More UK Airport Capacity

Extrapolation of growth trends in aviation leads to the conclusion that the South East of England will run out of airport capacity sometime before 2020. But predictions of continued growth of conventional aviation are based on the assumption that aviation will remain largely exempt from policy to reduce carbon emissions (noting that the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS will have little real impact).

The arguments put forward in defence of business-as-usual, range from ‘aviation is vital to the economy’ to ‘emissions are only 2-3% of global emissions’ so policy makers should look for reductions elsewhere. These are attractive arguments, allowing policy makers to ignore the challenge of drafting sustainable aviation policy. As the UK government shapes its new aviation policy through 2012, I hope it does not take this easy detour but tackles the issue head on and grasp the opportunity to move aviation into a new era.

Until policy makers carry out the research and deep analysis and that should underpin sustainable aviation policy, the current debate about building new airport capacity is at best premature, at worst just froth and posturing by vested interests. Green campaigners are no better, refusing to acknowledge that engineers could transform aviation to dramatically reduce the environmental impact allowing us to fly with a clear conscience – if politicians give the engineers an appropriate policy framework. Greens should be arguing to change policy, not arguing against flying per se.

The environmental impact of aviation can and should be reduced. This must be the foundation of sustainable aviation policy. Accepting this, would be a big step forward to a real debate.

Blue Monday

High debts, high anxiety and highly polarised society are all good reasons to be blue, coupled with high pressure over the UK giving cold weather and Christmas holidays a distant memory remembered only by an expanded waistline. This is the day of year when we are at our lowest ebb.

Today is also the day of publication of ‘The Pursuit of Happiness’ a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), commissioned by UK Prime Minister David Cameron. It is expected to refute the results of previous research reported in Green Outcomes in the Real World: Global Forces, Local Circumstances, and Sustainable Solutions:

‘increases in average individual income correlate with measures of quality of life up to an annual income equivalent to $10,000; the relationship no longer applies with increases to income beyond this level. We get richer but we do not get any happier.’

According to the Sunday Times, the team of academics who wrote the IEA report have concluded that ‘there is no evidence’ for a ‘satiation point’ beyond which income is not linked to an increase in happiness. This will be seized upon by those who believe that GDP is the only true measure of progress to justify a narrow focus on economic outcomes in government policy. Where the authors of the report are correct is that attempting to use government policy to control happiness is not likely to succeed but I stand by my assertion that GDP is too limiting:

‘I leave it to others to work out what might be the best parameters, but we can be sure that GDP will be a poor measure of how we are doing when it comes to building a sustainable world. Governments should move away from using growth in GDP as their prime measure of success. GDP is, indeed, likely to continue to grow but it is the wrong measure and the wrong target.’

Imagine that the IEA report writers did their research whilst traveling on the Titanic enjoying good food, good company and the prospect of a safe luxurious journey. Sitting in the Dining room it would be easy to refute ideas that something terrible might be on the way and ignore the safety briefing about muster points and lifeboats. If they had gone up to the bridge and surveyed the ocean, the cold, the icebergs and the speed of the ship, they might have drawn a different conclusion. Looking through the lens of sustainability, taking in a wide range of factors, is like being on the bridge of the Titanic. We need to slow down and ensure that we don’t smash the ecosystem on which we rely to live well; that means reining in consumption and moving away from the uncertain assumption that monetary wealth correlates with happiness.

Zayed Future Energy Prize

The Zayed Future Energy Prize will be awarded at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, 16-19 January 2012.

‘Through the prize, we honour the legacy of environmental protection and concern for conservation established by Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the late ruler of Abu Dhabi and the Founding Father of the United Arab Emirates. By honouring and rewarding those people who are tackling the energy crisis today, we hope to educate and inspire future leaders and innovators. Creating a sustainable energy future is the surest way to combat the impending threat of climate change and global warming, and to ensure a clean, liveable environment for future generations.’

This prize is a fitting legacy for a good man. Sheikh Zayed was the founding father of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and President until his death in 2004. It was rumoured that he was the world’s richest man with control of something like 10% of the world’s oil reserves. Despite great wealth he lived a pious life and ruled with compassion and tolerance. He shared the wealth with his people and was a champion of conserving the biodiversity of the desert environment. This legacy of environmental sensitivity and concern for the conservation is the driving force behind Abu Dhabi's focus on clean energy.

The extreme wealth of the oil nations of the Middle East is a temporary aberration which will last as long as there remains oil to pump, or as long as the world remains addicted to oil. Which will come first, the end of oil or the end of the world’s craving? Either way the rulers of the Middle East have to plan a sustainable future for their people beyond the era of oil; and the rulers of Abu Dhabi are leading attempts to find a way.

Zayed Future Energy Prize is a small part of Abu Dhabi’s search for a sustainable future. The main investment into a more sustainable future is the Masdar project, reflecting Abu Dhabi’s vision for 2030. It comprises a number of elements including a research institute, a renewable power company, investment fund and the iconic centre piece, Masdar City. Aspiring to be one of the most sustainable cities in the world, situated close to Abu Dhabi, Masdar City is a ‘high-density, pedestrian-friendly development where current and future renewable energy and clean technologies are showcased, marketed, researched, developed, tested and implemented’.

‘The city, which at full build out will house 40,000 residents and hundreds of businesses, will integrate the full range of renewable energy and sustainability technologies, across a living and working community.’

Abu Dhabi has bold ambitions and massive oil wealth to be able to deliver the vision but it will still be a huge challenge. Whilst oil revenue flows, Masdar will grow and expand but it will have to be sustainable beyond the era of oil. Abu Dhabi has the potential to be an oasis of high-tech, high quality green living in the deserts of the Middle East. Each country will have to find its own route to sustainable living and it is perhaps fitting that the winner of the Zayed Future Energy Prize will be decided by a jury chaired by a world leader with a different challenge: Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson President of the Republic of Iceland.

Fly and be Damned

From 1 January 2012, airlines are included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. This requires airlines flying into Europe to hold EU Allowances to cover carbon emissions from their flights and operations. The bulk of these will be provided free based on the airline’s historical aviation emissions averaged over the calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2006. Additional allowances will have to be purchased. With the price of EU ETS Carbon Trading Permits hovering around €8, this will cost airlines up to €1bn ($1.4bn) in 2012 rising to perhaps €10bn ($14bn) by 2020.

The additional cost to airlines is minor compared with their fuel bill but the measure has met with a barrage of complaints from the aviation industry. US airlines are particular opposed arguing that the measures represent a tax and therefore contravenes international law that prevents countries from levying tax on aviation fuel. In a letter dated 16 December leaked to the Financial Times, Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State wrote to her counterpart at the European Commission, Catherine Ashton, to express US displeasure warning that the US government will be “compelled to take appropriate action” if ETS application to US carriers is not removed.

One of the more bizarre complaints comes from The International Air Cargo Association (TIACA). The group wrote to EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard claiming the scheme would divert investment away from cleaner technologies, such as biofuels or more efficient engines. This is an odd claim to make in an industry that pays no tax on its fuel. Taxing fuel or carbon, or both, is the way to drive forward investment in more efficient engines and more efficient aircraft. To attempt to persuade politicians otherwise makes the industry look ridiculous.

The airlines will pay up and get on with their business. The inclusion of airlines in the EU ETS will have very little effect on airline profits and very little effect on the emissions from aviation. The huge furore has been more about holding back future action over aviation emissions. The industry is terrified that the EU ETS could be a trip wire to a process leading to real action over aviation and climate change.

My immediate advice to the aviation industry is to invest in purchasing all copies of the first print run of my book Fly and be Damned: what next for aviation and climate change when it comes out next month. Delaying copies getting into the hands of the politicians will give airlines a little more breathing space. When politicians and policy makers digest its contents they will understand that the EU ETS is not the end but only the first small step on a long journey to a sustainable aviation industry.

The Mañana Prize

The Mañana Prize will be launched tomorrow for outstanding commitment to putting off important actions that can be left until another day. It will be judged on the length of the delay and the seriousness of the consequences. It is a celebration of the human capacity for stoical denial in the face of adversity.

In borrowing the Spanish word mañana, I intend no disrespect for the good people of Spain; it is just such a good word for tomorrow. Playing the game of mañana to the full can justify putting off action almost indefinitely. Each day the problem festers, getting slightly worse, until someone eventually does something or the problem goes away. Putting off what does not have to be done today is a good tactic to avoid bother but it is not effective as a long-term strategy. When world leaders rely on mañana to get from one day to the next, from one meeting to the next, from one summit to the next, from one policy to the next; we should be very worried.

In looking for potential winners, special mention goes to the euro zone leaders who have been playing mañana for the last two years, since the fault lines in the euro were exposed. Decisive action should have been taken over a year ago – even allowing for the slow process of European diplomacy. Each day that mañana has prevailed the crisis has got deeper; the euro is now in a deep hole but still Europe’s leaders procrastinate. They are now waiting for sovereign debt default to force change which will be unpredictable and dangerous to the world economy.

Another strong runner for the Mañana Prize must be the UN brokered climate talks where the game of mañana has been playing for nearly two decades. At the close of the climate conference in Durban the organizers announced success. You would have thought this would be to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but no; the success that was trumpeted was an agreement to start talking about an agreement that could be signed in 2015 to start cutting greenhouse gas emissions from 2020. Two decades of delay, in the context of claims that climate change could be the worst crisis in human history, makes the UNFCCC a very strong contender for the Mañana Prize.

Meanwhile, amongst the stories that do not make the front page, the UK government has agreed that the state should be responsible for nuclear waste after a nuclear reactor has come to the end of its life and stopped generating power. This policy is needed to persuade private enterprise to build the UK’s next generation of nuclear reactors. The business case relies on passing the legacy of the waste to future generations sixty, a hundred or two hundred years into the future. Taking into account the length of the delay and the severity of the consequences, the UK government is currently the frontrunner for the first award of the Mañana Prize.

Disastrous Deal in Durban

The main elements of the deal struck in Durban is that all the world’s countries will start discussions next year aimed at signing an agreement by 2015 that will come into force in 2020. The main benefit of the deal – as seen by some observers – is it has re-established the principle that climate change should be tackled through international law, not national, voluntarism. After two decades of talking, there is another conclusion that can be drawn; the world is not willing to make the compromises required for a legally enforceable and effective global carbon reduction plan.

The odds were always stacked against the main delegates in Durban who arrived with the brief to secure the best deal for their country. There is little appetite for compromising national self-interest in favour of the global good. This is not something that can be changed easily; it is deeply engrained in world politics that national self-interest dominates negotiations. This is the starting point from which the horse-trading commences and is why Durban was always likely to fail.

The bureaucratic machine of the UNFCCC will lumber on towards 2015 documenting in ever greater detail the collective failure of the world to act. World leaders can use this as an excuse not to take action at the national level until a global agreement is concluded. Spinning the output of Durban as a success is disastrous by leaving the impression that action is in hand; when clearly it is not.

The truth should be faced: the world has agreed not to agree to any action until 2020. Accepting this reality would be useful in passing the buck back to governments to decide on the next course of action.

Climate change is a clear and present danger which for some low-lying countries, such as The Maldives, is a death warrant. For other countries, the direct impacts may be less but no country will escape the disruption and potential conflict as change ripples through the ecosystem and world society. It is clear that climate change is a danger that we should be working hard to avoid; every government can see the danger and has growing support from their electorate to do something about it. If it cannot be done globally, action has to be national with each nation deciding what it can do that fits its circumstances and capabilities.

Action is needed despite Durban; national carbon reduction measures are required on a piecemeal basis with the advanced economies with sophisticated electorates in the vanguard leading the way. Of course this will put the economies of the leaders at a disadvantage, but rather than see this as a barrier, this must be recognised as the opportunity to force change in other areas where there are barriers such as trade agreements. Leading climate action at the national level will be difficult, but necessary, and require facing down opposition from countries that oppose. This is how to start to build a cohort of countries willing to take whatever action is necessary.

Don’t use Durban as fig leaf for inaction; use it as a call to leave the UNFCCC on the sidelines as the leaders get moving.

Climate Change and Globalisation

Without a global agreement on carbon dioxide emissions, countries should take unilateral action.

To cut carbon dioxide emissions requires every country to make the transition to a low-carbon economy. The developed world will have to embark on a huge program to replace infrastructure that depends on fossil fuel. The poorer countries do not have such a legacy to contend with but should build their economies using low-carbon infrastructure – not copy the mistakes of the developed world. For rich and poor this will cost more until low-carbon becomes standard across society and the economy. This is the challenge we face.

The global action required is the sum total of each country’s efforts but individual countries that take a lead will put themselves at a commercial disadvantage in the global market place. Our response to this is to wait for a global agreement so that all countries move together. This can be seen in the UK, where the previous government took a lead by enshrining bold carbon reduction targets into law. The current government is starting to indicate that, unless other countries adopt similar targets, the UK will back off.

The Climate Change talks in Durban seem to be going nowhere but we should look for the positive in this. The Copenhagen talks of 2010 showed the direction of travel, and the Durban talks seem to be confirming, that a global agreement is not forthcoming. After two decades of talking the UN brokered climate talks is not delivering a solution. This should provide the foundation stone on which to build the policy going forward. This outcome is not what was envisaged when the UNFCCC was set up but this is the reality.

Without a robust global solution, countries will have to push ahead. The UK for example should be bold and stick to its targets. The consequence, within an open global market, will be that these countries will suffer a huge commercial disadvantage. These leading countries will have to adopt protectionist measures and be willing to face down opposition from the countries that are reluctant to act on climate change – which may include breaking WTO rules. This is the price of failure to close a global climate deal, but the cost will be less than continued inaction and stalemate leading to growing carbon emissions.

Ardent supporters of free markets will complain of course but the climate crisis requires a crisis response and when the policy framework of economic globalisation starts to crack it is necessary to adopt a different macro-economic model.