±«Óãtv

How can the government be serious about reducing emissions from internal UK air flights when it allows fare increases much above inflation and Network Rail to close down much of the system at weekends.

OK so air travel is under scrutiny, the carriers for years having got away without paying fuel duty. But how come no-one says a dickie bird about

(a) War planes/helicopter gun ships. How many military aircraft there are flying the world, round the clock, year after year? Does anyone have figures about their noxious gases emissions in total, per year? What does one military jet aircraft dish out per sortie? Still, war is so important,isn't it?
and (b) Spacecraft. Much recent media alarm re global warming and what to do about it; next page or TV item straightforwardly reports about the latest rocket launch from somewhere. No censure or any comment. Imagine the exhaust gases from just one. Now we have the promise of "joy rides" into space! How come those'll be licenced? Still, it's scientific and entrepreneurial, so that's OK then.

And we might find another habitable planet one of these light-years.

As mentioned by Mike above, what right does the government have to criticise Ryanair in the same week that it allowed inflation busting rail ticket increases? The government is interested in one thing, more money from taxes at a time that it already takes record amounts. Another method is the attempt to introduce road charging, this after years of anti-car measures such as bus lanes, cycle lanes etc. Is it any wonder that road congestion is bad when half the capacity has been eaten up by crazy schemes?
This latest loud mouthed attack has backfired on the government, people are not stupid!

As mentioned by Mike above, what right does the government have to criticise Ryanair in the same week that it allowed inflation busting rail ticket increases? The government is interested in one thing, more money from taxes at a time that it already takes record amounts. Another method is the attempt to introduce road charging, this after years of anti-car measures such as bus lanes, cycle lanes etc. Is it any wonder that road congestion is bad when half the capacity has been eaten up by crazy schemes?
This latest loud mouthed attack has backfired on the government, people are not stupid!

Air carriers have got away for years without paying fuel duty and are now under pressure. But hw come no-one says a dickie bird about

9a) War planes?helicopter gun ships. Many must be flying the world round the clock, year in year out. How much volume of noxious gases are emitted annually, how much exhaust gas is emitted from one military jet per sortie? Still war is so important, isn't it?
and (b)

Space Craft. Much media alarm suddenly about global warming, air travel and what to do about it. Turn a page or see the next TV item and there is a straightforward report about the latest launch of a space craft from somewhere. Now we are promised space "joy rides". How would those get a licence?
Still, it's scientific and entrepreneurial, so that's OK.

And we might find another habitable planet one of these light-years.

Air carriers have got away for years without paying fuel duty and are now under pressure. But hw come no-one says a dickie bird about

9a) War planes?helicopter gun ships. Many must be flying the world round the clock, year in year out. How much volume of noxious gases are emitted annually, how much exhaust gas is emitted from one military jet per sortie? Still war is so important, isn't it?
and (b)

Space Craft. Much media alarm suddenly about global warming, air travel and what to do about it. Turn a page or see the next TV item and there is a straightforward report about the latest launch of a space craft from somewhere. No censure, no querying comment. Now we are promised space "joy rides". How would those get a licence?
Still, it's scientific and entrepreneurial, so that's OK.

And we might find another habitable planet one of these light-years.

Air carriers have got away for years without paying fuel duty and are now under pressure. But hw come no-one says a dickie bird about

9a) War planes?helicopter gun ships. Many must be flying the world round the clock, year in year out. How much volume of noxious gases are emitted annually, how much exhaust gas is emitted from one military jet per sortie? Still war is so important, isn't it?
and (b)

Space Craft. Much media alarm suddenly about global warming, air travel and what to do about it. Turn a page or see the next TV item and there is a straightforward report about the latest launch of a space craft from somewhere. No censure, no querying comment. Now we are promised space "joy rides". How would those get a licence?
Still, it's scientific and entrepreneurial, so that's OK.

And we might find another habitable planet one of these light-years.

June Gibson raised a couple of points but unfortunately they are pretty much irrelevant. Military flights are a tiny proportion of total numbers of flights and so are a very minor contributor to carbon dioxide levels. Spacecraft flights are even more irrelevant since most modern flights use liquid oxygen and non-carbon fuels such as hydrogen peroxide, although there are still some using fuels such as kerosene or solid carbon based fuels. Even in those cases though, the carbon cost is in making the fuel rather than the source, which is often an effectively renewable one.

So, the facts of the matter are that aviation contributions to global climate change are pretty much an issue that can only be dealt with by the airlines. That means they are the ones who need to address their carbon contributions - which they have so far singularly failed to do.

The real question is how can we develop carbon neutral biofuels.
see
for an update on this technology. I have to say that newsnight keeps missing the opportunity to look at biofuel alternatives when such issues are being discussed. Do they not have a scientist amongst their staff that knows about such information?

Can I ask if the green party member travels to Brussels every week by air ?
I would if I were paid £3000 + every week.
Regards,
Neil.

Airlines are not takin responsibility for there actions this is irresponsible and childish they are trying to shift blamer to other forms of carbon emitters I think we should make a larger step towards cutting down on carbon emissions such as banning flights were all seats arent filled ect..
The UK at the moment appparently(hope I got my facts staright) produces so much carbon it should be fit for 6 earths and America is around eight or something.
Seeing as planes emit alot of carbon they should take these facts and do something!

The more you pollute, the more money you pay! How does that lessen the impact of the pollution itself?

Having just watched the item about the impact of air travel on the environment, I was incensed at the way that the green party MEP was constantly hassled and interrupted by the presenter (Martha Kearney?) while the smug looking man from the airlines association was allowed to say what he wanted without obstruction.
My personal sympathies are with the environmental argument. It seems to me that the airlines are simply allowed to buy their way out of responsibility through some pretty dodgy sounding trading in emission allowances.

Is it just me who is sick of green fascism ? Attacking low cost airlines, since motorists have been beat into submission to ever rising costs. Now rat numbers are on the way up because we're being forced to store rotting food for "re-cycling".
Let's get back to reality please, with a bit of "hard" (IE:Expensive!!) science.

The interview segment of this story was excellent. Letting interested parties talk about the 'technical' issues is essential. This was the first news item I have seen this week which made me think.

Neil Boyd Dewar suggests that the Green Party member is paid 3,000 pounds per week. If he proves that, I will leave the Green Party.

Labour politicians should lead by examplae --- Let's see all Labour MP's stop taking flights at other peoples expense.

No more jollies to Cuba, no more free holidays for Blair, no more Parliamentary "fact finding" holidays at the tax-payers expense.

Show us you are not a bunch of hypocrites, Labour.

Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas is wrong when she cycically refuses to believe that low European air fares have brought about a social demographic revolution in air travel. They have. The only people that higher fares will effect are those on lower incomes who will no longer be able to afford to fly while the rich carry on as before. Well done Caroline, the Green wing of the Tory party.

About time this issue was mentioned on the news.
After years of being told by those in The Oil/ Transport industry that global warming 'is just a theory' (Whilst they spend billions on opposing the science), it's now Official.
So, with the end of the world as we know it staring us in the face, we're now asked to turn off our TV's on Standby because, together, it all makes a difference. This is good, sound commonsense but no-one believes it whilst superstores remain a blaze of light through the night and the government steamroller all opposition to build new airports.
Your report was lucky to have such an excellent representative from the Green Party who stuck, politely to the facts, never wandered off the point and asked and replied to direct questions - simplifying the issues so that everyone can not just understand, but discuss them.
The clarifying of the issues - which surely should have been done by the interviewer - was commented on by the interviewer as 'Terribly complicated' when, in fact, it was straightforwards addition.
Finally, everything the Green party member said was ignored, let alone picked up by the interviwer - not one single point was answered by the PR man from Ryanair.
In short, the interview seemed to be nothing more than an opportunity for Ryanair to put out its PR statement whilst the Green party member was seen as 'interrupting'.
Worse, at the end, the summary of the 'issue' was a long paragraph from the PR man. Not one single soundbite from the Greenpeace lass.
Unbiased reporting? Probably not. Just very biased and incompetent interviewing and editing.

Come along ±«Óãtv. This is serious stuff - not just an item about a company's image.

This Christmas, the only kids in the UK who could get to see frost - let alone snow - were the ones that flew to colder countries.
Is the irony a little too subtle for you?

Why is it that almost everyone in the airline industry and government neglect the fact that air flight does increase the temperature of the world, as when the unfortunate 9-11 incident and aircraft were grounded for just 2 days the earth temperature fell by 2°C, and if the aircraft were grounded for longer would the earth have dropped any more?
They now deny that this temperature drop was down to aircraft and blamed it on just normal geographical balances, personally this temperature drop was clearly down to aircraft and that the airline industry should prove their claims that they are not the cause of the majority of global warming by having at lease 3 days (preferably a whole week) where aircraft are grounded just to show that this form of transport is or isn’t the main reason for global warming.

Martha suggested that people shouldn't be penalised by adding tax to the cost of aircraft fuel.
Why not penalise them? After all, they are penalising the rest of humanity, and more, by their emissions.
Sadly, so far, the government is not using a carrot and stick approach to global warming - just one or two sticks where it suits them.

Michael O'Leary of Ryanair is right to accuse the Government of using carbon emissions as a pretext for revenue raising taxes. O'Leary should know as Ryanair are experts at stealth taxes themselves. Select any 99 pence fare on Ryanair and see how Ryanair's taxes, charges, levies and fees mount to produce a much higher figure, including punitive credit card fees and insurance policies that should be outlawed, as the terms and conditions are so restricted. Notwithstanding this, Ryanair fares are much cheaper than most and his fleet are the newest in the world, and also have an excellent record on getting off on time.

Ryanair are right on one thing - the Government does not care about the environment, its all about taxes. The opposition are just as bad, especially when they complain that the Govt are not using the environmental excuse to tax more.

Yet again our government miss's another opportunity.....We continue to give air carriers billions in tax breaks as nothing is paid on aviation fuel etc,yet raise negligable amounts from fare paying members of the public.
Yet,where does this money go?to the chancellor I guess.....with none of it used to address the real problem that faces everyone of us 'Global Warming'
Time public transport was improved and became a real alternative to our over-dependence on the car.

As a regular airline traveller and private pilot I believe that the environmental impacts of the airline industry is universal for all airlines, not just for "low cost airlines." However, lower cost airlines do carry more passenger per gallon by using "more efficient" seating plans. For a minister to complain about the environmental effects of the aviation industry when road travellers (personal and commercial) contribute 58% of the CO2 emmissions produced by the transport industry, compared with the 4% produced by aviation, is ludicrous. Not mentioning the fact that an argument for placing the industry within the Kyoto Agreement is an untested theory that CO2 emmissions effects increase with altitude. Placing the Airline industry within the Kyoto Agreement, as is suggested, would ruin the general aviation industry and therefore would come under serious scrutiny from all private pilots. Quote: "This latest loud mouthed attack has backfired on the government, people are not stupid!" As far as I am concerned I couldn't agree more Adam.

I'm in total agreement with Simon Short...
The important issues were glossed over and the interview was simply used as a PR opportunity for Ryan Air,and the industry as a whole.
Very Very Poor Show ±«Óãtv!!!!!

The simple answer to mark re so called 'Green Fascism' Is "I certainly hope it is only you"
Surely,we can't all just bury our heads in the sand and hope 99.9% of scientists are wrong,How could de-forrestation on a Global scale possible have an effect!Or how could massive increases in the emissions of a known greenhouse gas(CO2)be linked in any way?
Maybe,if we continue to ignore the huge problem of climate change,it may just go away...
Time we all realise that we have a responsibility to do something about it now,while the opportunity is still there!

AIR TRAVEL:

"Meanwhile air traffic is a growing contributor to global warming. In 2002 the UK's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution predicted that air travel could account for nearly 75 per cent of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 2050" [1]

Explain that one away Mr Michael O'Leary of Ryan air *

* in the future e.g. 2050 lets ensure we have fully enabled retrospective class action [2] ref environmental pollution by industry (esp airlines) which should focus corporate minds wonderfully in 2007 :)

The sooner each person & organisation is allocated a Carbon allowance the better.

Q.1 what percentage of Global Warming-esque gases in the atmosphere are normally desirable?

Q.2 what are the sources & concentrations of naturally occurring Global Warming gases?

Q.3 given billions of cigarettes are produced & smoked each year, what contribution to air pollution does that make?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]

Emissions Trading is supposed to reduce emissions 'across the economy'. If the Government believes this, why does it exclude international aviation from its cross-economy target for a 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050?

Minister Ian Pearsons verbal attack on Ryanair & others... of course, always behind the cloak of Government protection . Who's put him up to it?..someone much senior no doubt , who wishes to remain anonymous!but get the story into public domain(& What bad news was being buried whilst watching this!!)

Why doesn't the Government.. Govern! & put measured policies in place to combat Global warming rather than letting a junior minister rant(to the Press) in this manner.?

I have no doubt Ryanair will respond robustly in their normal way.

why is the UK government and the EU going after low cost airlines now? Emissions are relatively low and not expected to peak significantly in the medium term but maybe in 2050? There are far bigger emitters of green house gases in roadtransport, utilities and industry shouldn't these polluters be top of the authorities target lists? what is going on here? I am confused by this current spat between politicians and low cost airline chiefs

I'm in agreement with Short Simon, too. What's wrong with this piece, it didn't give a private company a good roasting. That company exists for private profit, ±«Óãtv. Private profit! Why weren't they vilified? This is not what we expect from the ±«Óãtv.

Poor show. This is not what we choose to pay our license fee for! Come along now, Newsnight.

This year we could not buy our recycled christmas paper hats because they'd sold out of them in Tesco superstore, so we had to drive all the way to another branch and they too had sold out. Ring any bells, chaps? We had to buy standard paper hats instead. Not a word out of this government about that, though!

Hello Vinkingar,

Q.1 what percentage of Global Warming-esque gases in the atmosphere are normally desirable?

It is not really a matter of 'normally desirable', had our civilisation developed during the last Interglacial, or even the Mid Cretaceous, we'd have apdapted to those conditions. The issue of climate change is not where we are heading on a centennial basis after we reach a new 'equilibrium'. But the changes that our emissions are precipitating and how they will affect our civilisation.

Q.2 what are the sources & concentrations of naturally occurring Global Warming gases?

I cannot write an essay here. In short:
*The natural fluxes far outweigh human emissions. However how wet your house gets when the bath overflows depends not on how big the bath is, but how much water is coming out of the tap.
*We do know for certain that ALL of the increase in CO2 is DEFINITELY due to human activity, almost all of it due to fossil fuel emissions (methods such as isotope ratios, reservoir fluxes etc)

Q.3 given billions of cigarettes are produced & smoked each year, what contribution to air pollution does that make?

Negligible. Global emissions are of the order of 6Gtonnes/year.

The government's stance on aviation is yet another show of the unjoined up thinking of the Labour Government. The industry currently pays for all of it's own infrastructure, has vastly reduced it's fuel consumption over the last few years, and continues to be contributing to just under 1.6% of the world's carbon emmisions whilst simultaneously bringing about 8% of the GDP. Nobody can deny it isn't an important industry. At the same time, if carbon emissions are twice as toxic at altitude, and the industry is proposing to expand, then measures obviously have to be taken to ensure the industry goes forward in the most environmentally friendly way possible. To ban all flights, even all shorthaul flights, would be ludicrous and have serious social & economic knock-on effects.