Airfixed: how the government's Heathrow consultation has been rigged

Posted by jamie — 25 January 2008 at 12:07pm - Comments

The government's consultation on Heathrow is fixed.

  • There is evidence of extraordinary collusion between the government and BAA working together to influence the outcome of the consultation. [1]
  • The prime minister and government ministers have made repeated comments that they want the expansion to go ahead, pre-empting the outcome of the consultation. [2]
  • The evidence put forward within the consultation is confusing and incomplete, making it impossible for people to make an informed response to the consultation. [3]
  • The consultation document is heavily biased, presenting leading commentary on the economic benefits of Heathrow expansion, and down-playing the effects of the proposed expansion on the climate and on Londoners. [4]
  • People are not being properly consulted: thousands of people under the flightpaths were not sent the documents outlining the plans. [5]

Expanding Heathrow airport would be a disaster for the climate.

  • According to the government, flights from and within the UK already account for 13 per cent of the UK's climate impact because greenhouse gases create more global warming when emitted at altitude. [6]
  • The government's plans for expansion at Heathrow and other airports across the UK would double flights in the next twenty years. At the same time, the government says it is committed to cutting UK Co2 emissions by 60% by 2050.
  • The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research calculates that if aviation expands as projected, Britain will have to totally decarbonise the rest of its economy by 2050 to effectively tackle climate change.
  • Expanding Heathrow is completely unnecessary. Over a fifth of flights out of Heathrow are to destinations easily reachable by train - like Paris and Manchester. Switching to trains for those destinations would simply cut out the need for Heathrow expansion. [7] Traveling by train is 10 times less harmful to the climate than planes.
  • The Government says that it believes the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the best way to tackle aviation's climate change impacts. Yet research shows that aviation's inclusion in the EU ETS will do next to nothing to reduce the sector's emissions. Even in the toughest ETS scenario envisaged, by 2020 emissions would grow by 83% rather than 86% in a business-as-usual situation [8]
  • Companies like BA and BAA want expansion of Heathrow at any cost. It is utterly irresponsible of the government to put the aviation industry's interests before its commitment to tackling climate change.

Notes:
1. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Greenpeace has obtained documents which reveal worryingly close links between BAA and the Department for Transport (DfT).

  • BAA and the government have set up a joint body - the Heathrow Delivery Group - aimed at steering the plans through the consultation process.
  • BAA officials have written parts of the consultation.
  • BAA supplied the data for calculations of noise and pollution that inform the premise of the consultation document. Opposition groups have not been permitted to challenge the data.
  • The DfT and BAA have drawn up a 'risk list' - a list of threats to the building of the 3rd runway. The list includes the 2M campaign, the group comprising councils representing 2 million people opposed to the plans.

2. For example, Gordon Brown told the CBI on November 26th 2007 that he was determined "to press ahead with a third runway". (http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13851.asp)

Ruth Kelly said in a speech to the Aviation Operators Association on 14th November 2007 that she wasn't "prepared to accept" a situation which didn't include expanding Heathrow. (http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/speeches/...)

3. The Plain English Campaign branded the wording of the consultation document "atrocious" and Local Authorities have been unable to verify the data on the noise impacts of the expansion that the government has provided in the document.

4. The consultation document states that the government supports expansion because of the "strong economic benefits". Yet the UK has an annual tourism deficit of £17 billion (Press Association, January 3 2006) and the economic benefits are not proven. The government says that it believes the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is the best way to tackle aviation's climate change impacts, yet the ETS takes no account of the aviation emissions being 2-4 times as harmful as carbon dioxide emissions alone because of their release at altitude and some top scientist says the ETS won't work anyway.

5. Residents in parts of Hammersmith, Fulham and Wandsworth were not sent any information about the plans for a third runway and all-day flights. Even in Hounslow, which is right next to the airport, not all households were sent a copy of the documents.(http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/...)

6. 13 per cent figure - from Answer to Commons Parliamentary Question 2 May 2007. This figure includes the greater damage done by aircraft emissions at high altitude (the radiative forcing effect), but excludes the damage caused by the formation of cirrus clouds.

7. Research conducted by HACAN (Shot-Haul Flights: Clogging up Heathrow's Runways) shows that 100,000 flights a year from Heathrow (i.e. more than a fifth of the total) are to destinations served by good rail links and reachable by train within 6 hours. If these flights were cut, flight numbers at Heathrow would be at the level they were at in the mid-1990s removing the need for a third runway.

8. See Including Aviation in the EU Emission's Trading Scheme (EU ETS), background briefing by the European Federation for Transport and Environment

More about the government's fixed Heathrow consultation.

About Jamie

I'm a forests campaigner working mainly on Indonesia. My personal mumblings can be found @shrinkydinky.

Follow Greenpeace UK