Tonight:
9°c
Airport expansion data is wrong, says watchdog
Nicholas Cecil, Political Correspondent21.05.08
Government advisers today opened the door to a string of legal challenges over plans to expand airports in the South-East.
The environmental and economic watchdog published a scathing report undermining the Government's case for a third runway at Heathrow, and possible sixth terminal, as well as expanding Stansted.
The Sustainable Development Commission, set up by Tony Blair's administration, did not come out against airport growth. But it did say the basic data used to justify expansion was so "inadequate" and disputed that ministers should halt their airport strategy while a full-scale inquiry is carried out by a special commission.
SDC commissioner Hugh Raven said: "While we expected to find areas of conflict, we were unprepared for the level of fundamental disagreement over the data underpinning the Government's whole aviation strategy.
"Until some basic questions are answered, the UK cannot be in a position to make major decisions about the future of air travel."
The study, published in conjunction with the New Labour-linked think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, concluded that given the doubts over the data it was impossible to weigh the true benefits and impacts of aviation.
This will raise fresh concerns that the Government's public consultation on Heathrow's future is a sham and that ministers are already intent on pressing ahead with expansion.
Calling for a review of the Government's aviation white paper, the SDC paper, Breaking the Holding Pattern, stressed that there was:
• A lack of agreed measures for assessing the benefits and impacts of aviation including effects on health from noise and local air pollution.
• Disputed claims over the economic benefits of more flights.
•A lack of established data on the climate impacts of aviation.
•Doubts over to what degree better aircraft technology could cut CO2 emissions.
If the Government ignores the warnings, it may leave itself open to legal challenges from groups opposed to airport extensions.
IPPR associate director Simon Retallack said: "Good policy-making needs to be based on evidence that is widely agreed to be sound, which is not the case when it comes to aviation policy.
"Before any major new decisions are taken on airports, it is vital that the evidence is looked at again through an independent and widely supported process." Ministers, though, dismissed the report stressing they fundamentally disagreed with its findings.
A Department for Transport spokesman said: "It is simply wrong to claim that there is a consensus that the evidence base is flawed and, as the report admits, the most recently published background data on Heathrow was not even discussed.
"Given the Government has conducted a widespread debate over the last six years, deferring a decision in favour of a further threeyear debate is not a serious option."
Friends of the Earth's aviation campaigner Richard Dyer said: "The Government must listen to its environment adviser and urgently review its aviation strategy."
But Michelle Di Leo, director of pro-airport expansion group FlyingMatters, said: "The White Paper was based on 13 months of public consultation - if that doesn't represent thorough consultation I don't know what does."
Reader views (4)
One must understand the motivation behind aviation expansion and the reason for your government to lie to you (as ours).
The basic underlying reason for the expansion is the Washington promise to the aviation industry that it would rebuild it after the 1978 deregulation.
Basically, it consists of 4 phases:
1) Economic globalization treaties of 2008 (i.e., Open Skies, etc.)
2) Jet air taxi service because the major airports will become jammed with cargo
3) Cheap business jets (for various reasons)
4) Cheap personal jets that fly themselves and pop a parachute when in trouble (under $100,000 US).
The architects behind the scheme are: Lester Crown, William (Bill) Daley and, Phil Condit (Boeing Aircraft Mfg.).
Climate: with aircraft, it is not necessarily CO that is the problem; there are many other dynamics with a much greater forcing rate than CO (e.g., contrails, NOx, under-reported particulate and emissions, direct deposits of never studied chemicals since they are not naturally occurring, etc.).
Aircraft are the only proven cause of temperature change (climatic, regional, diurnal). What is significant is that it was proven by the actual removal of the source from the equation and the effects are immediate and dramatic (Travis, 2002).
When all planes (except 6 military) were grounded for 3-4 days after 9-11, the temperature over North America changed by almost 2 degrees C (huge). Basically, the temperature reverted back to the way it was pre-1950s, before the jet-age.
- Advisor, Chicago, Illinois USA
Quite ironic then that the decision to fully sign-up for all the European laws was taken by an unelected Prime Minister who refused to have a promised referendum. When can we get rid of this vain, selfish, ineffectual Government?
- Mark, London, UK
Sounds like a typical Nu Labour commission. These people don't let the facts get in the way of what they want. Like finding that mass immigration is good for the country so expanding airports regardless of what the people think is just their way of governing. We gave up having a democracy when we were made to accept an un-elected despot for a Prime Minister.
- Duncan Walker, Ex Peckham now Samui Thailand
As a strong supporter of Heathrow expansion, I nonetheless accept that government consultation is flawed but this applies to ALL modern consultation by government at all levels. Over the past 15 years, the rules of engagement have changed because of our adherence to the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties, and what an increasingly centralised form of government wants it will get, irrespective of co-called 'consultation'. For example, the EU recently reminded the United Kingdom and the Welsh administrations that they are barred from making any decisions on GM crops. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Swiss rejected EU membership was that "our tradition of consultation by means of local referenda will have to be abandoned because 80% of decision making in government within the European Union is by European institutions, we are barred from rejecting Directives and laws, we may not initiate new laws, and all we can vary is the manner in which we enforce or apply the laws which are enforced upon us. We will never again be consulted as a people on whether we want a measure or not." The last Mayor admitted that consultation was a sham when I challenged him as a London Assembly member on the issue of the West London Tram.
- Damian Hockney, London, UK
