Aviation's
Economic Downside
John
Whitelegg and Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
with
Seth
Crook
Green
Party of England & Wales
August 2001
www.greenparty.org.uk
Promoted and published by Spencer
Fitz-Gibbon for The Green Party, 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ.
Tel: 020 7561 0282. Email: press@greenparty.org.uk John Whitelegg BA PhD FCIT FILT FRSA, the Green
Party's Chief Policy Advisor on Transport, is an internationally-respected
transport expert and environmental consultant. Managing Director of
Eco-Logica Ltd, he teaches in the School of the Built Environment at
Liverpool John Moores University, and is Honorary Visiting Professor in
theDepartment of Biology at the University of York. Spencer Fitz-Gibbon BA (Hons) PhD is a member of the
Green Party's national executive and formerly the party's Air Transport
Spokesperson. He has written or edited a number of Green Party publications
on transport. Seth Crook BA PhD has been visiting philosophy lecturer teaching on
green issues at universities in California, Oregon and Illinois. He is
currently head of the Hebridean Green Philosophy Circle and contributes to
the Green Party's research programme. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr
Caroline Lucas MEP (Green Party, South East England), Dr Lucy Ford, the
Aviation Environment Federation, the European Federation for Transport &
Environment, Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000, the Gatwick Area
Conservation Campaign, HACAN Clear Skies, North West Essex & East Herts Preservation
Association, Manchester Airport Environment Network, and the Financial
Times. Contents
Summary 1. Introduction - Aviation growth: the economic downside 2. Noise pollution from air transport: health and economic
impacts 3. Air pollution from aircraft and airports: health and
economic impacts 4. Climate change: the colossal economic costs of air
transport pollution 5. Cutting through the aviation sector's economic
propaganda 6. The hidden costs of aviation 7. The hidden subsidies to aviation 8. Aviation is a drain on the UK balance of payments 9. Policies for economic and ecological sustainability in
the aviation sector 10. Conclusion Notes Summary
S1 Aviation is the most highly-polluting transport mode on
earth, and its pollution constitutes a major hidden cost to the economy.
Aviation is also subsidised directly and indirectly by the taxpayer, and is a
major drain on the UK balance of payments. S2 The health costs of air pollution from the UK aviation
sector are estimated at more than £1.3 billion pounds a year. S3 The economic costs of aircraft noise in the UK are
estimated at £313 million a year. S4 The costs of UK aviation's contribution to climate
change are estimated at well over £2 billion a year in 2001. And unless the
government radically changes its policy on the matter, aviation's CO2
emissions will have increased by 588% between 1992 and 2050, and its NOx
pollution by 411%. By 2050, aviation could be contributing up to 15% of the
overall global warming effect produced by human activities - with staggering
economic costs. S5 The overall hidden economic costs of the European
Union's aviation sector are currently estimated at £14.3 billion a year - of
which the UK alone accounts for £3.782 billion, or 26%. This doesn't include
the costs of aviation accidents and accident services. S6 Hidden subsidies to the aviation sector also include
the costs of building and maintaining the surface transport infrastructure
which serves airports - costs which are growing fast in parallel with the
growth of aviation. S7 Air passenger transport currently represents a drain on
the UK balance of payments of £3.5 billion a year. This doesn't include the
costs of importing fuel and aircraft. S8 Aviation is under-taxed compared to most sectors.
Flight tickets, aircraft and aviation fuel are zero-rated for VAT. This costs
HM Treasury £1.8 billion a year in lost VAT alone, and in fact aviation fuel
pays no tax at all. If aviation fuel were taxed at the same rate as unleaded
petrol, this would raise some £5 billion a year. Effectively, society is
subsidising the aviation industry through a colossal tax-break of £6.8
billion a year. S9 The effect of these tax-breaks and externalities is
equivalent to every man, woman and child in the UK donating an average
£182.45 to the aviation industry every year - not including accident
costs, direct and indirect subsidies to supporting industries including the
oil industry and the aircraft manufacturing industry, or the costs of
providing airports with ground transport infrastructure at public expense. S10 All these costs and subsidies are increasing rapidly
as the aviation sector grows. Government policy continues to support such
growth regardless of the consequences. S11 If remedial action isn't taken, UK air passenger
numbers are forecast to increase from 130 million in 1995 to 400 million in
2020 - the equivalent of an extra 4 airports the size of Heathrow or 12 new
airports the size of Manchester. Without remedial action, by 2020 demand is
forecast to be rising by about 15 million passengers a year - equivalent to a
new Gatwick every 2 years. S12 The application of a fairer tax regime on aviation
could cut UK passenger numbers to 59% of the figure forecast for 2020. But
even with such measures, passenger numbers would still have increased by
almost 150% during 1998-2020. S13 The Green Party urges rigorous action to curb the
growth of the aviation sector, through the following 7-point plan:
1. Introduction Aviation growth: the
economic downside
"…an unquestioning attitude
toward future growth in air travel, and an acceptance that the projected
demand for additional facilities must be met, are incompatible with the aims
of sustainable development." Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution, 18th Report on Transport and the Environment 1.1 Aviation is the most highly-polluting transport mode
on earth. Its pollution translates into hidden economic costs which are paid
not by the industry itself but by society as a whole. Aviation is the
fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, and a major contributor
to climate change and the resulting damage to the economy. 1.2 Yet the fuel aircraft burn to cause this pollution
isn't even taxed. Unlike most goods, aircraft and aviation fuel and airline
tickets are zero-rated for VAT. The hidden subsidies to the aviation sector
also include: a. Health costs associated with noise and air pollution. b. Costs of building and maintaining the transport
infrastructure which serves airports. c. Direct and indirect subsidies to the industries which
supply the air transport sector, including oil and aircraft manufacturing. 1.3 The effect of these tax breaks and hidden costs is
equivalent to every man, woman and child in the UK donating an average
£182.45 to the aviation industry every year - not including direct and
indirect subsidies to the oil industry and to the aircraft manufacturing
industry, or the costs of providing airports with ground transport
infrastructure and emergency services at public expense. Although some people
derive economic advantage from this situation, the net effect is that those
who don't fly are subsidising those who do, and those who fly occasionally
are subsidising those who fly a lot. Society is subsidising businesses that
generate air travel, but not businesses that don't. All this is incompatible
with the government's professed belief both in economic level playing fields
and in social justice. 1.4 The UK has the biggest airline, the largest airport, a
very dynamic market (including new low-budget airlines) and very high
passenger growth rates. Of all European Union countries, the UK is the worst
offender when it comes to passing the hidden costs of aviation on to society
as a whole. The UK generates over a quarter of the European Union's hidden
aviation costs. (See tables 1 and 2 in section 6 of this report.) 1.5 Growth forecasts vary, but the middle of the range
indicates at least a doubling of the miles flown between 1995 and 2015. On a
1995 base, global forecasts of miles flown in the year 2015 range from a low
growth of 181% to a high growth of 380%. Recent government forecasts predict
a 239% increase. That is, 310 million passengers will go through UK airports
in 2015, up from 130 million in 1995 - an increase of 180 million passengers
in 20 years. That's the equivalent of an extra 4 airports the size of
Heathrow or 12 new airports the size of Manchester. [1] By 2020 the forecasts
indicate that demand will be rising by about 15 million a year, equivalent to
a new Gatwick every 2 years. [2] 1.6 As the aviation sector expands, so the environmental
and economic costs associated with it expand. 2. Noise pollution from air transport:
health and economic impacts
2.1 Aircraft noise is not simply annoying. It can be a
significant threat to health. It thus has human, social and economic costs. 2.2 According to the World Health Organisation:
"Environments with heavy noise [are characterised by] cardiac diseases,
doctors' calls and purchase of medicine more frequently than in quiet
environments." [3] 2.3 The World Health Organisation proposes a range of
noise standards designed to protect human health. Yet over 170,000 people in
Britain are currently threatened with aviation-associated noise that fails to
meet these standards. Evidence from specific studies points to clear areas of
health damage in noisy environments, such as reading deficits and problems
with cognitive development among infants and pre-school children. [4] 2.4 The growth of aviation will make the problem worse,
and currently there is no government or industry response that can guarantee
noise reductions to safe WHO levels. 2.5 Airports and aircraft manufacturers promise
"quieter" aircraft. But this is not solving the problem. Airports
in Germany are served by the same kind of "quieter" aircraft that
serve UK airports, but there is still a trend towards more people being
affected by noise. [5] 2.6 It's impossible to quantify all the negative impacts
of aircraft noise, such as the negative effects on the education and
development of individual children. But studies indicate that the economic
costs of aircraft noise pollution in the UK amount to £313 million a year. [6] 3. Air pollution from aircraft and
airports: health and economic impacts
3.1 US data clearly suggests that aviation contributes
significantly to local inventories of emissions such as Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Studies around Zurich Airport and
Stockholm Arlanda Airport show that aviation contributes a significant share
of total emissions within a well-defined geographical area. [7] The London
Borough of Hounslow, which borders on Heathrow Airport and monitors air pollution,
is of the view that "further expansion of the airport and associated
road traffic congestion could lead to significant worsening of local air
quality." [8] In a press release dated 10.8.99 the same authority
concludes "It is clear that the use of motor vehicles and the operation
of Heathrow Airport heavily influence the levels of air pollution in
Hounslow". A study of London's second largest airport [9] came to a
similar conclusion: "The Gatwick Study reveals a dramatic rise in
aircraft derived emissions - particularly NOx. For this pollutant at least,
it will mean that air quality in neighbouring Horley will remain above
National Air Quality Strategy levels beyond 2005 despite the dramatic drop in
road vehicle emissions." Similar fears have been expressed at other
airports, not least due to the massive increase in ground traffic. Britain's
third largest airport, Manchester, is seeking a doubling of passenger numbers
between 1995 and 2005, which will lead to an extra 12 million car journeys a
year around what is arguably Britain's most traffic-polluted city. [10] 3.2 Heathrow alone contributes about 10% of the England
and Wales total of VOCs. Its NOx levels are predicted to rise by 110% by
2015. Yet this pollution is associated with a range of serious health risks.
[11] 3.3 Problems associated with various pollutants include
the following: a. Carbon dioxide (CO2): at high levels this causes
headaches, drowsiness, nausea, slowed reflexes, and at very high levels it
causes death. At low levels it can impair concentration and nervous system
function and may cause exercise-related heart pain in people with coronary
heart disease. b. Nitrogen oxides (NOx): impairs respiratory cell
function and damages blood capillaries and cells of the immune system. c. Carbon monoxide (CO): increases susceptibility to
infection and aggravates asthma. In children exposure may result in coughs,
colds, phlegm, shortness of breath, chronic wheezing and respiratory diseases
including bronchitis. d. Ozone (O3): ground level ozone reduces lung function in
healthy people as well as those with asthma. It may increase susceptibility
to infection and responsiveness to allergens such as pollens and house dust
mites. It may cause coughs, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat,
headaches, nausea, chest pain and loss of lung efficiency, and increases in
the likelihood of asthma attacks. e. Particulate matter (PM): strongly associated with a
wide range of symptoms such as coughs, colds, phlegm, sinusitis, shortness of
breath, chronic wheezing, chest pain, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema and loss
of lung efficiency. As many as 15% of asthma and 7% of Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease cases in the urban population are estimated to be possibly
related to prolonged exposure to high concentrations of PM. Long term
exposure is associated with increased risk of death from heart and lung
diseases. PM may carry carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), hence may increase the risk of developing cancer. f. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): This category of
pollutant includes thousands of different chemicals, many of which are
hydrocarbons (HC). They may cause skin irritation, breathing difficulties and
long term exposure may impair lung function. Many individual compounds are
carcinogenic (including benzene). Benzene can cause leukaemia. Those most at
risk are people exposed to benzene at work or who live or work in the
vicinity of petrol filling stations or general vehicle activity. g. Sulphur Dioxide (SO2): SO2 irritates the lungs and is
associated with chronic bronchitis. People with asthma are particularly
vulnerable and a few minutes' exposure to the pollutant may trigger an
attack. The most serious effect occurs when SO2 is absorbed by particulate
matter and then inhaled into the lungs. At high doses it can release
sulphuric acid on reaction with moisture in the lungs. This can result in
widespread death and illness - for example, it is likely to have been the
main cause of the 4000 deaths during the notorious 1952 London smog. [12] One
study cites cancer. [13] 3.4 Given the above it's no wonder that air pollution,
including from aircraft and the surface traffic pollution associated with
airports, kills up to 24,000 people in the UK every year [14] and requires
medical treatment for thousands more. The health costs of air pollution from
the UK aviation sector are estimated at more than £1.3 billion a year. [15] 4. Climate change: the colossal economic
costs of air transport pollution
4.1 Aviation currently accounts for just over 3.5% of
total CO2 emissions. According to a recent report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, by 2050 emissions from aircraft could be responsible
for up to 15% of the overall global warming produced by human activities.
[16] 4.2 Not only is aviation the fastest-growing source of CO2
emissions. Aircraft emit a very large proportion of their pollutants directly
into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, where the pollution is
disproportionately damaging. It has been argued that aircraft pollution from
NOx effectively doubles the contribution to global warming from aviation's
share of the main greenhouse gas, CO2 itself. [17] Moreover, the ground
traffic associated with airports is considered to be an even greater
contribution to climate change than the aircraft themselves. [18] 4.3 All the forecasts point to large increases in the
global inventory of pollutants from aviation: the percentage change for CO2
in the period 1992-2050 is expected to be 588%. The equivalent NOx increase
for the same period is 411%. [19] 4.4 Of further concern are contrails, the vapour trails
made by aircraft. Below the flight corridors where air traffic is
concentrated, contrails could have a greater warming effect than all
greenhouse gas emissions together. [20] 4.5 Estimates of the economic costs of climate change vary
widely. But climate-induced damage appears to be increasing at a faster rate
than economic growth, so that at some point this century the damage caused by
climate change might be expected to equal or surpass the sum of the world's
annual economic product. [21] 4.6 The costs of UK aviation's contribution to climate
change are estimated at well over £2 billion a year. [22] 5. Cutting through the aviation sector's
economic propaganda
5.1 The case for expanding airports and supporting the
growth of aviation is usually accompanied by claims about the economic gains
(especially jobs) associated with this growth. However, these arguments are
commonly inconsistent and flawed. 5.2 The aviation industry is adept at the skilful use of
partial information, including slanted or selective statistics, to argue that
an airport is some kind of magical goose that lays golden eggs. Media
reportage of such claims is often uncritical, so that the public is usually
unlikely to be presented with an informed critique of grandiose claims by
airports. 5.3 Worse, the issue of an airport expansion is most
commonly resolved into the false argument of economic benefits v
environmental disbenefits, and the latter are usually presented as noise
nuisance and loss of greenbelt - as though climate change and other huge
negative economic impacts of aviation simply didn't exist. 5.4 For example, Manchester Airport plc announced in 1991
that it wanted to built a second runway which would create 50,000 jobs. The
latter claim was based on a flawed study - but the point was made and the
media continued to associate Runway 2 with 50,000 jobs. A second study on
Runway 2 and job-creation was commissioned by the Airport but never
published. A third, presented by the Airport to the Runway 2 public inquiry
in a detailed econometric report, revised the figure from 50,000 down to
18,000 - and even then could only reach this figure by making absurd claims
about the jobs to come from tourism and inward investment - but the media
continued to use the 50,000 figure anyway. [23] 5.5 Moreover, the lengthy econometric study commissioned
by the Airport gave the distinct impression that the choice was between
building Runway 2 and creating 18,000 jobs, or not building Runway 2 and not
creating any jobs. There was simply no comparison of the alternative
job-creation potential of the same investment being applied to other sectors
of the economy (as Manchester Airport is owned by the Greater Manchester
local authorities, which could have used airport profits for purposes other
than investment in airport expansion). The Green Party established through
correspondence with the majority shareholder that the latter had taken no
account whatsoever either of alternative job-creation potential, or of the
external costs of the airport, when it decided to support the £525 million
expansion of the Airport between 1995 and 2005. [24] 5.6 The aviation industry is happy to spread the
simplistic and questionable impression that airports generate wealth, whereas
in reality airport expansion is only facilitated by consumer choice -
that is, by people deciding to spend their money on aviation rather
than elsewhere in the economy. Of course, if a person chooses to spend money
on furniture, home improvements, car maintenance, a non-air holiday or
anything else for that matter, their spending will still create jobs
somewhere else in the economy. Because air travel is heavily subsidised by
society - because it passes on billions of pounds of external costs to
society every year, and evades billions of pounds in taxation - it
simply appears good value for money. But if the cost of air travel reflected
its true costs to society, and if it paid its way through taxation as other
items must, then it could not appear such good value, and demand would fall.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has attributed the rapid
growth of aviation to the fact that aircraft and aviation fuel escape any
kind of taxation. [25] [26] 5.7 A public education programme is necessary to provide
balance in the public's perception of the economics of aviation. 6. The hidden costs of aviation
6.1 Regardless of any detailed arguments about methodologies
of studies into the alleged benefits of the aviation sector, the external
costs alone illustrate that this particular golden goose has something of the
appearance of a white elephant. (See tables 1 and 2.) Table 1: Annual external costs of EU aviation: in billions
of pounds
Overall total for passengers + freight: £14.3 billion Table 2: Annual external costs of UK aviation: in millions
of pounds
Total for passengers + freight: £3,782 million 6.2 It will be noted that the UK figures represent 26% of
the total for the European Union. The Green Party believes that if one
country out of 15 is responsible for more than a quarter of the total
external environmental costs, then that country must take the lead in
exercising responsibility for solving the problem. [27] 7. The hidden subsidies to aviation
7.1 Aviation is doubly subsidised. Firstly, as described
in the previous section, it externalises many of its costs. Secondly, it
escapes taxation. Partly as a result of these hidden subsidies, air tickets
are 42% cheaper today than they were ten years ago. [28] 7.2 If aviation fuel were taxed at the same rate as
unleaded petrol, this would raise about £5 billion a year. [29] If Aviation's
VAT zero-rating were removed, this would raise a further £1.8 billion a year.
[30] That is, society is effectively providing a colossal hidden subsidy to
the aviation industry in the form of a tax-break of astonishing proportions -
some £6.8 billion a year. 7.3 According to a UK government report, [31] introducing
an aviation fuel tax at 100% would reduce demand by 10%. Taxing aviation fuel
at 25p a litre - just half the rate applied to motor fuel (ie at around 140%)
- might therefore be expected to reduce demand by about 14%. This would
reduce the mid-point forecast for the number of passengers passing through UK
airports in 2020 from 400 million to 344 million. [32] 7.4 VAT on air travel (including fuel and aircraft
purchases) would put air fares up by 17.5%. DETR figures [DETR, ibid.]
indicate that this would reduce demand by about 22%. Imposing both a fuel tax
and VAT would reduce forecast demand to around 268 million. [33] 7.5 Trebling airport charges at Heathrow and Gatwick would
raise average UK airport charges by about 100%. The government's figures
indicate that this could be expected to reduce demand by a further 11%. The
abolition of the remaining duty-free might knock off a further 1%, reducing
the total demand in 2020 to 236 million. [34] 7.6 It would seem reasonable to conclude that the total
effect of introducing realistic landing fees and a fairer tax regime - even
with aviation fuel taxed at only half the rate of unleaded petrol - would
be to bring about a situation where demand for air travel rises from 160
million passengers using UK airports in 1998 to about 236 million in 2020.
This would represent a significant reduction in the growth of CO2 emissions
and of the various hidden costs, but would still represent an increase in passenger
numbers of 147.5% over 22 years. [35] 7.7 A greater reduction in growth would be desirable in
order to help the UK meet serious emissions-reduction targets and further
reduce the growth of aviation's hidden costs. This could probably be achieved
through a combination of measures: a. Higher rates of aviation fuel tax. b. Public education on the impacts of aviation -
especially with reference to climate change, which is of growing concern to
the public. c. Provision and active promotion of alternatives to air
travel. d. Encouragement of UK holiday options not requiring air
travel. 8. Aviation is a drain on the UK balance
of payments
8.1 The economic effects of aviation are not the same for
everyone everywhere. This is particularly significant with respect to
tourism. Much of the growth of air travel has been generated by tourism, 66%
of all passengers using UK airports being leisure travellers. In 1997 UK air
travellers abroad spent £13.4 billion whereas foreign travellers by air to
the UK spent £9.9 billion, giving a deficit of £3.5 billion. If air travel
were to be restricted it is possible that the net effect in terms of spending
and employment on the UK economy would be positive. [36] 8.2 Aviation is extremely fuel-intensive and relies on
imported oil. Moreover a very high proportion of the air transport fleet is
made up of imported aircraft. On both counts the UK suffers a further drain
on its balance of payments. Efforts to manufacture a higher proportion of
aircraft in the UK involve huge subsidies from the public to the aviation
industry - for example the £500 million donated by the UK government to BAe
to help it build its Airbus. [37] 9. Policies for economic and ecological
sustainability in the aviation sector
9.1 The latest scientific evidence on climate change, and
on the contribution of aviation to global inventories of greenhouse gases,
and the expected economic disbenefits of climate change, point to the need
for a fundamental change in public policy towards aviation - for both
economic and ecological reasons. 9.2 Recent years have seen major changes in land-based
transport where traffic reduction is now part (albeit imperfectly) of most
policy agendas. If international organisations, the European Union and national
governments have agreed sustainable development strategies and/or greenhouse
gas reduction strategies then it follows that aviation, like any other
commercial activity, should be expected to play its part in delivering those
reductions. 9.3 The following policies would help achieve such
reductions with respect to aviation. A European environmental charge based on emissions 9.4 The demand for aviation can be reduced by policies
that build into the cost of a flight the full cost of that flight. [38] Such
a policy is already accepted for the transport sector as a whole (for
example, lorries) where the Polluter Pays Principle is agreed European Union
policy. This can be achieved by different methods including fuel charges,
landing charges and seat/ticket charges. Any or all of these pricing
strategies can be used to achieve a target level of cost paid by the user and
modified from time to time to reflect new calculations on the costs of noise
or damage to human health or climate change effects. Ending all subsidies and tax exemptions 9.5 It is normal for airports to be connected at public
expense to the public road and rail systems and for those systems to be
expanded when demand rises. Airlines receive large amounts of funds from
national governments for "restructuring," and air traffic control
costs are funded partly if not wholly from public funds. All these methods of
shifting costs of aviation away from users and onto the taxpayer, whether he
or she flies or not, are economic distortions and should be ended together
with fuel tax exemption and zero-rated VAT on aircraft, aviation fuel and
airline tickets. 9.6 The European Union is deeply involved in funding the
expansion of aviation facilities via the European Investment Bank. [39] Large
sums are provided under very favourable terms and conditions. This system of
loans acts as both an insulator from the normal rigours of free-market
financing and as a strong force pushing up the supply of infrastructure and
stimulating growth in demand. The removal of these unnecessary privileges and
subsidies is a key component of any strategy to reduce the demand for air
transportation. Optimising air traffic control 9.7 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has
published a report showing that an overall fuel saving of 6-12% could be
achieved by implementation of an improved air traffic control system during
the next 20 years. [40] This would achieve a proportionate reduction in the
associated hidden costs. More stringent noise and emission standards for aircraft
and for geographical areas around airports 9.8 There should also be a night flight ban and noise
landing charges, with revenues feeding back into the damaged communities. Provision of alternatives to air transport 9.9 Studies show that air travel produces far more CO2
emissions per passenger kilometre than rail. Over short distances (ie less
than 500km) air travel produces around three times more CO2 per passenger
kilometre than rail. Nearly 70% of all flights within European airspace are
less than 1000km long, and in 1998 there were over 7.5 million flights within
European airspace. [41] So clearly there is considerable scope for replacing
air travel with rail travel, and the necessary investment must be made to
facilitate the shift. Research into further alternatives to air transport 9.10 Use of email, data transfer, video link-up,
telepresence etc can reduce the need for physical travel. A high proportion
of business travel could be avoided by these methods, which are also cheaper
and make better use of time. Evidence on the extent to which this is
happening is scarce but the experience of telework in the European Union
where the substitution is for the journey to work by car shows that the
potential is there to be exploited. [42] Change in UK land-use planning system 9.11 In considering applications for airport development,
independent auditing of economic justifications should be mandatory. Full
weight must be given to the climate change and human health issues, external
costs and alternative job-creation potential - considerations not adequately
considered even in the lengthy public inquiries into Manchester Runway 2 and
Heathrow's Terminal 5. Education on the negative economic and ecological impacts
of aviation 9.12 Consumer choice in favour of air travel is heavily
influenced by the fact that it's heavily subsidised and therefore cheaper (or
rather, appears cheaper, the true costs being hidden by the subsidies,
tax-breaks and externalities). Demand is further encouraged by an abundance
of advertising, travel programmes, uncritically positive news reportage of
airports as "generators of wealth", etc, which contrasts sharply
with a dearth of information about the negative consequences of air
transportation. Balance must be restored through a comprehensive public
education effort. 10. Conclusion
"The air transport industry
is growing faster than we are currently producing and introducing
technological and operational advances which reduce the environmental impact
at source. "The overall environmental
impact is bound to increase since the gap between the rate of growth and the
rate of environmental improvement appears to widen in important fields such
as emissions of greenhouse gases. "This trend is unsustainable
and must be reversed because of its impact on climate and the quality of life
and health of European citizens." European Commission, 2000 [43] 10.1 The environmental impacts of aviation, which are
already huge and are continuing to grow, translate into negative economic
impacts. Reducing the ecological and economic impacts can only be successful
if we reduce the size of the industry. 10.2 Whilst society will doubtless continue to make use of
aviation on a large scale, it certainly isn't inevitable that demand for
aviation will continue to grow. Demand is artificially stimulated by direct
and indirect subsidies, and if these were removed, then aviation would not be
seen as such good value for money. Moreover, as public concern about climate
change grows, and as people become increasingly aware of aviation's
contribution to this and other problems, more people will seek alternatives.
On both counts, demand for air travel will fall. 10.3 The seriousness of problems like climate change and
pollution-induced illness, and the scale of the econmic disadvantages,
suggest that we can't leave things to chance. There must be a determined
effort to reduce the negative impacts of the aviation industry. This effort
must be led by government policy, as a matter of public interest and
ecological sustainability. 10.4 The Green Party has led the way in advancing policies
for tackling the ongoing ecological crisis and for developing a sustainable
and socially just economy. We shall continue to do so, not least in the realm
of aviation. Notes
1. DETR, 1997. Caroline Lucas MEP, response to The
Future of Aviation, government consultation document on air transport
policy, 2001, correspondence with the author, cites an increase of 240
million, from 160 million to 400 million, between 1998 and 2020. 2. Caroline Lucas MEP, ibid. 3. World Health Organisation (1993) Community Noise,
p83. 4. WHO (1993), p99. A 1995 study of school children around
Munich Airport (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1996) noted that those
children living in areas affected by aircraft noise had poorer long-term
memory recall, reading comprehension and overall tolerance levels than did
children in a comparable urban environment unaffected by aircraft noise. A
study around LaGuardia and JFK International Airports in the USA controlled
for racial, socio-economic and educational factors concluded that high levels
of environmental noise are inversely related to reading ability in primary
school children. Natural Resources Defense Council (1996) Flying Off
Course: Environmental Impacts of America's Airports, NRDC, Washington DC,
USA. 5. See John Whitelegg, The Plane Truth, Ashden
Trust. 6. External effects of transport by IWW, Karlsruhe,
Germany and Infras, Zurich. IWW and Infras are the leading transport
economics consultancies in Europe. This report was dated 1994 and appears to
be the most up-to-date study. Figures have been factored up by 48% in line
with the rate of growth of the industry since the IWW/Infras research, and
converted into sterling on the basis of 1 Euro = £0.60. 7. Airports and the Environment, edited by Anne
Paylor, MDIS Publications Ltd, Chichester, West Sussex, 1994. Konzepte
Studie zur Umweltsituation des Rhein-Main-Flugahafens Frankfurt/Main, TUV
Rheinland Gruppe, 1992. 8. Source: http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/es/monitor.html . 9. Pease 1999. 10. See Pigs Might Fly: A Green economic critique of
Manchester airport's expansion, North West Green Party, April 1996. 11. NRDC 1996. 12. Source: British Lung Foundation (1998) Transport
and Pollution: the health costs. 13. Environment Protection Agency (1993) Estimation and
evaluation of cancer risks attributable to air pollution in SW Chicago,
EPA, Washington DC, USA. Conclusion: these pollutants contributed to elevated
rates of cancer incidence in the vicinity of Midway Airport (SW Chicago).
Midway's arriving and departing planes contribute far more of these toxic
pollutants than other industrial sources within a pre-defined 16 square mile
study area. The EPA study estimates that aircraft engines are responsible for
10.5% of the cancer cases in SW Chicago caused by toxic air pollution. 14. UK government figures. 15. External effects of transport by IWW and
Infras, ibid. 16. IPCC, Special Report on Aviation and the Global
Atmosphere. 17. See Aircraft and Our Atmosphere: Air Transport and
Global Warming. Green Party Transport Policy Working Group, March 1997. 18. Atmospheric Research and Information Centre (ARIC),
Manchester Metropolitan University, correspondence with the author. 19. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, June 1999. 20. Sustainable Aviation: The Need for a European
Environmental Aviation Charge, European Federation for Transport and the
Environment, Brussels, 1998. 21. See Climate Change: Crisis and Opportunity,
Green Party, forthcoming. 22. External effects of transport by IWW and
Infras, ibid. 23. See Cloud Cuckoo Land: The sad truth about jobs and
Runway 2, Manchester Green Party, March 1996. 24. Correspondence between the author and the chief
executive of Manchester City Council. 25. The RCEP said: "….the demand for air transport
might not be growing at the present rate if airlines and their customers had
to face the costs of the damage they are causing to the environment."
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 18th Report on Transport and
the Environment. 26. Two reports published in 1999, dealing specifically
with these issues, came to different conclusions. The Contribution of the
Aviation Industry to the UK Economy was prepared by Oxford Economic
Forecasting (OEF) for a consortium of the UK's major airport operators and
airlines and DETR. Transport and the Economy was prepared by the
Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) for DETR.
Although SACTRA's general remit deals with road transport, the latter report
addresses the impact of all transport modes. The SACTRA report addressed the question of whether
improvements in transport infrastructure and increasing transport capacities
lead to increased economic activity. It concluded that although there are
theoretical reasons why improved transport infrastructure could lead to more
economic activity, the empirical evidence for this is weak. Moreover, in a
mature economy with developed transport systems (such as the UK),
contribution to economic growth from improved transport is likely to be
modest: SACTRA (1999), p17. It also concluded that it isn't possible to give a
complete and unbiased estimate of the economic impact of transport without an
assessment of environmental costs and that, since transport improvements
connect different locations and areas, the benefits do not necessarily accrue
evenly: SACTRA (1999), p22. There may be losers as well as winners as a
result of more competitive areas gaining improved access. Improved access
could lead to loss of employment at particular locations. The OEF Report argues that there are important links
between economic growth and aviation. These, it says, derive from the
contribution aviation makes in its own right to employment, production,
exports, investment, and the impact it has on the performance of other
industries as a facilitator of economic growth and rising productivity. OEF
produce quantitative estimates of the negative economic effects of
restricting air travel, including the claim that restricting passenger growth
to 3.5% per annum rather than the predicted 4% would reduce UK GDP by 2.5% by
2015, or £30 billion at 1998 prices. They estimate that over the last 10
years the impact of aviation growth in the UK economy has been to increase
output in the whole economy by about $550 million per year. The OEF report lacks credibility. Its terms of reference
exclude environmental costs, so it presents an incomplete analysis. In fact
it may be that the beneficial effects (including economic benefits) of
restricting air travel would be greater than any unproven estimates of
reduced economic growth. Its data and methodology are also flawed. Some of these
data are estimates of the required variables (such as the indirect employment
caused by aviation), and its methodology makes simplistic assumptions about
the nature of the links between aviation and economy that the SACTRA report
reveals to be complex and context-dependent. The theoretical justifications made by OEF for the links
between aviation and economic growth are weak. It is claimed for example that
excellent air services are a key factor in foreign direct investment
decisions and that the UK leads Europe in terms of such investment at least
partly because of excellent accessibility by air. No convincing evidence has
been produced to justify this claim. Good air services are necessary, but any
incremental enhancement from an already high level is unlikely to make a
significant difference compared with other advantages that the UK offers such
as language and financial incentives. (See Airports Policy Consortium (1997) Efficiency
and Equity, Policy Paper 1, Surrey UK.) Manchester Airport plc made
similar claims when arguing that its proposed Runway 2 would create thousands
of jobs from inward investment. Yet: (a) air accessibility is only one of a
company's requirements, and seldom the highest priority - other regions were
achieving higher levels of inward investment than the North West, despite
lesser air accessibility (see Pigs Might Fly, North West Green Party,
op cit); and (b) potential for inward investment would depend more on the
availability of land than on the number of runways at Britain's third biggest
airport - meaning, in this case, pressure to build on large areas of
greenbelt, which would by no means be welcomed whatever the size of the local
airport. Finally, restrictions on the growth of air travel are
unlikely to result in a loss of jobs. This is because the long-run level of
employment is determined more by the supply of labour than the level of
demand in particular industries. 27. Source for Tables 1 and 2: Green Party calculations
based on External effects of transport by IWW, Karlsruhe, Germany and
Infras, Zurich. IWW and Infras are the leading transport economics
consultancies in Europe. This report was dated 1994 and appears to be the
most up-to-date study. Figures have been factored up by 48% in line with the
rate of growth of the industry since the IWW/Infras research, and converted
into sterling on the basis of 1 Euro = £0.60. 28. Caroline Lucas MEP, response to The Future of
Aviation, government consultation document on air transport policy, 2001,
correspondence with author. 29. See Brendon Sewill, Tax Free Aviation,
published in December 2000 by the Aviation Environment Federation with the
support of Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000, Gatwick Area Conservation
Campaign, HACAN Clear Skies, North West Essex and East Herts Preservation
Association and Manchester Airport Environment Network. 30. HM Customs & Excise, cit Caroline Lucas MEP and
Jean Lambert MEP Annual Report 2001. 31. DETR Air Traffic Forecasts. 32. Caroline Lucas MEP, response to The Future of
Aviation, government consultation document on air transport policy, 2001,
correspondence with author. 33. Caroline Lucas MEP, ibid. 34. Caroline Lucas MEP, ibid. 35. Caroline Lucas MEP, ibid. 36. Y Van de Pol (1998) The Myths of Flying,
Friends of the Earth, Amsterdam. 37. See, eg, Financial Times 13.3.2000. 38. See Dutch Centre for Energy Conservation and
Environmental Technology (1998), A European Aviation Charge. Feasibility
Study, A Bleijenberg and RCN Wit, Centre for Energy Conservation and
Environmental Technology, Delft, Netherlands. Other work carried out
independently of the Dutch Centre for Energy Conservation and Environmental
Technology arrives at similar conclusions. (Brockhagen and Lienemeyer, 1998, Proposal
for a European Aviation Charge. Design and implementation with respect to
international economical, ecological, legal and political constraints. 39. The EIB in 1998 provided 5.4 billion Euros in loans to
transport infrastructure projects, of which 1.25 billion Euros was for air
and maritime transport. These loans funded increases in capacity at Hannover,
Edinburgh, Heathrow, Gatwick, Bologna, Athens, Reunion and Madeira Airports.
They also funded airline fleet renewals in Austria, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg
and Sweden. Annual Report 1998, European Investment Bank, Luxembourg. 40. Caroline Lucas MEP, response to The Future of
Aviation, government consultation document on air transport policy, 2001,
correspondence with author. 41. Energy and emissions profiles of aircraft and other
modes of transport over European Distances, Centre for Energy
Conservation and Environment Technology, Delft, 1997. 42. Source: http://www.telework-mirti.org . 43. Communication on Air Transport and the Environment (COM(1999)640-C5-0086/2000). |