This website is no longer actively maintained

For up-to-date information on the campaigns it represents please visit:

No Airport Expansion! is a campaign group that aims to provide a rallying point for the many local groups campaigning against airport expansion projects throughout the UK.

Visit No Airport Expansion! website

Climate Change News

Below are news items on climate change – many with relevance to aviation

Heathrow NPS – summary of the main (probably) insuperable obstacles the runway faces

The government hopes to get a 3rd Heathrow runway approved, but it realises there are a large number of massive obstacles. The purpose of the NPS (National Policy Statement) consultation is to attempt to persuade the country, and particularly the MPs who must ultimately vote on it, that these obstacles can be successfully overcome. At present, there are no apparent solutions to many of the problems. Below are some very brief outlines of what some of the insuperable hurdles are - and why the government is a very long way from resolving the difficulties. The issues listed here are the three main environmental issues - noise, carbon emissions, and air pollution. The economics is complicated, but there is a note on that too. When Chris Grayling makes bland PR statements about the runway, or the papers regurgitate undigested blurb from the DfT, it may be useful to remember how very thin some of these statement are, and how far the government would have to go, in order to find even partial solutions.

Click here to view full story...

Government facing legal action by Client Earth over progress failure towards carbon targets

Lawyers from Client Earth say ministers have been in breach of legal requirements to come up with a plan to make major cuts to the UK’s fossil fuel emissions. The Government is facing legal action due to its failure to come up with a plan to adequately cut UK CO2 emissions, to meet the UK’s international commitments on climate change. Britain has agreed to cut emissions by 57% by 2032. However it is currently nowhere near meeting that goal, and it is likely to miss the target by 100 million tonnes of CO2 [out of around 1,700 MtCO2] . The UK's Emissions Reduction Plan should have been ready at the end of 2016, but this was first put off until February and then again to the end of March. It now seems even the March date is in doubt, though it is thought the climate minister, Nick Hurd, is keen to get it done. The delay is by officials at BEIS and other departments, including Transport. Client Earth has said if the Plan is not published by end of March, they could go to court. Barry Gardiner, Shadow climate minster, believes neither the officials nor the minister know when the Plan will be produced, or how to meet the targets. One of the difficult sectors is transport emissions. [The fact the government is trying to get a Heathrow runway through, with no strategy on aviation CO2, is presumably part of their difficulties].

Click here to view full story...

Government likely to ignore climate advice by CCC, turning just to carbon trading, to try to push Heathrow runway through

Chris Grayling and the government plan to ignore the assessment of the government’s own independent climate advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, on how to manage the CO2 emissions from a 3 runway Heathrow. The Environmental Audit Committee wrote to Grayling on 19th December, asking how he planned to square the CO2 emissions and the CCC advice with DfT plans. His response shows there is no way it can be done, and building the 3rd runway means not meeting the UK aviation cap - recommended by the CCC - of 37.5MtCO2 by 2050, meaning about 60% passenger growth above 2005 level. Grayling says ministers “have not taken a view on whether to accept the CCC’s planning assumption,” ie. rejecting the advice. He goes on to note that “a future global carbon market would allow emissions reductions to be made where they are most efficient across the global economy”. Then he says “measures are available” even if the aviation sector grows by more than 60%. This goes against the CCC’s own calculation that these levels of growth would mean "all other sectors will have to prepare for correspondingly higher emissions reductions in 2050.” Grayling hopes carbon trading will cut emissions - but in reality there are no effective carbon trading mechanisms that would do this well enough.

Click here to view full story...

Lobby group Airlines UK publishes report with its hopes of reducing aviation CO2

The problem of UK aviation carbon emissions is a very real one, for which the UK has no real solution. The lobbying body for the airline industry, Airlines UK, has produced a report, with the intention of persuading the government etc that it can keep carbon emissions low, while growing the numbers of planes, and a passengers, fast and for years to come. They pin their hopes on slight changes to airspace management, making routes a few miles shorter; also newer models of planes that burn slightly less fuel per passenger kilometre; higher load factors - and the inevitable white elephant of "sustainable" biofuels. The report looked at the emissions from 2006 to 2014, which covered the recession. It also covered the period of high fuel prices, when airlines had a huge incentive on cost to achieve higher load factors. Intense competition keeps load factors up. But these gains are the "low hanging fruit" of carbon savings, and once used up, will not persist into continuous savings. If number of flights and passengers increase, once the effects airspace changes, load factor improvements and new planes have worked through, carbon emissions from aviation will continue to rise. See the comment by AEF. A short term stabilisation is welcome, but it would be ill-advised to presume this will continue for long. Ultimately the only "solution" will be off-setting, from other sectors (and/or unlikely biofuels).

Click here to view full story...

Climate change will lead to more turbulence, more fuel use and more insurance cost

Climate change will lead to bumpier flights caused by increased mid-air turbulence, according to an analysis by scientists, at the University of Reading. This could hit insurers by making plane journeys bumpier, It could also make flights longer, as planes need to fly round areas of turbulence - itself causing higher fuel use and carbon emissions (helping to increase climate change). Research has shown that planes travelling from Europe to North America could face an increased chance of hitting turbulence by as much as 170% later this century. This is because climate change will strengthen instabilities within the jet stream – a high-altitude wind blowing from west to east across the Atlantic Ocean. The turbulence could also be up to 40% stronger. The work is part of a wider body of research by University of Reading into the interaction of aviation and atmospheric physics. This includes the extra non-CO2 impacts of aviation due to contrails, formed behind aircraft flying at high altitude, which also adds to global warming by adding to cloud cover, preventing heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. The extra problems from turbulence might lead to more passenger injuries, and more damage to planes, affecting the insurance industry. Longer journeys could increase flight times and delays, an increase ticket prices.

Click here to view full story...

Gatwick’s carbon neutral commitment using renewable electricity excludes 99% of emissions

Gatwick Airport says it has joined more than 80 global companies in a programme to generate a “massive increase” in the demand for renewable electricity. It says it has been buying 100% renewable electricity since 2013, and it has plans for its airport operations to become ‘carbon neutral’ by the spring. That is all good - better if the airport's buildings etc are as low carbon as possible. But this entirely ignores the massive carbon emissions of the flights using the airport - which Gatwick wants to increase as much as it can. AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) commented that while welcoming the use of renewable electricity, Gatwick's use is just for airport infrastructure and vehicles. "The planes that fly out of Gatwick are still powered by fossil fuels and will remain so for decades to come. Around 99% of the emissions associated with Gatwick are not from the airport itself but from the aircraft that use it. If you take into account emissions from departing planes, Gatwick has the second highest level of CO2 emissions of any airport in the UK, and this level is set to grow even though the airport was not the Government’s preferred choice for a new runway in the South East.”

Click here to view full story...

Two girls get return flights to Malaga to meet (cost £75) rather than one Birmingham to Newcastle rail ticket (£105)

This story illustrates how the cost of flying does not reflect the environmental cost, and its price is far too low. Two women decided to save themselves a small amount of money, by travelling to Malaga to meet up, rather than one making train journey between Birmingham and Newcastle. The cost of a flight on 7th January by Ryanair from Newcastle to Malaga was £9.99 each way. Total £19.98. [The APD would be £13, so Ryanair made just £7 from transporting this passenger 2,700 miles]. (2,700 miles round trip). The cost of a return flight by Vueling from Birmingham to Malaga was £55.29 (2,200 miles round trip). By contrast the cost of a return train trip from Newcastle to Birmingham was £105. The two girls therefore spent about £75 on travel, (plus another £60 on hostels in Malaga for 3 nights, so they were actually out of pocket ... compared to the rail trip and one staying at the house of the other ...) The cost of staying in Malaga, off season, is also very cheap, encouraging Brits to take yet more trips very, very cheaply - regardless of their person carbon footprint, and the environmental impact. Newcastle and Birmingham are not really that far apart. How is the price for one return ticket as high as £105? And how can airlines be allowed to sell a ticket for a journey of 1,300 miles for just £10? There is something (well, many things) deeply rotten with the current system.

Click here to view full story...

Chris Grayling’s evidence to the Environmental Audit Cttee on climate – in relation to Heathrow runway

Chris Grayling, and Caroline Low from the DfT, gave oral evidence to the Environmental Audit Cttee on 30th November. Chris Grayling was not able to give the committee satisfactory assurances on how much UK aviation emissions would rise, due to a new runway. Nor was he able to comment on the CO2 cuts needed by other sectors, to accommodate aviation CO2 rise. He said: "Of course in the case of carbon emissions, there is no law of the land that requires us to meet any particular target." When asked by Mary Creagh when we could see the aviation emissions strategy, Grayling could give no answer other than an evasive: "documentation on that expansion will be published in the new year." Grayling's responses indicate only an incomplete grasp of the facts on carbon, avoiding specific answers to questions, but with the intention of allowing aviation expansion (and perhaps later trying to sort out the problem). He hides behind the CCC as much as possible. On the issue of non-CO2 impacts, he says "there is no international evidence at the moment"for this" - and then some half-digested waffle about cutting CO2 by more direct routing of flights. He also hopes biofuels will make a difference in future, despite this being unlikely to provide more than a tiny % of fuel. Grayling makes it clear he has no intention of letting aviation CO2 get in the way of a 3rd Heathrow runway.

Click here to view full story...

Prospect of more low cost, no frills, flights from UK to USA by airlines like Norwegian

We face the prospect of flying becoming even cheaper, encouraging yet more "hyper-mobility" and "binge flying". This is not just from the UK government hoping to add another runway at Heathrow, so hugely increasing UK airport capacity (and in doing so, threatening UK carbon targets) but from more no-frills, budget long haul trips. Norwegian, the Scandinavian airline that Gatwick has high hopes of, is offering one-way flights from Edinburgh to New York starting at £56. Some analysts believe 2017 could turn out to be the breakthrough year for low-cost, long-haul with a boom in the number of routes being offered, mainly on the North Atlantic network, but with other flights added into Asia and possibility South America. Back in 1977 Freddie Laker tried cheap transatlantic flights but by 1982 "Skytrain" had gone bust; priced out by airlines that dropped their fares to put Laker out of business. The low cost model might have more chance now, with lighter planes burning less fuel per unit distance, eg. Boeing 787 Dreamliner and 737 Max, and the A350 XWB and A321Neo from Airbus, and engine makers using lighter alloys. Efforts are being made to cut weight, eg. taking out screens on seats. The lighter planes can also fly further on the same amount of fuel.

Click here to view full story...

Mary Creagh, Chair of EAC, writes to Grayling for clarification on government position on growth of UK aviation CO2

On 30th November, Chris Grayling gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) about their concerns regarding a 3rd Heathrow runway. Chris Grayling gave very inadequate responses on carbon emissions, and whether the government planned to keep to the cap recommended (since 2009) by the Committee on Climate Change. This is that UK aviation CO2 should not rise above about 37.5MtCo2 per year by 2050. That is the level in 2005. Now Mary Creagh MP, the Chair of the EAC, has written to Chris Grayling to get some confirmation of the government's position. She asks: "Could you please tell us: Whether the Government will be working towards the CCC’s planning assumption for actual UK aviation emissions to be around 2005 levels by 2050? If so, whether you accept the CCC’s advice that this implies an increase in passenger growth of around 60% over the same period (which already takes into account forecasts around the impact of the the chronological and other advances that we discussed in the hearing)? If not, what empirical basis is the Government using to support its assumption that excess emissions from aviation can be compensated for by deeper cuts from other sectors." She has asked for a reply by the 11th January, and the EAC will publicise it.

Click here to view full story...