Air Quality
News about aviation and air quality
AEF damning assessment of Heathrow recommendation and its environmental impacts
The AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) is the main group in the UK assessing UK aviation policy for its environment impacts, with several decades of expertise. They have had a first look at the government's Heathrow decision, and are underwhelmed. Some of their comments: On CO2 the DfT says that keeping UK carbon emissions to within the 37.5 MtCO2 cap while adding a Heathrow runway effectively cannot be done. AEF says the DfT now has no commitment to the 37.5 MtCO2 cap, and just includes vague references to the ICAO global carbon offsetting scheme for aviation agreed this month, and to potential efficiencies arising from better air traffic management -though both measures are (effectively) already taken into account in the CCC’s modelling. On air pollution, the DfT says “a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place, in line with the ‘National air quality plan’, published in December 2015.” But AEF says Government appears to have little idea what those mitigation measures will be, and the deliverability of the plan has already, therefore, been questioned through the courts. And on noise AEF says the noise impact will depend heavily on the precise location of flight paths, which are unknown.
Click here to view full story...
Environment Audit Cttee will be calling Ministers to give evidence on Heathrow runway environmental impacts
The Environment Audit Committee has announced (already) that, after the government's announcement that it backs a Heathrow runway, it will be calling Ministers to scrutinise how environmental concerns are being mitigated. The EAC has scrutinised the Airports Commission in the past, on environmental problems of a Heathrow runway. The EAC wants assurances from the Government that a new runway will comply with key environmental conditions. Mary Creagh MP, Chair of the Committee, said it would be necessary to look at what the runway means for local residents, on air quality and noise standards and also on carbon emissions. She said: ..."we need a clear plan to reduce emissions from aviation to meet our climate change targets. ... The Government must ensure that current legal EU air pollution limits are retained after we leave, to protect the health and wellbeing of local people. We wait to hear what the airport's plans are for covering the costs of local transport. ... On noise we welcome Heathrow’s announcement that it will accept a ban on night flights. Ministers must ensure that local communities receive predictable respite from planes flying over their homes." The EAC report, published in November 2015, called upon the Government and Heathrow to demonstrate how issues were to be dealt with. They are not persuaded by the replies.
Click here to view full story...
Government decides on new runway at Heathrow – with no certainty on air pollution, noise or CO2
The government has made its announcement that it backs a 3rd runway at Heathrow, using the north west option (not the extended northern runway). It has decided to entirely follow the recommendation of the Airports Commission, by backing one runway only. The statement from Chris Grayling is on the DfT website, with a list of supporting documents. The government glosses over details of how it could ensure the runway did not cause worse air pollution, or worse noise, or higher CO2 emissions. Neither the DfT statement, nor Chris Grayling's contributions in the House, give any clarity or reassurances on most of the problems that a 3rd runway will create. There will be a consultation, starting in early 2017, on the National Policy Statement, which has to be agreed by both House of Parliament before Heathrow could go ahead with the planning stages for its runway. The government's statements say things like: "Despite the increase in flights Heathrow Airport Ltd has made firm commitments to noise reduction. The government will propose that a six-and-a-half hour ban on scheduled night flights ..." And "the government proposes new legally binding noise targets, encouraging the use of quieter planes, and a more reliable and predictable timetable of respite for those living under the final flight path." And new work "confirms that a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place"..... ie. vague waffly aspirations, with zero practical details.
Click here to view full story...
Cameron aide said government was “exposed on Heathrow” over air quality and “did not have the answers”
A memo sent by a Downing Street policy advisor, to David Cameron in September 2015 shows that the government were aware of the air pollution problem at Heathrow. The advisor, Camilla Cavendish, wrote that the air pollution plans by Liz Truss (then Environment Secretary) were inadequate and would not restrict the levels of NO2 around Heathrow. Camilla said: “There are three problems with Liz’s clean air plan as currently written. First it is still very much a draft which quotes initiatives that are likely to be abolished … Second it both over-claims and underwhelms. ... It says we want the cleanest air in the world but does not even begin to tackle the fundamental question of how we might help people to shift away from diesel cars. Third, it leaves us exposed on Heathrow where we don’t yet have an answer on air quality.” Cameron said in December 2015 that the government would undertake more work on the Heathrow air pollution issue. Defra published its national air quality plan in December 2015 with no mention of Heathrow and has not said more on this publicly since. Cavendish, who is now a Conservative peer, has now said she believes "successive governments have failed the public on air quality. Too many people in Whitehall and parliament think they can play it down because it’s invisible."
Click here to view full story...
New research on Heathrow meeting air pollution standards with 3rd runway is highly speculative and not convincing
The BBC published a story about work, funded by NERC and led by a Cambridge professor, on Heathrow air pollution levels. The work is ongoing and not yet published, but the BBC made the claim that it showed a Heathrow 3rd runway would not breach NO2 levels. The timing of the story by the BBC, one or two weeks before it is expected the Cabinet will make an announcement, may be due to Heathrow manipulation. The study in reality is looking at modelling of future air pollution, based on a range of assumptions - nothing new. Its projections are only as good as its modelling inputs. If assumptions that vehicles will rapidly convert to lower-NO2 engines, or the uptake of electric vehicles will be fast, then forecasts of NO2 can be low. But this is highly speculative. Cait Hewitt, deputy director of the AEF, said: “The assumption would have to be that, over the next decade, we’d move from having something like 57% of London’s vehicles being diesel vehicles to instead having ultra-clean electric vehicles throughout the capital. There just isn’t evidence to suggest that’s going to happen.” Client Earth's CEO James Thornton said: “When making the decision on Heathrow the government has a moral and legal duty to protect people’s health and ensure they have the right to breathe clean air. It shouldn’t base its decision on optimistic modelling at best and a naive view of the car industry that has proven time and time again it can’t be trusted to bring levels of air pollution down." The study did not look at increases in road traffic, or what proportion would be associated with the new runway.
Click here to view full story...
Academic research funded by NERC looking at better scientific data on Heathrow area NO2 pollution
The NERC (National Environment Research Centre) has funded independent research by a group of university academics into the NO2 air pollution. Heathrow has not paid for it. They have been using a larger number of pollution sensors, in different places, to contribute scientific data on levels of air pollution. They hope to be able to distinguish between NO2 from Heathrow itself, and from road traffic or that blown in from elsewhere. At several sites, the levels of NO2 are already above EU limits (40 µg/m3 over a year). The aim of the research is to test models to ensure they accord with reality. Past work done for the Airports Commission relied on estimates, whereas this latest work used more accurate, real-world measurements. The research is ongoing and there is no report yet, but it is likely that in a month or so the findings will be submitted to one or other journal, for peer review before publication. The study is on NO2 and has not looked at particulates in the same detail. One of the authors said the study does not say anything new - it is merely looking at the situation in an independent, purely scientific way, rather than (as has been done in the past) just extrapolating and predicting by modelling. The existence of the work, is being interpreted by others (like the BBC) to mean that air pollution from road vehicles will reduce (less NO2 from new diesels, and there will be more electric vehicles) in future, so a 3rd Heathrow runway might not lead to illegal NO2 levels. The authors say they have just done research - interpretation is for others.
Click here to view full story...
Research indicates minute particles of magnetite from car pollution in human brain tissue
Recent research by Lancaster University indicates that as well as heart and lung effects of air pollution, tiny particles of pollution appear to get inside brain tissue. Called "nanospheres", the particles are less than 200 nanometres in diameter - by comparison, a human hair is at least 50,000 nanometres thick. They are made of magnetite, which is a compound of iron and appear to come from car engines or braking systems. These magnetite particles may be small enough to pass from the nose into the olfactory bulb and then via the nervous system into the frontal cortex of the brain. Iron is a very reactive metal, so it is likely they will cause oxidative damage in brain tissue. It is already known that oxidative damage contributes to brain damage in Alzheimer's patients. It is not known whether these particles could contribute to dementia, but there might be plausible mechanisms for a link. The research, published in the PNAS, analysed samples of brain tissue from 37 people - 29 who had lived and died in Mexico City, a notorious pollution hotspot, and who were aged from 3 to 85. The other 8 came from Manchester, were aged 62-92 and some had died with varying severities of neurodegenerative disease. The particles issue is yet another reason not to permit vehicle pollution levels to rise, for public health.
Click here to view full story...
Grayling gives consent for M4 to have hard shoulder converted into 4th lane, over 32 miles
Plans to convert the M4 hard shoulder (both directions) into a 4th lane of traffic have been given the go-ahead by Chris Grayling, Transport Secretary, for the Government. The proposals would see a 32-mile stretch of the M4 widened from three to four lanes from Hayes, west London, to Theale, Berkshire. That goes all the way past Heathrow, where there is already a serious air pollution problem. This stretch of road, from junction three to 12, would also be subject to variable speed limits under the scheme. Chris Grayling said there is a "critical need to improve the existing national road network" and the plans will "increase capacity, improve traffic flow and reduce journey times, thereby supporting economic development". Environmental and transport groups are outraged at the decision and claim having no hard shoulder will be a hazard for motorists. There are concerns about breakdowns, with no hard shoulder and more risk to breakdown operatives when trying to assist motorists by the road. The loss of the hard shoulder has been criticised as expanding motorways on the cheap, instead of investment in alternative options, including better rail. Jenny Bates, of Friends of the Earth, said the move will lead to more traffic, more NO2 air pollution where levels already break legal health limits - this just increases traffic without solving congestion.
Click here to view full story...
Government (Chris Grayling and Sajid Javid) approve expansion of London City airport
The Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, and Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, have announced they are allowing the expansion programme at London City Airport. The plans are for an extended terminal, new aircraft taxiway and parking spaces for planes, which will enable more, larger, noisier planes to use the airport. The government is hoping this is a symbol of Britain "being open for business" and increasing connections with Europe, at a time of great fears about the impact of Brexit. With government fears for the economy, they are trumpeting the expansion as creating "1,600 airport jobs for staff, together with 500 construction jobs" and huge benefits to the economy. All three ministers made extravagant and excited statements about the positive impact of this expansion. Boris Johnson earlier turned it down on grounds of unacceptable noise levels for Londoners. Hacan East, the local campaign, is very concerned indeed about the noise. They say residents will now face a double whammy. Earlier this year, in February, London City concentrated all its flight paths, and now the people under these flight paths face the prospect of more and larger planes.” Cait Hewitt, from the Aviation Environment Federation, said: "It is hard to see how an increase in aircraft and in passengers travelling to and from London City can be compatible with the Mayor’s ambitious plans to tackle air pollution in London."
Click here to view full story...
Brexit vote causes anxiety about weakening of UK environmental regulation
In the wake of the Brexit vote, there has been speculation about the effect of the UK leaving the EU on environmental regulations. The lawyers, ClientEarth, fear that environmental protections may be weakened, and ask politicians of all parties "to affirm their commitment to strong UK environmental laws and to guarantee united action on climate change, despite our upcoming exit from the EU." Client Earth says many of the laws they use to ensure that nature and health are protected in Britain were drawn up with the UK’s agreement in Brussels. During the referendum campaign, no one made clear which environmental laws would be kept. ClientEarth have taken action on air pollution, but Brexit could mean air quality laws, with which the UK has failed to comply, could be weakened or scrapped. Taking action through the courts may be harder. Some of the key legislation for aviation has been developed at a national level, independently of the EU, most notably the Climate Change Act (2008). Maintaining full access to the Single Market may, in any case, require the UK to demonstrate compliance with EU environmental legislation, including having to abide by the Environmental Noise Directive and Ambient Air Quality Directive. Brussels-based green NGOs have urged the European Commission to push on with its 2030 climate legislation – despite the uncertainty in the wake of the UK Brexit vote.