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 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 London’s 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.
.
Tweet
Higher cost of carbon emissions threatens UK airport expansion plans
Campaigners and lawyers expect greater scrutiny of larger projects after government tripled value of official benchmark
By Camilla Hodgson and Philip Georgiadis (Financial Times)
27.1.2022
Tougher planning rules designed to help curb climate change are threatening the viability of UK airport expansion plans, which have become a battleground for campaigners who oppose growth of the aviation industry.
New runways or terminal buildings are increasingly at risk from legal challenges on environmental grounds, according to lawyers, with one arcane metric offering activists a potential new weapon: the rising cost of carbon emissions.
Campaigners are hoping that planning authorities will take greater account of the impact of emissions on the economic case of proposed projects.
The government in September more than tripled the so-called “carbon value” — the official benchmark that puts a price on the emissions associated with a scheme — to reflect the country’s net zero 2050 commitment.
Yet the economic cases for six of the seven major airport expansion proposals — including London’s Heathrow and Gatwick — use either the old value, or none at all, according to the New Economics Foundation, a leftwing think-tank.
The NEF, which is highly critical of airport expansion on climate grounds, warned in a recent report that the increase in carbon values — the central price rose from £77 to £245 per tonne of carbon — meant the environmental impact of these projects had been “dramatically underestimated”.
Sarah Fitzpatrick, a partner and head of the planning team at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said the aviation sector’s role as a polluter was coming under greater scrutiny. “Assessment of carbon values, and non-CO2 based emissions that contribute to climate change, are likely to be very important when promoters of airport expansion proposals are assessing their projects and seeking consent.”
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.
Estelle Dehon, an environmental specialist at Cornerstone Barristers, said the increase in carbon values was “potentially devastating” for airport enlargements. Given that the economic benefits and climate impacts of airport expansions were “central” to applications, “it’s difficult to see any cogent justification for not using [them]”, she said.
Failure to use up-to-date carbon values “could conceivably give rise to a legal error and accordingly increase the risk of litigation”, said Sam Hunter Jones, a senior lawyer at environmental group ClientEarth.
The proposed expansion of Bristol airport, in south-west England, is seen as a test case. North Somerset council rejected the application in 2020, noting that the developer’s analysis had ignored carbon values. The latest metric was included in an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, a government agency, early last year, with a decision still pending.
Campaigners and lawyers are watching the Bristol case closely, including those opposed to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport, whose application did not include carbon values. The government this month ordered a public inquiry into the expansion plans of the airport in West Yorkshire.
“The lack of clarity at the heart of the planning law, in relation to climate change especially, allows every player to justify their chosen position,” said Ian Coatman, secretary of the Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport, which opposes the expansion plans.
During its appeal, for example, Bristol airport argued that the use of carbon values would lead to double counting as the aviation sector was already regulated under the UK emissions trading scheme, which requires companies to buy allowances to pollute.
Dehon said that if the outcome of Bristol’s appeal gave a “clear line” on carbon values it was very likely to inform other airport expansion decisions. The UK government’s airport policy, which predates the UK’s net zero targets but helps guide planning decisions, requires applicants to “provide evidence of the carbon impact of the project”.
When Bristol resubmitted its plans for the appeal, using the updated values, the carbon cost of the project rose to £623m, reducing its net benefits to £502m, North Somerset council said. The original cost-benefit analysis had a figure of £1.6bn.
The airport declined to comment but in its appeal it said the economic benefits of the plan remained “strong”.
Several airport executives said they had long expected emissions targets to become tougher — but that the economic benefits of expanding would still outweigh the environmental costs, particularly as the industry has promised to lower its emissions. The aviation industry has pledged to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 by adopting new technologies.
If the new values were applied to the controversial expansion of London’s Heathrow airport, the UK’s main hub, the NEF calculated they would double the carbon cost to about £100bn.
The airport received approval from the government to proceed with a third runway at the end of 2020 after a lengthy court battle. But it still has to obtain planning permission if it decides to push ahead.
Heathrow insisted it would still have a strong economic case for expansion even if it used the September value. “We have always known that we will have to prove that a new runway is compatible with the UK’s net zero target,” it said.
The NEF’s assessment suggested there were even more serious implications for expansion plans at London’s Gatwick airport. It found that using the updated carbon value would “wipe out the majority of the benefit claimed by Gatwick”, according to Alex Chapman, the report’s author.
In response, the airport said it was “assessing” what the new carbon price meant for its plans but that it did not anticipate that adopting them would mean the project was “not necessary or not consentable”.
https://www.ft.com/content/27394452-448b-4fac-a417-1cdeb925e5a7
.
.
See also
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…
and earlier:
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.
.
Bristol Airport awaits decision on expansion as inquiry draws to a close
The 36-day public inquiry into Bristol Airport’s proposal to expand from 10 to 12 mppa has ended, with a decision by the planning inspectors expected early next year. The inquiry is into the appeal by the airport of the rejection in February 2020, by North Somerset Council, of the growth plans; councillors refused the planning permission by 18 votes to seven. The authority’s barrister, Reuben Taylor, said allowing millions more passengers a year to fly from Bristol airport would affect thousands more local people with significant impacts, as well as a negative effect on climate change and the green belt. Mr Taylor said the scheme was unacceptable and unlawful and urged the inspectors to make it clear to airport operators that they do not have a licence to expand. He said the airport “is a company that puts the pursuit of profit before the wellbeing of the people its operations affect.” As well as being refused by North Somerset Council, the expansion has been opposed by Bristol City Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council, the West of England Combined Authority and numerous parish councils. There will be a decision letter eventually, after which there is no further right of appeal – other than a judicial review into the process.
Click here to view full story…
.
.
.
.
.