Better Transport

22 January: Southend-on-Sea has just approved expansion at Southend Airport. But the Government knows it can't expand regional airports and Heathrow, as our investigation last year revealed.

Eddie Stobart's freight company – linked to road haulage but now also running trains – is pushing plans to increase passenger numbers from around 50,000 to 2 million by 2019. But a few months ago the Committee on Climate Change ruled that the Air Transport White Paper would breach those targets, and that expansion plans needed to be scaled back substantially. 

We think any expansion is optimistic, because, as we told the Times last year, the Government's plans to expand Heathrow and Stansted means that no other airport can expand without breaching their targets. But the lack of any coherent policy on aviation means smaller airports are rushing their expansion plans through without considering the impact on the climate (or local people).

Luckily the Communities Secretary has asked to see the expansion proposal, which means that there could be a public inquiry. But we still have no idea how the Government plans to meet its targets. Targets are only effective if they are enforced, and airports and councils are simply ignoring the Government's aviation limits.

8 December: Make no mistake. The Committee on Climate Change has shown that the Government's airport expansion plans are totally incompatible with stopping climate change.

The CCC's report is couched in the most tactful language possible. Rather than tell the Government what they didn't want to hear, they've outlined some ways in which a much smaller airport expansion programme could be done without breaching our climate change goals. But doing so would be electoral suicide.

The main solution - forcing other sectors, notably energy, to make bigger cuts - sounds great as a headline. But in practice it means that home heating, gas and electric, will become much more expensive, driving millions of people into fuel poverty. Even then we'd have to chose between expanding Heathrow and regional airports.

The Government has a very clear choice, and just one question to ask itself. Faced with a choice between unaffordable energy and airport expansion, how many people would vote for more flights?

30 October: The airline industry and Daily Telegraph are calling for air passenger duty to be scrapped. Their arguments are unlikely to take off.

This Sunday, plane tickets will get more expensive, thanks to changes in air passenger duty. Not very expensive, mind: the cost of a short-haul economy seat will rise by one pound. A long-haul 'premium' ticket, like business or first class, will increase by £30, from £80 to £110. It's hardly going to break the bank.

Earlier this month we revealed how the aviation industry is a massive tax dodger avoiding £10 billion in tax by being exempt from VAT and fuel duty. Paying £2 billion in APD is the least it could do, given that aviation is 13% of our climate impact.

Sure, there are some flaws in the way APD works, but the Telegraph's 10 reasons to scrap the tax are pretty flimsy. Sure, tt's crazy that freight and private jets are exempt, and I'm not sure that the Carribean and Egypt are in the right bands. But scrapping the whole system because of a few quirks? That's more than throwing the baby out with the bathwater: it's demolishing the whole bathroom as well.

9 September: The Committee on Climate Change wants to reduce overall emissions by 90% so we don't have to cut the amount we fly. With alternatives available, why should we give aviation a free ride?

Aviation emissions are predicted to grow massively over the next few years, despite a new Government target to reduce CO2 for aircraft to 2005 levels by 2050. Now the Committee on Climate Change has worked out that even if we met this, the rest of the economy would need to cut its emissions by 90%.

I’m not sure why flying keeps getting off so lightly: reducing our emissions by 80% is going to be hard enough, without making everyone else clear up after the aviation industry. Insulating our homes and reducing how much we drive is important, and people aren’t going to be happy if their efforts are being undermined by people who won't stop taking short haul flights.

Tackling climate change must be done equitably, which means that every sector has to play its part, and no one getting a license to pollute. We could start by taxing the fuel on domestic flights and making rail travel cheaper so that the greener choice is the easy choice.

7 July: Expanding Bristol International Airport (BIA) would mean more traffic, more noise and more CO2. Local campaigners are fighting hard to stop this development, but they need your help.

BIA has applied for planning permission to expand, so now is the time to fight this. Stop BIA needs you to write to North Somerset Council to explain why expanding the airport would be bad for the economy and the environment.

3 June: We’ve just responded to the Government’s consultation on airport regulation. We’ve argued that:

• Reducing the impact of air travel on local communities and the environment must be a priority
• The Government should stop expanding airports – instead, it should cut train fares and tax aviation so that people take the train instead of flying
• Passenger Focus should not represent air passengers, because this could make it harder for them to represent bus and train passengers, and to encourage people to switch to public transport

This response isn’t the only way we’re campaigning for trains not planes. At the moment when planes and trains fight for your business it’s not a fair fight. Find out why, and how you can help bring train fares down.

May 4: The case for expanding Heathrow took a further pounding this week when a coalition of chief executives came out against the third runway at Heathrow. I wasn’t that surprised really: businesses have been telling me for a while that they want Heathrow improved, not expanded.

That’s why we sat down last year with unions, businesses, councils and NGOs to pen an open letter to Geoff Hoon, asking him not to expand the airport. We pointed out that expanding Heathrow would make a mockery of the Government’s climate change targets, and that the money would be better spent improving our transport network so that people had better, cheaper alternatives to domestic flights.

As the credit crunch continues to bite, passengers numbers at airports across the UK have been declining sharply, further undermining the few remaining arguments in favour of expansion. Hoon would be well advised to listen to reason – and business – and call a halt to this costly and unnecessary folly before it’s too late.

20 March: The Government has just revealed that the average cost of a one-way air fare fell by 49% between 1997 and 2006. Meanwhile train fares have risen by 7%. We say this simply can't continue – now more than ever, it's vital that we aren't hit in the pocket for choosing the green option.

So come on, Government: give hard-pressed train passengers some relief. Tax the fuel used for domestic flights and use the money to bring down train fares.

17 February: We've responded to a Transport Select Committee inquiry, making the case for a fuel tax on domestic flights.

The inquiry will look at whether trains can replace planes for shorter journeys. Our response argues that they can, and that cutting short-haul flights would reduce the need for airport expansion.

But this can't be done unless train fares are reduced and plane fares made more expensive. Flying is many times worse for the climate than taking the train, yet air fares are often cheaper than train fares - which encourages people to take the plane.

The Government should tax fuel on domestic flights and reduce rail fares, to make the green option the cheaper option.