Session 2012-13
Aviation Strategy
Written evidence from No Estuary Airport campaign (Essex) (AS 07)
Jon Fuller is an environmental campaigner working with a number of NGOs on a voluntary basis. In December 2011 he was approached by several Essex residents and was asked to form a campaign group to fight the emerging Thames Estuary Airport proposals.
It was noted that a well organised campaign was being developed by Medway Council with the support of other Kent based local authorities, but concern existed that this might focus upon short term economic factors and ignore some overriding scientific and humanitarian considerations. So a separate campaign was formed to gather the facts that would prove that an Estuary Airport was unwarranted and disseminate this information through the media and electronically to the widest possible audience. Supporters of this campaign are kept up to date with regular e-mail updates.
The facts will demonstrate conclusively that no airport should ever be constructed within the Thames Estuary. Furthermore the scientific facts, and the humanitarian response to the science, demand that aviation capacity now be constrained.
Summary
1. The threat of climate change is now so great that greenhouse gas emissions must be tackled as a matter of urgency.
2. The public response to agricultural damage and disruption to the food supply associated with climate change and bio-fuel production will necessitate a dynamic response from government.
3. The DfT predictions for future growth in aviation are overly optimistic and need critical examination.
4. The economic case to connect with the north of the UK is being overlooked.
5. The case against a Thames Estuary airport:
· National Air Traffic Control "The very worst spot" to put an airport
· EU Habitats Directive: the law precludes an airport within the estuary
· Medway Council infrastructure/plans: the Isle of Grain schemes are not viable
· SS Richard Montgomery: WWII munitions obstacle to an estuary airport scheme
· Adverse impact upon south Essex tourism industry
· Erosion and impact upon DP World (London Gateway new port)
6. Conclusion.
1. Aviation: The Science
1.1: The Transport Select Committee is requested to seek the input of the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, to ensure that its recommendations take full account of the science relating to the impact of aviation on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It is absolutely vital that government should not cut itself off from the world of science. It must not determine policy on short term economic issues that will not withstand the scientific reality that will shortly transform all our lives.
1.2: Space constraints suggest that a limited number of references be provided, so just four are offered here to underscore the scale of the threat posed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Health Organisation and the DARA group report of September 2012: -
http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_CC_STRATEGY_web.pdf
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/
http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/
1.3: In the light of the scale of recent climate disruption, particularly that which has caused so much damage to food production, the Transport Select Committee is requested to call Sir John Beddington to provide current scientific opinion on the scale of the threat of climate change to food production and human health. Indeed the DARA report shows that climate change is now contributing to the death of 400,000 people per annum and costing the global economy $1.2 trillion per annum.
1.4: This evidence shows that climate is changing rapidly and that the adverse impacts will necessitate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors, including aviation. The Transport Select Committee may well establish that the Committee on Climate Change target to see greenhouse gas emissions from aviation return to their 2005 level by 2050 does not go far or fast enough. If the UK is to avoid significant disruption to the food supply, much deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will be needed, and as a matter of great urgency.
2. The humanitarian response and bio-fuels in aviation
2.1: The Transport Select Committee is requested to consider the humanitarian response to the emerging disruption to food that is now being caused by climate change. The European Union climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard has indicated that the EU will scrap its 10% target for bio - fuels used in transport , opting instead for a 5% target. "The Hunger Grains" report from Oxfam demonstrates that the humanitarian instinct in us all will ultimately stop policy makers from feeding cars and planes instead of humans: -
2.2: In the light of these pressures the Transport Select Committee is asked to establish two facts: -
a. How much will third generation bio-fuels, that do not impact upon the food supply (e.g. algae) cost in comparison to fossil fuel based aviation fuel; and
b. How much will that extra cost impact upon the demand to fly?
2.3: Given the triple, substantial risk to expansion of the aviation industry (climate change/ cost of third generation bio-fuel/ the understandable humanitarian response) the Transport Select Committee should conclude that multi-£billion investments into airport infrastructure cannot be justified. Investment can only be justified if the industry is on a scientifically proven route to the use of zero carbon/carbon neutral fuels and that these fuels can be produced at a rate that does not suppress demand for aviation.
2.4: The Transport Select Committee is asked to critically examine claims made by some in the aviation industry that alternative fuels will soon be commercially viable. One scheme proposed by Solena and BA in 2010 announced, with great confidence, that aviation fuel would soon be manufactured from waste destined for landfill. However there has still been no planning application made to build the plant that was originally proposed. The committee needs to establish just what the economics are of the various alternative fuels that are regularly appearing in the media. There must be a very real risk that carbon neutral fuels will add sufficient cost to flying that it reduces demand, negating the argument for expanding airport capacity.
2.5: It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that growing any energy intensive industry, like aviation, that will cause the runaway greenhouse effect, destroys everything we stand for as human beings. It destroys our humanity just as it destroys the environment. No decent, right minded person can ever support expansion of an activity that will cause immense human suffering and death.
3. Future demand for aviation: Department for Transport projections.
3.1: The Transport Select Committee is asked to consider two crucial facts relating to the projections offered by DfT for future demand for aviation: -
· What will be the likely impact upon future demand given the decline in UK GDP?
· What will be the likely impact upon the UK economy in the light of the scale of financial loss from the EU of 2 trillion Euros per annum for imported fossil fuel?
3.2: Given the scale of the financial downturn and the likely growing burden of ever higher oil prices, the evidence suggests that demand for aviation will soon decline.
3.3: I n 2007 the DfT predicted demand at 2030 of 500MPPA (million passengers per annum). But the prediction issued by DfT in 2011 was down a very long way - to 343 MPPA. Given the scale of the recession and the horrific wealth EU nations now export , in order to purchase oil and gas, surely demand projections must continue to fall?
3.4: The Transport Select Committee needs robust evidence on the likely cost of oil in 2030 and 2050 and determine from this whether aviation demand will decrease, stay flat or if it might increase. If demand is likely to grow, but remain below current UK capacity then it would be a gross dereliction of duty to spend many £billions on infrastructure development that will not be fully used. An Estuary Airport, perhaps costing £72 billion, would be the greatest white elephant of all time, a true monument to short-termism.
3.5: The Committee should not only seek the input of DfT, explaining the various calculations and scenarios for future aviation demand but it should also seek the input of the previous government chief scientific officer, Sir David King, to explain the calculations he gave to the ReSource conference in July. It is vital that the Transport Select Committee not only consider the implications of rising fuel prices upon the UK economy but consider the wider economic implications of the entire EU block losing ever larger revenue to purchase oil.
3.6: The Committee should also familiarise itself with the achievement associated with the WWF "1 in 5 challenge" that had huge success in reducing business flights. While it is the case that business leaders need face to face contact, to forge new partnerships and trade, once those relationships are in place, demand for flights can be reduced significantly by the use of new technology. It is vital that the Committee understands the pace with which super fast broadband and new communication technologies and tools will impact upon future business demand for flights. There is real potential here to reduce business flights, saving firms time and money.
3.7: Doubtless, when the DfT data is properly considered, the Transport Select Committee will conclude that the claims often made by the aviation industry of vast growth in demand are unrealistic and extremely optimistic.
3.8: Crucially, there is a very real possibility that existing capacity can meet demand by better regulation to ensure long haul business connections are served at Heathrow and Gatwick and short haul flights are moved from these airports to others with greater spare capacity. See Page 5 of this joint WWF and AEF paper: -
http://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/WWF_AEF_airport_capacity_report_FINAL_July_2011_1.pdf
3.9: It is vital to understand that the very nature of the competition between airports means that the aviation sector does not always work in the national interest. It is a market that fails and requires intelligent regulation and direction. Government needs to regulate to ensure that the national interest to make good connections with emerging markets abroad is met. It cannot be right that BAA at Heathrow is permitted to expand short haul flights at a time when it is nearing capacity. While it might be good for BAA business to serve Alicante, other Mediterranean tourism destinations and run 81 flights per week to Manchester, this is not good for the UK. Short haul destinations must be moved to high speed rail and/or other airports.
4. Aviation: The economic imperative to head north.
4.1: If it were possible to make the industry carbon neutral then it follows that, baring concerns regarding noise upon residential areas, the economic benefits of aviation connections throughout the UK be considered. So far the media debate relating to aviation capacity has tended to focus upon the South East, but that fails to address the need to improve business links to the north of the country. Some who oppose expansion at Heathrow, and others who oppose expansion in the Thames Estuary have suggested alternatives such as expansion at Gatwick, Stanstead or Luton, or a combination of airports into a "virtual", high speed rail connected hub.
4.2: Yet the south east has overheated, it is too densely populated and the north has greater capacity to grow, attract business investment and business partnerships with the emerging/ growing economies. The UK needs foreign investors to make a greater focus upon the north of the country and southern Scotland, and so must encourage greater aviation capacity in the north (provided this can be done without increasing greenhouse gas emissions).
4.3: The Transport Select Committee should ensure that it has evidence from business interests outside of the south east. They too must be given a voice to express their best interests. Interests that might otherwise be drowned out by the short term interests of BAA at Heathrow.
5. No Thames Estuary Airport: Not now, not ever.
5.1: These are the main arguments against a Thames Estuary Airport: -
National Air Traffic Control "The very worst spot" to put an airport
5.2: When the CEO of NATS (Richard Deakin) was interviewed in connection with the Isle of Grain (Foster & Ptns) scheme he is said to have made the point that such an airport would cut across 4 of the 5 flight-paths of the other London airports. He is quoted as saying it would be "the very worst spot" to put an airport: -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/13/thames-hub-airport-worst-spot
5.3: When Jon Fuller put this point at the recent "Will it ever be time for T.E.A" debate hosted by Brian Donohoe MP in Parliament, a spokeswoman for NATS was present and was asked to comment. The lady was a little more cautious but advised those present that an airport in the estuary would require significant changes to the flight paths of a number of airports, possibly including Schiphol. She added that it might not necessarily require the closure of Heathrow but would require very significant analysis and change. She did not answer specifically the question about the impact upon smaller airports such as Southend and Manston but the implication was that these may have to close.
5.4: The Transport Select Committee is asked to establish from NATS whether the construction of an estuary airport would in fact serve to reduce capacity in the south east by reducing capacity at the other regional airports.
EU Habitats Directive: The Birds
5.5: Around 350,000 migratory birds use the Estuary every year. The UK has both national and international obligations to ensure their protection and the larger birds pose a significant threat to aircraft.
5.6: Evidence given by Paul Outhwaite of RSPB at the "Will it ever be time for T.E.A" debate in Parliament showed that: -
· Flying from an estuary airport would be 12 times more dangerous than flying from any other UK airport (Source: International Bird Strike Committee);
· The Thames Estuary provides a unique habitat of fresh warm water from rivers and cold north sea salt water. This unique habitat cannot be recreated elsewhere in the UK nor, probably, anywhere else in the EU;
· The Foster & Ptns scheme involves destroying 20 km² of tidal habitat and it is suggested that this be compensated by building a 60 km² zone off the east coast of the Dengie peninsular in Essex – but this cannot replace the same habitat;
· The EU Habitats Directive stipulates that for any scheme to proceed, the habitat must be compensated for elsewhere (which the scheme cannot do); and
· The EU Habitats Directive requires that any such scheme can only be carried out if it is genuinely in the overriding national interest and there are no other alternatives - there are other alternatives, they may be unpalatable but there are other alternatives.
5.7: There were very good reasons why plans for a Maplin airport and another scheme at Cliffe were rejected. It is a waste of public money to have to go through the entire exercise again repeating these "killer arguments" against any estuary airport scheme.
Medway Council infrastructure/plans
5.8: From two presentations given by Robin Cooper of Medway Council the following crucial issues have emerged: -
· The Medway Council new housing allocation necessitates the construction of sufficient new homes on the Isle of Grain to increase the population from 20,000 to 40,000 people. If an estuary airport scheme is permitted this will double the number of homes that will have to be demolished;
· The closure of Heathrow would necessitate moving around 75,000 directly employed staff and perhaps another 41,000 people employed in ancillary jobs, from the west of London to north Kent and possibly south Essex. Never before in peace time history have local authorities been asked to cope with such mass migration of population. The cost and other infrastructure implications are almost incomprehensible;
· Medway Council challenges the cost of the Foster scheme, claiming that it would cost at least £72 billion (a significant proportion of the Foster error is attributed to the failure to properly cost the scale of compensation that would have to be paid in connection with the closure of Heathrow);
· If just one new runway and one new terminal at Heathrow is set to cost £9.6 billion the cost of an estuary airport and associated infrastructure will clearly be far greater than indicated by Foster.
· The Foster scheme has not costed the need to move the Isle of Grain gas terminal – 20% of UK gas supplies are now brought ashore there; and
· The private sector will see an estuary airport scheme as posing too great a risk and will not invest; especially given the fact that the aviation industry does not want to move from Heathrow (in a survey, 86% of airlines indicated they want to stay at Heathrow).
SS Richard Montgomery
5.9: There is no agreed method for dealing with the threat of the 1,400 tonnes of unexploded WWII munitions, but there is common agreement that a threat this great cannot be left unattended at the end of a busy new airport runway. Media reports have suggested that if the materials were to explode, as a result of work associated with the construction of a new airport, the blast would cause very significant damage to property either side of the estuary, including a wave of between 4 and 16 feet: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery
South Essex Tourism
5.10: The Essex Chamber of Commerce and all but one Essex MP oppose an estuary airport. There are many reasons behind this but one significant factor is the huge detrimental impact an estuary airport would have upon those living in south Essex and the Southend tourism industry. Very few people want to holiday or day trip to look at an airport. And that would be the spectre people would face if visiting south east Essex. The Transport Select Committee is asked to ensure it has properly costed both the adverse economic impact upon tourism and the adverse impact upon property prices in south Essex and north Kent.
Erosion and impact upon DP World (London Gateway port).
5.11: The dredging of the channels associated with DP World are already causing unexpected erosion from south Essex shores. What is becoming clear is that it might be impossible to predict the impact of major new construction projects upon tides and erosion within the Thames Estuary. It is absolutely vital that no estuary airport is constructed unless the impacts upon the newly dredged channels that service DP World are fully understood.
6. Conclusion
6.1: The arguments set out here show the enormous strength of the case against aviation expansion and against the construction of an airport within the Thames Estuary. The Transport Select Committee is urged to not only heed these but examine critically whether the case being argued by the other side represents nothing more than a ruse to serve the business interests of BAA at Heathrow. The business interests of BAA at Heathrow are not the same as the national security, humanitarian and economic interests of the United Kingdom.
4 October 2012