27th December 2006 

A top adviser to Tony Blair on sustainable development and the environment has been accused of undermining government policy on curbing aviation pollution after it was revealed that he makes a 500-mile round trip by jet from Birmingham to Edinburgh each week.

The Independent revealled today that Richard Wakeford, a senior civil servant in charge of the Scottish Executive's environment department, commutes to work in Edinburgh every week from his home in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire producing an estimated 90kg of carbon dioxide. The Western Daily Press asked for a comment:

Philip Booth, a Stroud District Green party spokesperson said: "Mr Wakeford has called on us all to 'take responsibility for promoting sustainability in our own lives' yet he appears not to be setting a helpful example. Even travelling the same journey by train would have meant 17 times fewer CO2 emissions. We do need people to take responsibility - but much more important is the need for the Government to take a lead (i). We need action to make those who pollute pay for their damage and 'green' choices to be made easier if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. A weekend in Prague should not be cheaper than a weekend in Bournemouth."

The Independent noted that over the four years of his contract, Mr Wakeford is likely to travel as many as 94,000 air miles getting to work, accounting for approximately 17 tons of carbon dioxide. The figures do not include his weekly 100-mile round trip to Birmingham airport from his home outside Cheltenham, or the 20-mile round trip between Edinburgh airport and the headquarters of the Scottish Executive. He refused to move to Scotland when he became department head nearly two years ago for "family reasons".

Mr Wakeford was chief executive of the Countryside Agency and a member of the Sustainable Development Commission which advised the Prime Minister on action to reduce CO2 emissions, including calling for more radical measures to curb airport development.

Philip Booth, a Stroud District councillor added: "The debate about Mr Wakeford is a distraction, what we really need to focus on is that our Government still hasn't grasped the urgency or the need for radical changes. It was a report by Mr Wakeford that shows the present rate of growth in air traffic is unsustainable, yet we still see plans for airport expansions like at Bristol. All Government reports show we need to cut CO2 emissions by at least 60% by 2050 - there is no justification for aviation being excluded from such cuts. Why should the other businesses in the region have to cut emissions even harder just so that aviation can expand aviation?"

Philip Booth added: "All this comes in a week when we hear the EU have watered-down proposals to start tackling aviation (ii). This is quite simply not good enough by a long shot."

Notes:

(i) "There is clearly a public appetite for policy actions to address global warming, but our survey offers a clear indication that relying on self-motivated behavioural change, even (or perhaps especially) among the most earnest and best intentioned, is inadequate to the task and thatstronger incentives and clear price signals will be needed to effect tangible change." See Guardian article.

(ii) NEWS RELEASE From the office of the South-East England’s Green MEP Caroline Lucas
 

December 20th, 2006                                                                                                                                  
EU AVIATION PLAN ‘A HUGELY WASTED OPPORTUNITY'

TWO-STAGED APPROACH ON GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE ‘ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING AND LEGALLY UNNECESSARY’, SAYS GREEN MEP

PROPOSALS presented by the European Commission today to include CO2emissions from aviation in the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS) have been described as "a hugely wasted opportunity" by the European Parliament’s
spokesperson on aviation and climate change, Caroline Lucas.

"Last-minute wrangling between members of the European Commission has ripped out the guts of the legislative proposals, meaning that they will not benearly as effective as they could have been",  said Caroline Lucas, whodrafted the position on aviation and climate change that was adopted by the
European Parliament on 4 July 2006[1].  "Key elements of the legislation
have been watered down or even removed."

She was particularly critical of the plans to delay the introduction of full
geographical coverage of all flights to and from EU airports.

"A two-staged approach, with one year of intra-EU flights only, is both
environmentally damaging and legally unnecessary", she said.  

"It also contradicts the position adopted by the European Parliament in
July, which expressly calls for all flights landing or taking off from EU
airports to be included, whatever their origin or destination. Instead of
pandering to US opposition, the Commission should be showing real leadership
on climate change, and demonstrating that the case for including third
country carriers in the scheme is both environmentally essential and legally
robust. "

Unlike the Parliament's proposals, the draft legislation places no limits on
the aviation sector's buying from other industries in the emissions trading
scheme,  and will also allow the airlines to make enormous windfall profits
by trading permits given to them for free – while at the same time
contribute to rising emissions from non-CO2 sources.

Dr Lucas said: "Without limits on the number of permits the airlines can buy
up from other sectors in the emissions trading scheme, emissions from
aviation will continue to grow at the expense of other industries. This is
especially worrying because, as well as emitting CO2, airlines produce other
greenhouse gases which mean their total contribution to climate change is
two to four times higher than that of most  other industries.  By failing to
introduce parallel measures to address aviation's non CO2 emissions, and
instead treating aviation's emissions as equal to those of other industries,
these proposals will actually result in a net disbenefit to the nvironment."

The European Parliament had called for explicit parallel measures to address
aviation's non-CO2 impact, or at least a "multiplier" factor on the CO2
emissions.

The Commission's proposals also provide for less than 3% of total allowances
to be auctioned, running entirely counter to the polluter pays principle:
 
"The proposal will also give practically all the allowances to airlines for
free, showing that the Commission has failed to learn the lessons from the
current emissions trading scheme. By passing on the market price of
allowances even though they didn't pay for them, the airlines will generate
billions in windfall profits, without any corresponding benefit to the
environment.
"This is effectively going to reward the airlines for their contribution to
climate change, and allow them to increase total greenhouse emissions."

The proposals require adoption by the European Parliament before taking
effect, but MEPs are unlikely to endorse them while they run counter to
their clearly stated view that all flights into and out of the EU should be
included, and that the non-CO2 emissions should be taken into account.

Dr Lucas added: “These measures are supposed to be about combating
aviation’s growing contribution to climate change – but they fall far short
on this in their current form. This is an issue on which the Parliament must
endorse proposals before they take effect and, as author of the Parliament’s
position, I will be pressing strenuously for our view to prevail.”

ENDS


For more information please contact Ben on 01273 671946, 07973 823358 or
ben@greenmeps.org.uk

www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk