Today the High Court rejected five legal challenges to the Government’s planned scheme to extend Heathrow airport [1].

Responding to the news, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP, said:

“It is a huge blow for our planet and future generations now that the challenges against the third runway at Heathrow airport have been thrown out.

Heathrow is already the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK, further expansion will only exacerbate climate and pollution problems. This government cannot dismiss the finding of experts and scientists and the voices and votes of an increasingly aware public.

The UK government is in total denial of its climate responsibilities. The UK signed up to the United Nations Paris Climate Agreement and sustainable development goals, but government policy is not reflecting that.

We need to adapt our actions to a future that is less polluting – we simply cannot carry on as normal.

Greens remain consistent and are united in our opposition to Heathrow expansion. We will not give up this fight.”

Notes:

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/b456397e-6bf0-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6d84

The post Jean’s response to the High Court dismissing legal challenges to Heathrow’s third runway appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

The UK’s Green MEPs have criticised the Government’s decision to push ahead with Heathrow expansion [1], branding the move a “a sick joke” that shows disdain for public health and the UK’s climate commitments.

Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP, said:

“It’s a sick joke that the Government would choose World Environment Day to confirm its plans to expand Heathrow Airport. This highlights the total disregard of our Government ministers towards the immense environmental risks facing our planet and people today.

The European Commission is already taking the UK Government to court for failing to tackle illegal levels of air pollution [2]. This decision will only exacerbate this problem​,​ as the Government wel​l knows. It undermines their own claims of tackling air pollution and creating a healthy environment – both in general and for the many people who live, learn and work near Heathrow.”

Keith Taylor, Member of the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee, said:

“Heathrow expansion remains the British political establishment’s most dangerous climate blindspot. Aviation is already a top ten global polluter and emissions from the heavily subsidised industry are set to balloon by 300 to 700% if urgent action isn’t taken [3].

Not accounting for any expansion, aviation is already expected to use up more than two-thirds of the UK’s carbon budget by 2050 [4]; part of the reason why the UK is already on course to miss its legally-binding climate targets [5].

Meanwhile, the local environment, air pollution, traffic and noise pollution impacts on millions of residents across London and the South East will be devastating but, according to the Government, the regions must be sacrificed for a faulty idea of the ‘national interest’.”

Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP for the South West, added:

“Transport is the EU’s jumbo sized problem when it comes to climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport have risen for three consecutive years in Europe [6]. Expanding aviation is totally inconsistent with our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The energy transition needed to meet our climate change commitments is taxying and ready for take-off, which risks leaving airports and runways at risk of becoming stranded fossil assets.

Greens in Europe have set out a number of progressive measures to drive down transport emissions. These measures, forming the basis of a European Parliament resolution, include proposals to end the tax break currently enjoyed by the aviation industry by introducing a harmonised kerosene tax and the removal of VAT exemption on air passenger tickets [7]. Brexit could mean the UK falling outside these progressive EU measures and the sky would become the limit when it comes to UK aviation emissions.”

Notes:

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/05/grayling-gives-go-ahead-to-heathrow-third-runway-plan
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-government-eu-court-air-pollution-dangerous-levels-european-commission-latest-a8355711.html
[3] https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation_en
[4] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-aviation-to-consume-half-uk-1point5c-carbon-budget-2050
[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700496/clean-growth-strategy-correction-april-2018.pdf (page 41)
[6] https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/small-cut-in-eus-total
[7] https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/news/greens-efa-round-up-7572/

The post Green MEPs slam Heathrow expansion as “a sick joke” appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

The UK’s Green MEPs – Jean Lambert (London), Keith Taylor (South East) and Molly Scott Cato (South West) – have written a letter to London’s Evening Standard criticising the Government’s revised proposals for Heathrow expansion.

Read the letter below, or on the Evening Standard website here.

The Government’s revised proposals for the expansion of Heathrow highlight how much damage would be caused by this reckless project.

They reveal that Heathrow is already having a more detrimental impact on our air than we realised, with an estimated 86 per cent of the toxic air in the surrounding area related to the airport — rather than the previously estimated 70 per cent. It has also emerged that building a third runway will increase toxic air pollution even more than originally predicted.

As a result, the Government must rule out the possibility of a third runway at Heathrow. But before the Gatwick PR machine leaps into action, it is worth pointing out that there is simply no need for a new runway in London. Every airport but one is operating under capacity, and the cases put forward by Gatwick and Heathrow to solve the manufactured “crisis” rely on vastly inflated job creation predictions.

By continuing to pursue this strategy, the Government is displaying a shocking disregard for the UK’s moral obligation to tackle a genuine air pollution public health emergency.

Jean Lambert, Keith Taylor and Molly Scott Cato, Green Party MEPs

The post Green MEPs write to the Evening Standard: Heathrow expansion is reckless appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Jean Lambert, Green MEP for London and Keith Taylor, Green MEP for the South East have submitted a joint response to the Government’s consultation on new runway capacity in the South East of England.

Jean and Keith’s response focuses on the following issues:

• they reject the Government’s argument that there is a need for new runway capacity in the region
• the economic benefit from the proposed new runway (the Heathrow Northwest scheme) is extremely questionable and will do nothing to rebalance the UK economy
• the proposed new runway and its operation will have significant negative impacts, especially in terms of climate change, air pollution, traffic congestion, noise, and impacts on local communities and the environment
• the measures proposed by the Government fail to address these negative impacts
• the proposed new runway will undermine UK carbon reduction targets and objectives and will make London’s already dangerous air pollution worse.

You can read Jean and Keith’s full submission here.

You can read their response to question 1, on the Government’s case for the need for new runway capacity, below.

—

The need for additional airport capacity

Question 1: The Government believes there is the need for additional airport capacity in the South East of England by 2030. Please tell us your views.

We do not believe the Government has made a convincing case for the need for additional airport capacity in the South East of England and London. (In the context of this submission we are using the term ‘South East’ to also apply to London.)

The consultation ignores the fact that Airports Commission forecasts show that growth in UK demand would be met by other airports, both elsewhere in the South East, but also outside the South East, where there already exists spare capacity.

In terms of connectivity, Airports Commission analysis shows that a third Heathrow runway will reduce the international connectivity of the UK’s regional airports. Rather than being a necessary response to a ‘need’, a third runway at Heathrow will have the effect of displacing connectivity from other regions.

The Government has elsewhere said it wants to rebalance the UK economy in favour of areas outside the South East. We strongly challenge the claim that a significant net economic benefit will arise from airport expansion in the South East. However, creating additional airport capacity within the South East goes directly against that objective of rebalancing the UK, especially in terms of infrastructure and investment.

We also question the value placed on ‘Heathrow’s hub status’. A large proportion of international passengers using Heathrow as a hub simply change planes there, and are travelling from one international destination to another without any UK stopover. No quantification of the economic value of these passengers has been made, yet there is an assumption that these interchange flights are economically beneficial and should be encouraged and provided for. We question that assumption.

We question both the need and the benefit of expanding Heathrow and of airport expansion in the South East more generally, and conclude that the case has not been made. Indeed the benefits have been significantly overstated, and the costs and impacts significantly understated.

In particular, we are concerned about how the economic benefit argument is presented. The Department for Transport is claiming Heathrow expansion will deliver an economic benefit of £61 billion. However, this is a gross figure, which does not take into account the direct and indirect costs, and does not factor in other costs, such as the climate, noise and air pollution impacts, as well as the social costs to affected local communities and the wide range of negative impacts that will arise from those.

On the issue of the required surface access improvements, the cost projections are disputed. Transport for London (TfL) estimates surface access improvements will cost £15 billion, which includes a new southern rail link from Waterloo to Heathrow. The Department for Transport is insisting on a much lower figure. In its 2015 submission, TfL conclude that the Airports Commission proposed £5bn cost underestimates the actual cost by £10-15bn. (See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-response-to-airports-commissions-final-recommendation.pdf, p29.) As London’s transport provider, TfL’s surface access cost assessments needs to be more fully taken into account.

The ‘need’ to expand capacity is also based on demand forecasts. However, air travel demand and its growth is highly price-sensitive and will continue to be. Given that aviation is predicted to make up an increasing proportion of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and international aviation is likely to establish carbon pricing regimes for flights, it should not be assumed that the current era of tax-free fuel and low cost flights will continue indefinitely. Mitigating the impacts of carbon intensive activities like flying by applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle effectively, could therefore impact on future demand levels. This is even more possible given the aforementioned price-sensitivity of air travel demand. These factors have not, we believe, been properly taken into account when formulating the policy.

Furthermore, the likely impact of Brexit on aviation demand needs to be taken into consideration. According to a briefing published by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in June 2016 (http://www.iata.org/publications/economic-briefings/impact-of-brexit.pdf), “the number of UK air passengers could be 3-5% lower by 2020, driven by the expected downturn in economic activity and the fall in the sterling exchange rate. The near-term impact on the UK air freight market is less certain, but freight will be affected by lower international trade in the longer term.” The EU is the single biggest destination market from the UK accounting for 49% of passengers and 54% of scheduled commercial flights.

In addition to our concerns regarding climate change, noise and air pollution, as outlined above, there is certainly also a good reason to call for the demand for a new runway to be reassessed in view of the UK’s exit from the EU.

In sum, we believe that the need for airport expansion in the South East and London has not been demonstrated. The costs – in terms of financial costs, air pollution, climate, noise and community impacts have not been sufficiently taken into account. The economic benefits arising from increased capacity in the South East have been overstated. Once the negative impacts and true costs are fully taken into account, we believe that no net benefit will arise. In addition, airport expansion in the South East will do nothing to rebalance the UK economy.

ENDS

The post Heathrow Runway consultation: No new runway say Green MEPs appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

To receive monthly updates about Jean’s work as London’s Green MEP please sign up here.

The post Jean Lambert MEP October E-News appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

The decision to approve expansion at Heathrow airport lacks ‘common sense’ and is ‘manifestly against the interests of the UK and the British people’, according to Green MEPs.

Jean Lambert, Green MEP for London, said:

“Contrary to all the evidence Theresa May has decided to forge ahead with the expansion of Heathrow airport regardless of the dreadful impact this will have on the local community, London and indeed the planet.”

“This decision is clearly incompatible with Britain’s recent agreement to ratify the Paris Agreement and will further contribute to air pollution for my constituents in London and beyond. Following the disastrous decisions on nuclear at Hinkley and on fracking in Lancashire, a very worrying pattern is emerging with regards to this government’s commitment, or rather lack of commitment, to the environment, the health of its citizens and common sense.”

Keith Taylor, a vocal anti-expansion campaigner and Green MEP for the South East who sits on the European Parliament’s Transport committee, said:

“There are no two ways about it; this is a disastrous decision for the people of the South East, London, Britain, and the planet. Welcome to Theresa May’s never-never land, where prime ministers never have to listen to scientists and never have to apologise for increasing CO2 emissions and air pollution levels. The Maidenhead MP has flip-flopped on her previous opposition to Heathrow and has kowtowed to the demands of multi-million-pound airport lobbies while ignoring the concerns of her own constituents and the need to take urgent action to mitigate catastrophic climate change. Is this what the Prime Minister had in mind when she promised to build a Britain not driven by the interests of a privileged few?

“Britain’s ‘airport capacity crisis’ is, and always has been, a dangerous myth driven by corporate greed, not by actual need. Not only is all but one airport in the UK operating under capacity, sponsoring the exponential growth of an aviation industry that is a top-ten global polluter is wholly incompatible with the Prime Minister’s promise to ratify the Paris Agreement. This Conservative government, led by a Prime Minister with no mandate, continues to make decisions so manifestly against the interests of the UK and the British people. From Hinkley to Heathrow this administration is on course to be the most ruinous the country has ever seen.”

The post Heathrow expansion is ‘disastrous’, say Green MEPs appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Jean Lambert, as Green MEP for London, has labelled the Davies Commission’s findings ‘deeply disappointing’ with the announcement this morning that a third runway has been recommended for Heathrow. Greens called for an end to airport expansion.

Jean said:

‘Today’s announcement shows the power and reach of big business. Growth at any cost in our aviation capacity is not compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments. Heathrow Airport is already the biggest noise polluter in Europe and with estimates that around 1.1 million people will be affected by a third runway, this is a deeply disappointing decision.’

In 2014 Jean submitted a joint response to a major Government consultation on airport expansion. In it, she highlighted the impact of aviation on meeting our climate change targets and on local communities. She also submitted a response to a separate consultation on state aid for aviation, in which they called for an end to state subsidies to the aviation industry.

The post Third Runway announced at Heathrow appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

It has emerged today that the Commission, led by businessman Sir Howard Davies, will recommend a new runway for one of the two airports in its final report into how to improve airport capacity in the UK, due next summer.

Ms Lambert said the if the Commission had considered the question of whether we should boost the capacity of aviation in light of the UK’s legal obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve Londoners’ air quality it would have recommended no new runway at all.
In fact, the Commission took for granted that the aviation industry should be expanded and merely considered where a new runway should be put.

It will make a recommendation based on a shortlist of three options – building a new runway or doubling the length of an existing runway at Heathrow or building a new runway at Gatwick, according to Sir Howard.

The viability of a planned new airport in the Thames Estuary as espoused by Mayor of London Boris Johnson will be considered next year confirmed Sir Howard.

The Green MEP said: “The reality is that we shouldn’t be extending the UK aviation industry at all.

“Wherever you build it, any new runway will destroy local communities, worsen air pollution – and increase the UK’s CO2 emissions.

“Heathrow is already an air pollution hot-spot – with all the implications for health we know about: thousands of Londoners a year are dying prematurely every year as a result of poor air quality.

“We know that residents of the Heathrow area are already suffering intolerable noise pollution – often in their own homes – and that this is causing ill-health and having a negative impact on children’s eduction. Expanding the airport can only make this worse.

“We know the greenhouse gas emission limits we face and have to work within – instead of building ever-more new runways, leading to ever more CO2 emissions, we need to develop a transport policy that takes account of that.

“The UK already has the aviation capacity it needs – rather than asking for new runways in London, the Government should be looking at how we can use that capacity more effectively.”

Aviation already accounts for about 13% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. If allowed to continue unchecked, aviation growth will make it impossible for the UK to meet its target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050.

Recent research by the Aviation Environment Federation suggests that the UK already has sufficient airport infrastructure to meet the maximum levels of future demand that would be consistent with the limits on aviation growth recommended by the UK Parliament’s Committee on Climate Change.

Ms Lambert added: “Not only is the expansion against Government targets for limiting all forms of pollution including noise and air but it will inevitably impact on the green belt and directly impinge on the homes and health of millions of Londoners.

“We’ve been told that expansion is crucial to the economy, but the contribution that aviation makes is frequently overstated. Eighteen million passengers arriving at Heathrow never leave the airport, simply using it to transfer to another international flight. That figure is expected to double by 2030.

“And the aviation industry does not pay it’s way, receiving tax breaks which other transport industries do not get. It doesn’t pay the damages of the noise and pollution it causes, it pays no tax on aviation fuel and it is zero-rated for VAT.

“A new runway anywhere will increase noise and air pollution. The health impacts of these pollutants are now much better understood than when Heathrow and Gatwick were first constructed, yet the Government does not seem concerned to address these issues.”

The post Green MEP says ‘NO’ to new runways in London appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Over 2 million residents, the majority living in West London, will have their quality of life dramatically destroyed if the expansion of Heathrow Airport, which has been met by mounting opposition, goes ahead.

As Jean Lambert MEP signed the petition to stop the expansion of the UK’s busiest airport she warned that the plans would not only have a devastating impact on the environment and our health but would lead to a surge in damaging CO2 emissions.

Jean commented; “The Government’s actions concerning our environment demonstrates a severe lack of joined up thinking. On the one hand they are flying the green flag urging as all to make lifestyle changes and reduce carbon emissions in the battle against climate change.  Yet on the other hand they continue to make moves to expand the aviation industry – one of the fastest growing sources of emissions fueling climate change.

“Not only is the expansion against Government targets for limiting all forms of pollution including noise and air but it will inevitably impact on the green belt and directly impinge on the homes and health of millions of Londoners.

“If this government is serious about sustainable development and putting the interests of Londoners first it must end the expansion of Heathrow airport immediately.”

Jean continued to urge everyone to sign the petition, which closes on 7th April 2007 and can be found at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/HeathrowRunway/, to stop the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

ENDS

The post Heathrow Expansion Condemned By Capital’s Green MEP appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.