By Hilary Osborne
    The Guardian Unlimited UK

    Tuesday 17 October 2006

    Carbon dioxide emissions from air travel could account for two-thirds of the UK's emissions targets by 2050 unless the government takes action to restrict demand for flights, academics said today.

    The government's policies on aviation, which support an expansion in airports that will more than double passenger numbers from 200 million in 2003 to 470 million in 2030, will prevent it reaching its targets on emissions, a report by researchers from Oxford University said.

    Emissions from air travel have doubled since 1990, to make up 6% of the UK's carbon footprint.

    Forecasts suggest that the increase in flights will mean that by 2050, emissions from aviation could be between four and 10 times higher than they were in 1990, making it almost impossible for the government to achieve its target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60%.

    "The government has to confront the contradictions in its policies," said Dr Brenda Boardman, the project leader of Oxford University's environmental change institute.

    "Unless the rate of growth in flights is curbed, the UK cannot fulfil its commitments on climate change. If government wants to be confident about achieving its targets, it has to undertake demand management. Relying on technological fixes alone is totally unrealistic."

    A spokeswoman for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the government was looking for "a balanced approach" to aviation.

    "The government's principle of sustainable development for aviation is that a proper balance should be struck and maintained between economic, environmental and social considerations," she said.

    "We agree that the 'polluter pays' principle should apply to aviation as to other sections, and that aviation should meet its external costs, including the costs of its contribution to climate change."

    She said this was behind the government's move to include aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which will allow airlines to effectively buy a carbon quota from other, less polluting industries.

    However, she added: "The government recognises that emissions trading, while it is a central element of policy, may not provide a full solution to the climate change impacts of aviation.

    "We are continuing to explore and discuss the options for the use of other economic instruments for tackling the climate change impacts of aviation."

    The Oxford University report - Predict and Decide: Aviation, climate change and UK policy - says including airlines in the ETS will not happen until at least 2008 and "does not appear to be an adequate strategy for ensuring that the aviation sector contributes proportionately to reducing the UK's climate impact".

    It said improvements in technology and air traffic management would have some impact on emissions, but would not be enough on their own.

    It argues that increasing the tax passengers pay on flights will be a much more immediate and effective way to deter them from travelling.

    It also says the cost of leisure and business flights has fallen in real terms over the past 15 years, and this has driven at least 40% of the growth in air travel.

    Increasing ticket prices by 10%, by raising air passenger duty, could reduce demand by between 5 and 15%, the report's authors said.

    As the majority of flights are made by better-off sections of society who are taking advantage of cheap air travel to fly more, this would not prevent the less well-off from travelling but would deter richer members of society from taking unnecessary flights.

    Dr Sally Cairns, one of the report's authors, said: 'If the government wants to reduce aviation growth, it has the power to act now."

    "Raising air passenger duty would help to counter reductions in fares, which are estimated to have been responsible for at least 40% of recent aviation growth."

    Her co-author, Dr Carey Newson, said there was evidence that the public would back an increase in taxes on air tickets.

    She said: "Opinion polls should encourage the government to revisit its aviation policy. A majority now favour airlines paying higher taxes to reflect environmental damage, even if this means higher airfares."

    The British Air Transport Association (Bata), the trade body for UK-based airlines, said the report had taken the assumption that demand management was needed and then tried to justify its argument with some already-published facts and figures.

    "It seems to dismiss both the economic and social benefits of air travel," said spokesman Roger Wiltshire.

    He said reducing demand was "not the right recipe for solving climate change" and that even if the UK's airports were closed, global emissions would be cut by just 0.1%.

    He also said a survey of travellers conducted for Bata had shown that the majority back the group's stance that emissions trading is a more effective way to reduce the aviation industry's impact on the environment.

    Meanwhile, Joss Garman, a spokesman for the anti-air travel group Plane Stupid, said either the prime minister's policy on aviation or his policy on climate change had to give.

    "What we're talking about here is 'our ability to live on earth', as Al Gore put it, versus our ability to live in Tuscany on the weekends," he said.

    "As we casually float around the point of no return, the government needs to face the reality that its tax breaks for the aviation industry and its plans for airport expansion fly in the face of the science."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. h o t g l o b e has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is h o t g l o b e  endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)