Heathrow’s third runway and the carbon price

I have commented before on the incoherence of how the United Kingdom plans to both cut greenhouse gas emissions and increase airport capacity. The December 8th report from the Committee on Climate Change perpetuates this mis-match, saying that the third runway for Heathrow could be compatible with government emission reduction targets, provided the price of carbon reaches £200 per tonne by 2050.

To me, this view is rather perplexing. Why build a runway, then use taxes to choke off the demand for it? Either your taxes won’t prevent the flights, making it harder to reach your carbon targets, or they will and your investment in the runway and supporting facilities will be a waste. The committee also assumes that aircraft engine efficiency will improve by 0.8-1.5% per year, that biofuels that don’t compete with food crops will emerge, and that high speed rail will displace a lot of short-haul flights in Europe. To take advantage of assumptions about the future to defend a dubious current policy is a practice all too common. Rather than pretending they can have it both ways, the UK should acknowledge that achieving its climate change goals will require reducing incredibly emissions-intensive activities like air travel.

Thankfully, the British Conservative Party – which is likely to take power with the next election – continues to oppose construction of the runway, precisely because it clashes with climate change objectives.

Author: Milan

In the spring of 2005, I graduated from the University of British Columbia with a degree in International Relations and a general focus in the area of environmental politics. In the fall of 2005, I began reading for an M.Phil in IR at Wadham College, Oxford. Outside school, I am very interested in photography, writing, and the outdoors. I am writing this blog to keep in touch with friends and family around the world, provide a more personal view of graduate student life in Oxford, and pass on some lessons I've learned here.

12 thoughts on “Heathrow’s third runway and the carbon price”

  1. Yes I was more than a little puzzled by the CCC’s report. However you cut it (fudge it), expanding Heathrow is totally incompatible with any commitment to action on climate change. In particular it is incompatible in a country that has legislated 80% reductions as the UK has with the climate change bill.

    The cuts required in other sectors to compensate for aviation will be extremely difficult to achieve. Effectively it requires total decarbonisation of housing and transport and substantial decarbonisation of industry by 2050. And all this purely so as to sustain the airline indsutry at current volumes or greater? I’m sorry but we have other priorities!

    Improvements in aircraft efficiency are very slow:

    http://www.transportenvironment.org/News/2009/12/Aircraft-energy-efficiency-has-not-improved-in-a-decade/

    But I do think that we should ditch biofuels for cars completely and instead produce only the best quality, lowest carbon, most sustainable biofuels and ringfence them for the airlines. Cars have alternatives, aircraft don’t. It’s not ideal but it’s a step in the right direction.

    To alleviate Heathrow’s capactity problem, we should also start to actively phase out slots for domestic flights, and then start to phase out Western European slots.

    Btw I don’t trust the Convservatives to hold their election pledges for one second, although this would be a huge one for them to do a U turn on. But they are desperate to get into power and will say anything to achieve that. Under the green veneer, I suspect they’re just the same old party in thrall to big business.

  2. You make a lot of excellent points.

    I agree that biofuels have more of a role in air travel than in ground transport, and share your concern that the British Conservatives won’t be as tough on carbon as promised when in office.

    Still, as a Canadian it is nice to see a Conservative Party somewhere that is at least willing to discuss effective climate change mitigation policies.

  3. I don’t trust the Conservatives on Heathrow either, especially given that Boris (the Tory mayor of London) is in favour of the expansion.

  4. Air travel drops for second year during recession

    UK airports have suffered their biggest decline in passenger numbers since records began at the end of WWII.

    They handled 216.8m passengers last year – 7.4% fewer than in 2008 – the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said.

    The recession in 2008 and 2009 represented the first time that passenger numbers had fallen for two successive years, CAA figures showed.

    CAA economic regulation director Harry Bush said the numbers would “rebound” but the pace of recovery was uncertain.

    He said the large decline highlighted the “enormous impact the recession has had on the aviation industry.

    “Passenger numbers are now back to the level they were six years ago.

    “Although they will certainly rebound, the pace of recovery is uncertain and it could be a number of years before they reach their peak level again,” he said.

  6. The British government’s plan for a third runway at Heathrow was passed by the House of Commons by 415 to 119 votes. Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, was widely ridiculed for missing the vote, having previously said he would lie down in front of bulldozers to stop the runway. Other opponents of the runway vowed to continue their fight to prevent further noise and air pollution.

    —

    Problem in the air
    Heathrow’s third runway could be blown off course by pollution
    Emissions may breach the government’s clean-air targets

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *