Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence


Supplementary memorandum from British Airways plc

  This memorandum responds to supplementary questions submitted by the Environmental Audit Committee, following the hearing on Wednesday 11 February.

  (i)  [Q219] While the Committee understands the efforts the aviation industry has made, and is continuing to make, to mitigate environmental impacts, it remains unclear as to why you think that the White Paper does not represent a "predict and provide" approach?

  The inference of the phrase "predict and provide" is that infrastructure capacity is being provided to meet a predicted level of demand, irrespective of the environmental consequences. That is not the approach of the White paper. Rather the government has set clear environmental targets and limits which will need to be met if development is to proceed.

  This is particularly so in the case of a third Heathrow runway, which is the most important development for British Airways contained in the White Paper. The government has made clear that this development can only go ahead if local air quality limits around Heathrow can be respected, and noise disturbance contained within a contour of 127 square kilometers. The government has also made clear that it expects to take measures to limit the contribution of aviation to global warming, with the inclusion of aviation within EU emissions trading as the first step forward in this process.

  So in terms of the key environmental impacts of aviation—noise, local air quality and global warming—the government is setting conditions which will need to be met if airport developments are to proceed, very different from the idea of "predict and provide" which takes no account of the environment.

  (ii)  [QQ254-257] Can you clarify what you mean when you suggest that the EU emissions trading scheme should also take into account the economic benefits that aviation delivers?

  While the UK government and the UK aviation industry are supporting the proposal to include intra-EU aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme, we have yet to have any meaningful discussion of how permits will be allocated and targets set. Domestic aviation emissions are already contained in national inventories, but there are no existing inventories or targets for international emissions laid down in the Kyoto protocol.

  In deciding what targets might be set, it is important to strike a balance between the environmental objective (the need to reduce emissions) and the cost of achieving that objective. The notion of striking a reasonable balance between economic, social and environmental criteria is embodied in the principle of sustainable development.

  It is also important that we seek to maintain a broadly level playing field between airlines based in different EU countries, and that airlines based in the UK are not competitively disadvantaged because our government has set more ambitious targets than other European governments.

  (iii)  [Q263] You referred to the stance of the United States as not helpful in ICAO discussions. Could you comment a little more on this?

  The US government has made it quite clear that it does not support the approach set out in the Kyoto Protocol to tackle global warming. They are therefore reluctant to see any measures agreed within ICAO to tackle global warming beyond voluntary measures.

  If the US government was more persuaded of the case for policy action, it is likely that they would want to see an approach based on emissions trading, as all the analysis points to this being the most cost-effective way ahead. The US stance on Kyoto has therefore deprived emissions trading of a strong natural supporter in the ICAO discussions.

  (iv)  [Q271] Could you clarify the basis on which the figure of 15.1 million tonnes CO2 is calculated—in particular, whether it includes emissions from all international flights and all related ground-based activities?

  The figure of 15.1 million tonnes (15,149,000 m tonnes) is the reported figure for aircraft emissions of CO2 in 2002-3, taken from our latest Social and Environmental report. A further 150,000 tonnes of CO2 are generated by ground energy sources in the UK. Ground energy sources outside the UK are not monitored for climate change purposes, though the bulk of BA ground facilities are in the UK.

  (v)  The White Paper refers to an urgent programme of work and consultation to examine the issues surrounding a third runway at Heathrow. Does British Airways consider that a decision to go ahead should be made on the basis of this work? Or should the Government wait until 2010 to assess how far the NOx limit has been met before sanctioning a further runway?

  We hope that rapid progress with the programme of work on Heathrow air quality will allow a decision to be made in 2006, when the government has said it will review progress against the White Paper framework, or very soon after that. Leaving this decision until 2010 would make it difficult to achieve the 2015-2020 target completion range set by the government for a third Heathrow runway. The earlier that a third Heathrow runway can be delivered, the greater will be the economic benefits to the UK economy, our aviation industry and to the travelling public.

March 2004



 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 19 March 2004