2nd August 2007

Cheltenham Greens recently asked questions at a Scrutiny Committee meeting about the airport expansion at Cheltenham Borough Council. The quality of answers they received have shocked them.

Letter version of news release at foot of this page

John Heywood, Coordinator of the Cheltenham Green party, who asked a question said: "I am very concerned with the answers we've got as the sum total of their analysis seems to be limited to quoting directly from either the airport’s web site, or from data provided by the airport. This is not proper scrutiny. Data used in their reply was out of date and not even relevant to the future expected carbon emissions (ii). The impression gained is that the decision to proceed with the airport has already been taken."

John Heywood said: "I have not had a satisfactory answer to my question as to how the borough council can support proposals to extend the runway and business of the airport when they have also agreed we must cut emissions (ii). Growth in flights cannot be sustainable however you look at it. Aircraft are amongst the most CO2 intensive methods of travel and CO2 emitted at altitude increases global warming by up to a factor of four. If aviation is allowed to grow at current projections it will account for all permitted greenhouse gas emissions - across all sectors - by 2045."

John Heywood said: "The airport suggests that expansion will benefit our local businesses and economy yet responsible businesses are looking to reduce their flying by video conferencing and other methods. This Council should not even consider supporting irresponsible businesses. Cheltenham's Climate Change Strategy was a positive and important initiative showing the Council takes climate change seriously: to allow the airport to expand would make a mockery of the strategy. Already the people who are being hit hardest by climate change are among the poorest on earth. Staverton must not increase its CO2 emissions, when every other business in Gloucestershire is being told to cut theirs significantly."


Notes:

 
(i) Analysis of the reply shows:-  the reply says that “2.1 million litres of fuel were used by aircraft using the airport in 2005.” This in its own right is a significant amount of fuel and will increase significantly as the airport is expanded. It is therefore misleading to argue about the future impact of the airport by only comparing with the current emissions. The reply also states that the current emissions are small compared to roads. This actually argues for not building the airport. We know the environmental damage that road transport is doing, yet we find it impossible to stop the traffic. The last thing need now is another infrastructure whose emissions will rise with time and which will also be impossible to stop. 

-  the reply says that the emissions “equate to less than 1% of the emissions for the whole of Cheltenham .” Given that the services from the airport are likely to increase after the development work, then it can be assumed that the percentage of the emissions total will also increase. All the scientific evidence points to us needing to reduce our CO2 emissions by 90% to minimise the risk of dangerous climate change. If we were to achieve this target, the emissions from the airport would amount to 9.1% of Cheltenham’s total. However, it would in actual fact be higher once the emissions from the additional growth that the airport is trying to achieve is factored in.  
 
- the reply says “ Gloucester Airport has stressed that its proposals are to improve the runway rather than expand the airport.” Whilst this may be the public position, their initial business plan showed their objective was to develop new services and indeed even talked about a new terminal building. Even Mark Ryan, when interviewed by local press made no secret of his plans to develop new services. Furthermore, the new services introduced by Manx Air clearly demonstrate that the airports intention is to increase services.
 
-  the reply says “The airports strategic plans aim to attract small high-tech business craft, which are more environmentally friendly.” This is just not right. The small high-tech airplanes are business jets which are the most carbon intensive mode of travel, no matter how efficient they are.  It cannot be right to seek to attract businesses or people to this area who want to operate in environmentally damaging and unsustainable ways.
 
- the reply says that “The airport expects the level of pollution caused to fall over the next few years.” The airport has produced no evidence to support this claim.
 
-  the reply says “ Gloucestershire Airport is committed to playing its part in meeting internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions.” This is nonsense. There are no internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. In fact, emissions emitted on international flights (which would include most of the proposed business jets) are not even recorded or allocated to any country and the debate on including aviation into any form of carbon trading has stalled.

-  the reply states “Provision of fuel data will help build a more accurate picture of emissions from this sector and enable monitoring over time.” Clearly we do not have to expand the airport to improve fuel data.

(ii) Quote from Climate Change Strategy:

"Gloucestershire Airport: Cheltenham Borough Council is part owner of the airport. Whilst outside the borough, the airport is nevertheless a source of CO2 emissions. Although emissions from the airport are minimal compared with local road transport, nationally the aviation industry is one of the fastest growing sources of CO2 emissions and there are growing concerns about the environmental impacts of pollutants from aircraft engines. A study published in May 2004 on the long-term role of the airport includes an environmental assessment of development options and the impact on CO2 emissions....Cheltenham Borough Council, through its representation on Gloucestershire Airport Board and Working Group, will ensure that climate change issues are recognised and monitored in future plans for Gloucestershire Airport."


The MAIN OBJECTIVES of this strategy are to:

• raise awareness of the potential impact of climate change;

• establish accurate data of greenhouse gas emissions from activities in Cheltenham;

• propose measures to help prevent the causes of climate change, by aiming to reduce CO2 emissions from activities in Cheltenham by 20% from 1990 levels by 2010 and by 60% by 2050;

• propose measures to help us adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change;

And letter to Echo:

Greens recently asked questions at a Scrutiny Committee meeting about the airport expansion at Cheltenham Borough Council. The quality of answers they received have shocked them. The sum total of their analysis seems to be limited to quoting directly from either the airport’s web site, or from data provided by the airport. This is not proper scrutiny by our councillors.

Data used in their reply was out of date and not even relevant to the future expected carbon emissions. The impression gained is that the decision to proceed with the airport has already been taken. Indeed I have not had a satisfactory answer to my question as to how the borough council can support proposals to extend the runway and business of the airport when they have also agreed we must cut emissions by saying so  in their Climate Change Strategy.

Growth in flights cannot be sustainable however you look at it. Aircraft are amongst the most CO2 intensive methods of travel and CO2 emitted at altitude increases global warming by up to a factor of four. If aviation is allowed to grow at current projections it will account for all permitted greenhouse gas emissions - across all sectors - by 2045.

The airport suggests that expansion will benefit our local businesses and economy yet responsible businesses are looking to reduce their flying by video conferencing and other methods. This Council should not even consider supporting irresponsible businesses. Cheltenham's Climate Change Strategy was a positive and important initiative showing the Council takes climate change seriously: to allow the airport to expand would make a mockery of the strategy. Already the people who are being hit hardest by climate change are among the poorest on earth. Staverton must not increase its CO2 emissions, when every other business in Gloucestershire is being told to cut theirs significantly.
 
John Heywood
Cheltenham Green Party,