Conclusions and recommendations
1. The
quality of the Government response is poor and not of the standard
we would normally expect. In rejecting so much of our report
without adequate consideration or explanation and in such an overtly
challenging manner, the Department for Transport is failing to
address not only our concerns but the similar concerns expressed
by many other organisations including the Sustainable Development
Commission and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
(Paragraph 7)
2. A policy which
estimates future demand and then aims to satisfy almost all of
it is self-evidently based on a 'predict and provide' approach.
The Department for Transport should respond fully to our original
conclusion, and explain why it believes it is wrong to describe
the White Paper in that way, particularly when the Government
is actively promoting growth on the scale envisaged. (Paragraph
10)
3. The Government
response fails to set out what detailed studies the Department
for Transport has carried out to explore the social and behavioural
impacts of the forecast growth in aviation, and the manner in
which these impacts may vary for different rates of growth. It
should do so, taking into account the growing sense that the real
price of oil is unlikely to remain at the level assumed in the
White Paper. (Paragraph 12)
4. The Department
for Transport must publish a formal statement of what it understands
by sustainable consumption in the context of air travel. As part
of this statement, it should explain how the projected growth
from 180 mppa to 476 mppa by 2030 can be reconciled with the commitment
made by the UK Government in Johannesburg to encourage more sustainable
approaches to consumption; and it should also set out what policies
it is pursuing to discourage unnecessary air travel. (Paragraph
13)
5. We calculated the
environmental impacts of the forecast growth in aviation to be
minus £42 billion (net present value), but were unable to
identify from departmental appraisals the total producer and consumer
surpluses to set against this figure. The Department for Transport
has entirely ignored this point and should respond in full to
our original conclusion. (Paragraph 15)
6. The Department
for Transport should also respond to our conclusion that the Integrated
Policy Appraisal appended to the White Paper was particularly
weak in its assessment of climate change impacts and the difficulties
posed by the growth in aviation emissions in the light of the
Government's 60% carbon reduction target. (Paragraph 16)
7. We expressed our
astonishment at the lack of essential research to underpin the
incorporation of aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System,
and recommended that the Department for Transport should set out
what needed to be done and by when to achieve this goal. Our
conclusion and recommendation was totally ignored, and the Department
should now provide a full response. (Paragraph 18)
8. We reject the accusation
contained in the Government response that our figures for the
impact of aviation in relation to other UK emissions are misleading
and inappropriate. The underlying truth is not in dispute: that
the global warming impacts from aviation are forecast to increase
massively just as we are striving to make huge cuts in emissions
from all other sectors of the UK economy. (Paragraph 22)
9. Given the priority
apparently being accorded to the need to tackle global warming,
we find it bizarre that the Government response, in calculating
aviation in relation to other UK emissions, assumes that there
will be no reduction in greenhouse gases, other than carbon dioxide,
over the next 50 years. In setting the 60% carbon reduction target
last year, the Government failed to clarify how it relates to
greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide and what baseline should
be used to measure achievement against. It must do so as a matter
of urgency. (Paragraph 25)
10. Figures presented
by the Government, both in the Government response and in Aviation
and Global Warming, contain apparent inconsistencies.
This reflects the poor quality of documentation and appraisal
carried out by the Department for Transport in this area. It would
be helpful if the Department could set out comprehensive and well
documented statistics to inform further discussion of this topic.
(Paragraph 27)
11. We said last year
that the airports consultation "fails to take on board
the new direction in policy initiated by the Government's Energy
White Paper; while the growth proposed in aviation—even
on a constrained basis—would wreck the aspirations it contains."
The Future of Air Transport White Paper has done nothing to alter
our view: aviation policy remains the most glaring example of
the failure of Government to put sustainable development at the
heart of policy making. (Paragraph 30)
| 
