Countryside campaigners CPRE{1} will argue tomorrow (Wednesday) in the House of Commons that the Government is massively undervaluing the cost of the environmental damage caused by air transport.

Wrong decisions could be taken about the future of aviation as a result, including sanctioning massive and damaging airport expansion.

Andrew Critchell, Aviation Campaigner at CPRE said,

'The Government has said that air transport should pay for the environmental damage it causes{2}.  But, if the valuation of these costs is too low, we could see unjustified massive increases in air traffic and major airport expansion given the go-ahead.  The Government looks set to sacrifice the countryside and wider environment in the pursuit of expansion without recognising the full cost to society.'

The Government is due to publish an Air Transport White Paper{3} by the end of the year.  This will set out Government policy to 2030.  Part of the White Paper process has involved attempting to place a monetary value on air transport's environmental damage.  It has estimated a total cost at present of £1.6 billion a year{4}.  This accounts for 'non-catastrophic' climate change, noise and air pollution.  However, using data from the European Environment Agency for comparison, CPRE argues that this figure should be at least £3.4 billion{5}.

Andrew Critchell said,

'If the Government's low figure is accepted then the air transport industry could claim it already pays most of its external costs through Air Passenger Duty{6}.  This means that the Government might argue that there was little justification for constraints on the industry's insatiable demand for new runways.'

Andrew Critchell concluded,

'If we are going to be serious about the polluter paying then the Government needs to calculate the full environmental damage of aviation and end its unfair tax exemptions.  Using tested measures the case for new runways would disappear.  Government should take serious action at the national and international level to reduce future demand for air travel and tackle the industry's environmental problems head-on.'

- END -

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England by encouraging the sustainable use of land and other natural resources in town and country. We promote positive solutions for the long term future of the countryside and to ensure change values its natural and built environment. Our Patron is Her Majesty The Queen. We have 59,000 supporters, a branch in every county, nine regional groups, over 200 local groups and a national office in central London. CPRE is a powerful combination of effective local action and strong national campaigning. Our President is Sir Max Hastings.

2. The environmental damage caused by air transport are termed external costs and are those that the industry incurs on communities and the environment but does not itself pay for.  These include climate change, noise pollution, air pollution and the loss of landscape, heritage and wildlife to new airports, runways and development.  The Government has committed itself to ensuring that the industry meets these costs 'where appropriate' (Aviation and the environment: using economic instruments, HM Treasury, 2003).

3. The Government launched a national consultation on air transport in July 2002.  This generated a massive 300,000 plus responses which the Government are currently reviewing, pending the publication of a White Paper by the end of the year.  This will set out policy to 2030, including any views on the provision of extra airport capacity.

4. The figure of £1.6 billion was put forward in a HM Treasury paper Aviation and the environment: using economic instruments, launched in March 2003.  Following on from this, discussion groups were held with key stakeholders, the results of which are feeding into the Government's consultation process.  This figure does not take into account catastrophic climate change events, as the climate becomes increasingly unstable, or any other costs except the effect of noise on house prices and air pollution (the breakdown of the figure is £1.4 billion for climate change, £236 million for air pollution and £25 million for noise pollution).  Additionally, the figures for noise and air pollution have already been criticised as too low.  For example, Professor David Pearce, whose work underpins the Treasury's figures for noise pollution, has since revised these figures and has stated that the original ones used by the Treasury are an undervaluation. 

5. Using data from the European Environment Agency (EEA) for comparison, CPRE has shown that the external costs of air transport in the UK would be £3.4 billion.  Using data from 1995, the EEA calculated the external costs of transport to be 8% of Europe-wide GDP, with air transport being 6% of that.  On a simple pro-rata basis, and with UK GDP in 1995 being £719 billion, this would mean that the total external costs of aviation would have amounted to £3.4 billion in 1995 alone.  This much higher figure means that significant demand management measures would be required to meet these costs.  These include a fairer taxation regime, ending the industry's massive tax concessions in terms of no tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel, tickets etc, equivalent to a subsidy of £9 billion a year; emissions charges leading to a possible emissions trading scheme; slot auctioning and the raising of landing fees; investment in high-speed electric rail alternatives; best-use of existing capacity with legally binding caps on pollution; and critically, the restriction of the supply of capacity in terms of no new runways or airports.  Even this higher figure does not account for all external costs.  The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's recent report Budget 2003 and Aviation called for the Treasury to carry out 'thorough valuations of all the environmental impacts of an expansion in aviation - including impacts on landscape, biodiversity, tranquillity and heritage'.

6. Air Passenger Duty was introduced because the industry is under-taxed, not as an environmental measure.  It currently raises around £0.9 billion a year.  If £1.6 billion is accepted as the figure for aviation's external costs then there is a danger that the industry will be able to claim it is already paying most of its costs and expand without constraint with serious consequences for climate change, the countryside and local communities.