Conservative paper on emissions from aviation

Conservative policy paper on taxing air travel - March 2007

'The aim of reform' the Conservatives say, 'is to reduce overall growth in emissions from aviation'.

Though we have come a long way, we have a million miles to go. The party that may form Britain's next government is not talking about reducing emissions from air travel. No, its ambition is simply to cut the rate of growth. The measures it proposes will indeed provide very little restraint on the future of aviation. And, of course, there is no mention of stopping the construction of new runways.

But first, let's list what the review gets right.

1) The Conservatives acknowledge that the atmospheric impact of air travel is not just from CO2. For the first time, I believe, there is a clear statement that the effects of nitrous oxide and water vapour may well mean that we should multiply the impact of CO2 by three to estimate the true impact.

2) The review uses reasonably up-to-date figures on the percentage of UK CO2 from aviation. The Conservatives say 5.5%, and dismiss the aviation industry's often quoted '2%', which refers to CO2 from air travel as a percentage of worldwide emissions. Multiplied by 3 to account for the 'forcing' from nitrous oxide and water vapour and we are actually now up to about 18% of UK emissions.

3) The Conservatives also accurately report that air travel is very much the preserve of the richer half of the population. My own research suggests that the bottom 60% of the income distribution are only responsible for about 20% of flights and, I guess, may be taking shorter flights, meaning that their CO2 effect is even less. The recent growth in air travel is very largely among the rich. About half the population did not fly last year.

The Conservatives get some important facts wrong.

1) Flying is not 'a uniquely greenhouse-gas-intensive mode of transport'. Judged in terms of just C02 output, flying is considerably better than car travel. Even if we allowed for the other 'forcing' effects, a large car may be worse, particularly over very long distances. No, the problem with air travel is not that it is particularly energy-intensive, it is airplanes travel very long distances. The average car travels 14,000 km a year. This is less than one flight to the west coast of the US.

2) The UK has not 'met' its Kyoto obligations. The Kyoto agreement requires us to meet targets during the period of 2008-2012. If electricity continues to be made from coal in the quantities it is at the moment, and demand continues to grow, the UK will not meet its obligations.

3) Flying is not the only source of growing emissions. Households are using more electricity and gas.

This review is a good start. It comprehends the basic science and it acknowledges the huge momentum behind the growth in air travel. It sees that growth in aviation is largely because the rich are flying more and that taxation of air travel will therefore not be regressive.

But, quite simply, it doesn't go anywhere far enough.