Flights of fancy are fanning the flames
The brutal heatwaves and wildfires that we have witnessed across Europe this summer could happen every two to five years if the world heats up by 2C predict scientists, yet we continue to pour more fuel, specifically kerosene, on the flames thanks to our Government’s refusal to reduce climate changing carbon emissions from aviation.
You might think, as the aviation industry blithely flies tourists into this vicious consequence of climate change, that they might show some self-awareness of their own contribution to the problem, but no.
They will concede, if pushed, that climate change is a reality and is linked to carbon emissions, but staunchly argue that nothing must get in the way of their business model. Yes, emissions will increase, but some other unspecified sector can cut its emissions even more to enable net zero to be hit while aviation’s grow.
Overall the attitude of the aviation industry is one of selfish, irresponsible arrogance. But then for decades it has felt it can bend the UK government to its will, so has no real need to change behaviour.
In the middle of last year’s sweltering summer, the present government quietly issued its new aviation plan. This will allow the number of flights to soar by 70 per cent between 2021 and 2050, representing an additional 200 million passengers. In true Orwellian fashion, this forms part of a ‘jet zero’ strategy.
Nothing must get in the way of unrestricted growth in flights, but worry not because a magic wand will be waved and we will have zero emission flights in the future. The fact that no such technology yet exists is skated over. When pressed, the industry talks about so-called sustainable aviation fuels. The government is mandating that a minimum of ten per cent of jet fuel will have to be such by 2030.
They also aim for all domestic flights to achieve net zero by 2040 and for all airport operations in England to be zero emission by the same year. Yet even under the wildly optimistic scenarios painted in the paper, the UK aviation sector will not reach net zero by 2050 but will still be emitting 19 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent at that point. Even the high-level ambition in the jet zero strategy has 2050 emissions higher than they were in 1990.
Aviation is becoming a real climate change problem. It is not surprising that the Climate Change Committee has repeatedly highlighted the carbon threat from aviation and concluded that we need fewer flights, but that has fallen on deaf ears in government. Instead, they say that airline passengers should travel as they want and feel ‘guilt-free’. Indeed, the Government says it “will continue to support sustainable airport growth”. Just what is sustainable about such growth, you might ask.
So it is therefore no surprise to learn of Gatwick Airport seeking to bring into regular use its second emergency runway. Its website calls this plan ‘a brighter future for everyone’ and excitedly enthuses that ‘we could serve 75 million passengers a year by 2038 … Let’s take off together.’ Forgive me if I don’t get the champagne out.
The Climate Change Committee is right. We need to fly less. Domestically, we should be switching passengers from air to rail, as is now happening in other European countries. Yet here, the Treasury has actually cut Air Passenger Duty (APD) for domestic flights, the only aviation tax there is, while seeing rail fares increase, up 5.9 per cent last year. These would give the private operators an incentive to grow business and so grow the farebox.
The Department for Transport’s impressive team of Mark Harper and Huw Merriman understand this and want to make progress so you have to wonder why it is not happening. Step forward Rishi Sunak whose only interest in transport appears to centre around helicopters and private jets. He was was recently spotted boarding his chopper for a trip from London to the West Midlands, a journey of about 90 minutes by train.
Nor does the rail industry always help itself. Network Rail bosses spent £10,000 a week last year on flights because it allegedly worked out cheaper than taking the train. 72 of the flights were between Birmingham and Glasgow, which has a perfectly good direct rail connection. If the people who run the railway won’t take the train, why should anyone else?
And are the flights actually cheaper or quicker? In a very detailed analysis issued by Campaign for Better Transport, we proved that on 60 per cent of domestic routes, travelling by train was cheaper or the same as flying, and taking into account airport processing time, 70 per cent of journeys were quicker by rail.
It might be added that you can of course work on the train. Try doing that in a security queue at an airport or squashed between two other people in a barely adequate plane seat.
The Government, if it is serious about tackling climate change, should introduce a domestic flight reduction target, reverse the cut in APD, and indeed introduce a tax on fuel used on domestic non-lifeline journeys.
It should also introduce a new ‘super’ rate of APD, and introduce VAT on journeys made in private jets. And it needs to start penalising airlines who fly empty to protect slots.
The Civil Aviation Authority, which is actually reasonably progressive, should require airlines to use realistic journey times that take account of airport processing, and to give passengers a clear comparison of carbon emitted by air and the equivalent journey by rail where this exists.
Read our report, Plane Speaking: Moving journeys from air to rail.
