Rowing back on sustainability
- Christopher Bean
- May 25
- 3 min read
Featured in the Future Transport London Newsletter May 2025
Rachel Reeves is preparing to put short-term economic growth ahead of tackling the climate crisis, despite the growing signs of natural disasters, caused or exacerbated by climate instability. Her most recent announcements support the building of Heathrow’s third runway and the expansion of Luton, likely, according to Ed Miliband, to put the UK in breach of its legally binding carbon budget. Not content with that she also advocates expansion at Gatwick as well.
The argument for airport expansion rests on the proposition that seamless air travel is essential for economic growth, but does this mean that we need more airport capacity? Business travel has been reducing for the last 20 years, perhaps as a result of meetings moving on line. Research shows that, in 2022, only 19 per cent of travellers from Heathrow were on business1. For the rest of the population air travel is far too cheap because of the difficulties in taxing airlines properly. If aviation paid tax and VAT on its fuel at the same rate as motorists pay on theirs, the potential revenue would amount to over £11 billion a year. The only tax on air passengers in the UK, Air Passenger Duty (APD), raises only £4 billion a year. A levy on frequent flyers would raise additional funds. 70 per cent of all UK flights are made by just 15 per cent of passengers2. There are difficulties in taxing air travel due to the ability of airlines to buy fuel in other countries, but we could tax fuel used for domestic flights and negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries3. Private jets are seriously undertaxed despite a 50 per cent increase in APD for private jets in the Autumn budget. Campaign for Better Transport advocates a kerosene tax on domestic flights, a ‘super’ rate of APD for private jet passengers and VAT on all private flights. They reckon this could raise £2.4 billion a year4.
Many UK and European cities could be reached conveniently by train, obviating the need for a large number of flights. There is capacity to double or triple the number of international passengers on HS1 and a recent study cited a number of cities which could be reached in under eight hours including Frankfurt, Geneva and Bordeaux. The French government has banned internal flights where rail alternatives are available, originally up to a four-hour train journey but since reduced to two-and-a-half hours5.
It has been suggested that the use of alternative fuels – Sustainable Aircraft Fuel (SAF) – could reduce pollution from aircraft by up to 80 per cent. The fuel most often proposed is biofuel made from crops or used cooking oil. However, it is estimated that the area needed to grow sufficient crops would need half the available arable land in the UK, to the detriment of growing crops for food. Other fuels such as electricity from batteries or hydrogen are not viable in the foreseeable future because of their weight.
It is not only in the air that the government is rowing back on sustainability. The future of new rail investment is under threat. It is suggested that no new rail investment is needed except for the Pennine upgrade and the Oxford to Cambridge link. Meanwhile the £9 billion Lower Thames Road Crossing is scheduled to go ahead. Sir John Armitt, chair of the National Infrastructure Commission is now favouring road building over railways. Roads, he says, are becoming no more polluting than rail and that the bulk of the population is totally reliant on roads.
We are living in dangerous times. Although the UK was the first major economy to establish a binding target to reach Net Zero by 2050, emerging policies are moving us further away from achieving it. They need to be reversed.
Chris Barker
コメント