runway at Stansted was based on environmental impacts.”
Suffolk Chamber chief executive John Dugmore said Stansted was a key economic driver of the regional economy.
“Although we are pleased that airport expansion is back on the Government’s agenda, it is vital that business hears consistent messages from our Members of Parliament and from Government about those future plans,” he said.
“There is no doubt the debate around Stansted will continue as the Government moves towards a review of its policy.”
David Burch of Essex Chambers said: “Essex Chambers believe that the Government needs to publish its aviation strategy at the earliest opportunity looking at all options, particularly in the south east, including a third runway at Heathrow. Demand for aviation remains strong and we do not see any conflict between developing Heathrow further and expanding services at Stansted, with or without a second runway. Stansted is a highly successful business and we urge both the Government and its eventual new owners to recognise its importance to the UK and Essex economies.”
Why Tim Yeo is wrong about carbon emissions from UK aviation being controlled by the ETS (Carbon Briefing)
August 30, 2012 This piece from the Carbon Brief sets out how the carbon emissions from UK aviation are dealt with by the ETS, and why Tim Yeo (and others promoting huge expansion of UK air travel, beyond the limit recommended by the Committee on Climate Change), have got it wrong. Besides the apparent misunderstanding about the failings of the ETS, Yeo also suggested that that if the UK were to increase its airport capacity, carriers would be more likely to send their newer, more efficient planes to Heathrow. Carbon Brief explains that this would not happen as there doesn’t seem to be any reason why airlines would send their newest planes to the UK over other EU destinations. If the ETS works as it is meant to, the price of carbon permits would go up, so the cost of flying would go up. And the UK would have to either cut down on aviation demand (very unlikely) or overstep its emissions cap, as no government would be popular if it tried to ration air travel. Click here to view full story…
Environmental case for Heathrow expansion is as weak as ever. Why Tim Yeo is wrong on aviation and the EU ETS (BusinessGreen)
August 29, 2012 This is an article from BusinessGreen, with a good and clear explanation of why Tim Yeo is utterly wrong with his pronouncements on aviation and the ETS. You would have thought someone who is Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee should know this. The ETS cannot and will not prevent aviation emissions from rising, because of the current weakness and failures of the ETS, meaning it does not work properly, largely as the carbon price is too low and dubious credits are imported from outside. However, supposing the ETS did work perfectly, it would drive up the cost of flying hugely as permits become scarce and expensive as carbon cuts are harder and harder for other sectors to make. There would then be no need for more runways as demand would fall greatly. So no need for a new Heathrow runway, or a new airport. Unless planes could become virtually zero carbon – of which there is no current prospect. Click here to view full story…