COP26: airport campaigners to protest at 10 UK airports, against aviation expansion and greenwash
To remind everyone, during the COP26 talks in Glasgow, that aviation is a huge climate problem, aviation campaigners are planning to protest at Bristol, Doncaster-Sheffield, Gatwick, Glasgow, Leeds-Bradford, London-City, Luton, Liverpool, Manchester and Southampton airports from 11am on Saturday 6th. The action has been organised by Stay Grounded (a global network of more than 160 member organisations promoting alternatives to aviation to address climate change) – as part of the COP26 Coalition Global Action Days. Stay Grounded and the many UK protests, are calling for the halt of airport expansion. The Climate Change Committee (CCC), the UK government’s advisors, have recommended that there should be no further airport expansion, unless some airport capacity closes – but government has ignored this. Stay Grounded is also asking for an end to the “greenwashing” of aviation, and false hopes being placed in uncertain techno-fixes such as “sustainable” aviation fuel (SAF). The CCC has warned that SAF and other small technology changes will not be able to reduce aviation CO2 enough.
.
Tweet
COP26: CLIMATE ACTIVISTS TO TARGET 10 UK AIRPORTS THIS WEEKEND TO PROTEST EXPANSION
‘Any emissions reductions from technological developments will be eaten up by plans for expansion of the sector,’ says Safe Landing
By Helen Coffey (The Independent)
3.11.2021
Climate activists will target 10 UK airports this weekend to protest proposed expansion.
Campaigners are planning to protest at Bristol, Doncaster-Sheffield, Gatwick, Glasgow, Leeds-Bradford, London-City, Luton, Liverpool, Manchester and Southampton airports from 11am on Saturday.
The action has been organised by Stay Grounded – a global network of more than 160 member organisations promoting alternatives to aviation to address climate change – as part of the COP26 Coalition Global Action Days, and is calling for the halt of airport expansion and for an end to the “greenwashing” of aviation.
Recommendations from the government advisory body the Climate Change Committee (CCC) stipulate that there should be no further expansion of airport capacity in the UK if the country is to meet its emissions targets.
The CCC has warned that techno-fixes alone, such as Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF), will not be enough to hit net zero in the aviation industry by 2050.
But politicians have consistently refused to endorse any reduction in flights, or any restraint on further aviation growth.
Speaking ahead of a UN climate conference earlier this year, MP Rachel Maclean – the minister in charge of government policy on the future of transport and decarbonisation – said flying was one of the things that “make life worth living” and that the government would not place any restrictions on the aviation industry.
“We warn that trusting yet-to-be-developed technology to reduce climate damaging emissions is extremely risky,” said Ray Stewart from Stay Grounded UK.
“Instead we demand that immediate action is taken to prevent any expansion of flying and associated emissions growth.
“Just one return flight from London to New York emits as much greenhouse gas as the average UK household does in a whole year.”
Finlay Asher, an aircraft engine designer who now leads aviation workers’ initiative Safe Landing, added: “Any emissions reductions from technological developments will be eaten up by plans for expansion of the sector. Growth is the problem.
“That’s why no airport should be allowed to expand.”
Airlines are increasingly committing to becoming “greener” by using technology such as Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) – however, these will account for 10 per cent of aviation fuel, at most, by 2030, and SAFs emit at least as much CO2 inflight as conventional kerosene.
.
See earlier:
DfT consultation on mandate for very high SAF use by UK aviation in coming years
The government put out it “Jet Zero” consultation on 16th July (runs to 8th September) including aspirations for the industry to use a great deal of “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAF) in the attempt to keep everyone flying, but with lower carbon emissions. Now it has produced its consultation on mandating (instructing, ordering) the use of SAF in future for the sector (runs to 19th September). While the Climate Change Committee, in their advice to government in December 2020, said the most realistic estimate for SAF would be 5-10% by 2050, or at the most optimistic 25%, and with “just over two-thirds of this coming from biofuels and the remainder from carbon-neutral synthetic jet fuel …” Now the SAF mandate consultation is considering “a number of potential SAF uptake scenarios, up to 10% SAF by 2030 and up to 75% SAF by 2050.” They are considering the fossil fuel baseline lifecycle GHG emissions intensity, by which to compare SAF for CO2 savings, as 89 gCO2e/MJ. An eligible new fuel would need to have CO2 savings of at least 60% compared to 89 gCO2e/MJ. They are considering the use of nuclear generated electricity as a way to make eligible SAF. And “feedstocks, including residues, should not be obtained from land with high biodiversity value or land with high carbon stocks in or after January 2008.”
Click here to view full story…
SAF competing for fuel feedstocks will have negative impacts on many other sectors
The aviation industry, and its enthusiastic backers like the UK government, are keen to claim the problem of the sector’s vast carbon emissions can be solved, fairly soon, by SAF (“sustainable aviation fuels”). They agree these should not come directly from agricultural crops, competing with human food and animal fodder for land. They will instead come (as well as fuels produced using electricity) from agricultural, forestry and domestic wastes. These would be the feedstocks. But there are significant problems, so far apparently overlooked by governments etc, about competing uses for those feedstocks. There are already markets for used cooking oil, and it can all be used for animal food, or in other industries. Taking crop wastes off the land not only means lower organic matter returned to the soil, reducing its structure and fertility, but also its removal for other uses – such as for animal bedding. There are competing uses for forestry waste, such as the paper and pulp industry. Feedstocks could be used to make diesel for road vehicles, or burned to produce electricity. So if aviation wants these feedstocks, there will be competition and higher prices for other sectors. These problems should not be ignored in the mindlessly optimistic rush for the illusion of “jet zero”.
Click here to view full story…
.
.
.