|
The sky's limits
 |
|
If achieving economic growth without fuelling inflation was the greatest challenge for governments in the late 20th century, then doing so without fuelling carbon emissions may be the early 21st century equivalent.
Striking a balance between the two is set to vex ministers for decades and – even more than fighting inflation – is something that can only be achieved on an international basis, pollution being something that respects borders even less than economics.
Nowhere is this problem crystallised more clearly than in the aviation industry. The economy depends on international travel like never before, and the demand for more capacity is all but irresistible.
But critics say that no mode of transport is more damaging to the environment than flight. If carbon reduction targets are to be met – and the consensus is that the future health of the planet makes them a bare minimum – it will have to be curbed.
In the UK, the government recognises the dilemma acutely. In a speech last year to a seminar on air transport sustainability, then minister Charlotte Atkins said: “It’s absolutely crucial that we balance the benefits of expansion against the environmental impact of air travel.
“That impact includes growing aircraft emissions and their contribution to air pollution and climate change. It includes noise. And it includes the physical expansion of airports to accommodate growth. This is why we remain committed to ensuring that aviation meets the external costs it imposes, over time.”
Ministers remain committed to a new runway at London Stansted and consulting on one for London Heathrow, while London Luton Airport is developing plans to triple in size by 2030 and deliver a new full-length runway in time for the 2012 Olympics. The government also wants to develop more terminal capacity at regional airports as the budget airline boom continues in response to demand for cheap international travel.
Can this be done sustainably? The Department for Transport thinks so. Any new runway at Heathrow will require progress on developing road pricing around the airport, bringing in extra revenue to counter one of the biggest associated environmental costs of aviation, traffic.
And ministers are working on bringing airlines into the European emissions trading scheme. Trading requires companies to effectively buy emissions from each other, working across borders and incentivising carbon efficiency.
“The international nature of the industry means we must tackle issues like noise and emissions in collaboration with other countries,” Atkins says. “We reserve the right to act bilaterally or on our own if international progress on emissions trading is too slow.”
That may well prove to be the case, with America threatening to take the EU to the World Trade Organization if it feels its economic interests are being impeded. But bilateral and unilateral action has its drawbacks. Increasing the costs of travel at home impedes the domestic economy, thereby inflicting a double blow as it gives a boost to competitors.
Other solutions that have been advanced include carbon offsetting. This voluntary system allows passengers or airlines to make an environmental contribution, such as paying for the planting of new trees, equivalent to the damage done by their flight. The idea could be made compulsory, but it does not actually reduce the amount of pollution being produced in the first place.
The growth in business travel could eventually be slowed by the globalisation of communications, with video conferencing replacing some face-to-face meetings and electronic documents replacing post.
Similarly, a drive to encourage domestic holidays could have some impact on the leisure travel market. But at best these are likely to be drops in the ocean compared to the inexorable rise of the international trade in goods and demand for foreign travel.
Therefore the government – and, as it recognises, its international counterparts – will probably have to bite the bullet and accept that they may be reaching the limits of sustainability, if indeed they have not already passed them. Taxes will have to rise, greener aeroplane technologies found and, most importantly perhaps, consensus reached that growth will have to be limited.
|
|
 |
|
|
