Tonight:
9°c
Plans for a third runway at Heathrow came under fresh assault today as the Government's own climate change adviser called for deep cuts in Britain's carbon dioxide emission levels.
The Committee on Climate Change proposed a global cap on aviation emissions and warned that households and industry would have to slash their carbon output if flights were to be protected.
Its report came as leading Labour backbencher Jon Cruddas also urged Prime Minister Gordon Brown to abandon his plans for the third runway at Heathrow, a move that puts at risk a swathe of marginal seats in west London.
Mr Cruddas, who told the London School of Economics that Mr Brown was heading for defeat at the next election, said it made environmental and political sense to halt the new runway before it was too late.
The Tories are firmly against the idea and have already warned companies not to sign contracts on the deal.
The committee, which was created by the Climate Change Act last year, said that Britain may have to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 90 per cent by 2050 so the aviation sector can continue to grow.
The move would mean even bigger cuts than the 80 per cent drop on 1990 levels already planned for homes, cars and industry.
David Kennedy, the committee's chief executive, said for the first time that Heathrow's new runway could be included in its review of the issue this December.
He questioned whether it was "plausible" to double demand in air travel. "We could take it upon ourselves to talk about Heathrow in our aviation review," he said.
The committee says that, if left unchecked, global aviation could account for 15 to 20 per cent of all the man-made CO2 produced in 2050.
Mr Kennedy, who admitted to flying long-haul with his family every two years, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the runway was "an open question".
"It is vital an agreement capping global aviation emissions is part of a Copenhagen deal," he added.
"We are calling for a cap that would not require people to fly less than today, but would constrain aviation emissions growth going forward."
Green groups pointed out that just 10 per cent of the population are currently responsible for 50 per cent of all flights.
Critics claim that exempting aviation will therefore impose unfair costs on motorists and homeowners.
Hugh Raven, of the Sustainable Development Commission, said that aviation should not be allowed a "disproportionate" share of Britain's emissions.
He added: "Why is [the Government] prepared to treat aviation so differently from every other sector of the economy?"
In a letter to Transport Secretary Lord Adonis and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband, the committee says the aviation industry will have to cut emissions to 2005 levels by 2050.
The experts say planes might use biofuels or aviation might cut emissions below 2005 levels through new technology. Airlines may also buy permits in international emissions trading.
Reader views (12)
A little seperation of concerns thinking is needed here - we want to keep travelling but we are heading into an environment where carbon based fuels are seen as a)Polluting and b)Increaseingly expensive. Alternatives are politically totally unacceptable (Bio fuels mean that you fly while some one in the 3rd world literally starves is perhaps a price to high to pay even for the aviation lobby to stomach), thus the issue is how do we travel without the pollution and in modes of transport that don't mean we let the poorest on the planet starve. the answer is of course rail and high speed rail - only UK plc don't get this - all the rest of Western Europe are spending like crazy. If you accept the above you probably also accept tht TRANSPORT does not equal Jets and that alternative strategic options should be focused on.
- Christian Ball, London, UK
Excuse my typo - that is "Milankovich" of course!
Thanks
- Emma F, UK
Percy - you are spot on.
The UK gets as much pollution from Holland and France as it does from its own emissions. Anyone remember "le stench" that drifted over from France last year? Air pollution knows nothing about international treaties or fluffy intentions to reduce emissions.
It's about time that the new religion of "green" was exposed for the tax-making sham it is. Why do we tolerate a one-trick minority of fanatics who use baseless science to influence our dunderheaded politicians into raising taxes, none of which will go anywhere near reducing emissions anyway?
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one
You're not being provocative nor out of touch Percy as insolation is the main climate driving force (have a read up on Milkanovich cycles).
However solar output has never been monitored better than it is now via numerous spacecraft such as SOHO and excursions from the 11-year cycle are accounted for in climate models.
Unfortunately such output changes are not responsible for the continual build up of CO2 and commensurate warming we have seen over decades.
Quite simply we as humans are short circuiting the carbon cycle despite having known the heat retention characteristics of the now named 'greenhouse gases' for around 200 years.
Best Wishes
- Dr Emma Fraser, Manchester / London, UK
This is just another government scam to increase the cost of fuel. They say it's a 'Green' tax, RUBBISH. They tell us WE have to reduce our use of fuel such as gas & electric so the price goes up and the service goes down. If we have to cut back anymore on power consumption it will mean not only the old dying in winter. The next vunerable group are babies. I bet that share holders aren't suffering from shortages. Maybe if THEY took a cut in profits or, better yet, do away with them altogether and make these companies plough more of their gross profits back into 'Greener' ways of producing power. That way bills would be cheaper, we could ALL keep warm in winter and the green element would be taken care of.
- Glen, Huddersfield UK
Unfortunately, I am not blessed with the superior intelligence of a government minister, so please could someone explain to me why the UK is going to such extraordinary lengths to cut carbon emissions, at great expense and inconvenience, when many other countries are doing nothing about it and have virtually no plans to do so?
Anyone who has flown round the world and appreciated how vast it is, must realize how tiny the UK is in comparison. So what difference is a strict reduction in carbon emissions in the UK, with a population of 60 million, going to make to the world as a whole, with a population of 6 billion?
Am I being provocative, or out of touch with Modern Britain, if I dare to suggest that the Sun might have something to do with carbon dioxide levels? A one percent variation in the 11 year cycle of sunspot activity can have a major effect on climate change. See http://www.universetoday.com/2009/08/27/researchers-say-sun-cycle-alters-earths-climate/
- Percy Vere, Chipping Campden, Glos
More smoke and mirrors. We can't afford it, so use some pathetic excuse.
We need communications to be successful. You cannot afford to disencourage travelling, that's madness.
The green card in the UK is a pathetic excuse to raise taxes.
I was in Chicago in January, with temperatures of -20°C. You want to see the resources being used compared with here. Our contribution to global warming is nothing compared with other countries. Aircraft using a third runway won't make any difference.
We're broke. Why don't Labour just admit it. Meanwhile they insult the country's intelligence.
- Np, Cornwall, UK
Statements like 'Britain may have to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 90 per cent by 2050 so the aviation sector can continue to grow' are just silly distractions. New Labour's job as a government is to provide a rational transport policy. They are just using 'green concerns' to evade hard political choices and postpone capital expenditure.
- Brian, York, UK
So in essence the comment "We are calling for a cap that would not require people to fly less than today, but would constrain aviation emissions growth going forward." is a call for increased fares to deter people from travelling, but would be paid anyway, so thereby not doing a damn thing to reduce carbon emissions. If they want me off an 'internal journey' plane, then make the cost of rail travel as cheap. There is virtually no time difference, so cost is everything. It is blindingly stupid statements like "not requiring peaople to fly less" but hoping for a reduction in carbon emmissions that makes Joe public think that the Global Warming scenario is a Tax raising scam. If the Govt was serious about this they should take a lead, and not say that other countries are not doing it so we won't. Meanwhile we all march on to oblivion.
- Alan, carlisle uk
Heathrow is a 'low emission zone' so any construction of another runway must increas emissions because the air traffic will increase, the stated objective of a third runway'.
By granting development rights for this runway the grantor will be in breach of this zone and so must be fined proportionately.
Further, it is time that people started taking emissions measurements from all aeroplanes landing at Heathrow to see if they meet the zone targets, if not proceedings must be started against any airline in breach. Its not only government that can start proceedings, members of the public can do this as well if you believe your quality of life is being affected - go for it !
- James, London UK
Nothing our country does for emissions is going to make the slightest bit of difference on the global scale when places like China are building one or two power plants a Week.
- Mike, Scunthrope
It'll never happen, they've spent so much time, lying, spinning and riding roughshod over the entire process that they won't drop it now.
- Bob, Cheam
