Press Notices
1 September 2003
CfIT calls for airspace and pollution charging
The Commission for Integrated Transport today called for a radical shake up of the charges airlines face for the pollution and congestion they cause.
The proposals would introduce tough new measures for airlines, see charges passed on to passengers and would give local communities more control over pollution.
In a new report, the Commission argues that airlines are responsible for far more pollution than they are held accountable for. Their responsibilities should be extended to congested runways and airspace, local environment, health effects, greenhouse gases and land blight.
CfIT argues that passing on these costs to the airlines is both in line with government's view that the "polluter pays" and incentivises airlines to raise their standards further.
Professor David Begg, the CfIT chair, said: "The success of the UK aviation industry is vital both to the UK economy and our way of life but we must make sure that its contribution is a responsible and sustainable one.
"Airports have a huge impact on the communities they serve as well as on the environment at large and we need to make sure that, in a world of growing demand, environmental impact is kept to a manageable minimum.
"What we are proposing is nothing short of a radical reform to make operators and passengers confront the environmental consequences of their actions.
"At the moment there is little incentive for airlines and passengers to change their behaviour."
Passengers at UK airports tripled in the 20 years to 2001, rising from 50 million to 162 million. Future forecasts show demand rising by between 4 - 5% a year with fare prices expected to fall.
Ten years ago the aviation industry worldwide was responsible for 3.5% of all human-cause climate change emissions - the equivalent of the UK's entire greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050 it is forecast to rise dramatically to 15% of the world total.
The report says that the current Aviation Passenger Duty - of between £5 and £40 per passenger - raises £800 million a year. But this is just over half the £1.4 billion cost due to climate change emissions the industry is responsible for in the UK, let alone the cost of the remaining impacts.
Moreover existing charges give the airlines little incentive to reduce costs or passengers to consider their journey against the damage it is causing.
"Much more account needs to be taken of the congestion on runways and in the air, local environmental impacts, health effects, greenhouse gases and land blight.
"By auctioning slots, setting ceilings on noise, putting a cost on congested airspace and giving local communities more control over the local noise and environmental impacts, aviation will be able to develop in harmony with the communities it serves."
While the Commission acknowledges that further research will be required before all external costs can be priced and charged to the industry, a great deal is already known about greenhouse gas emissions, local air quality, noise and congestion. The report outlines a process to minimise the impact.
The report recommends:
- Landing and take off slots should be auctioned to manage peak time demand
- The Government should push for international agreement on airspace congestion charging
- Greenhouse gases caused by aviation should be targeted at the international and domestic level
- A national framework should be developed for external costs but local impacts should be addressed locally
- Noise charges or tradable noise permits should be introduced - based on time of arrival and departure
- Land remaining vacant because of noise nuisance should be included in external costs
- The impact of flights on local habitats should be monitored and influence flight path trajectory
- Charges should incentivise at-source improvements in the industry
Notes to editors:
1. This paper is CfIT's first look into external costs in the aviation industry. We acknowledge that further work is necessary to understand external costs that are currently unquantified, congestion charging in the air, and the impact of our recommendations on passenger demand and airport expansion options.
2. Due to the trade offs between certain external costs the recommendations are viewed as indivisible.
3. The Commission is calling for modelling on the impact of its recommendations on passenger demand before the Government makes decisions on the Aviation White Paper.
4. The Commission was not looking specifically at suppressing demand, though this may be a natural consequence of implementing the recommendations.
5. The approach outlined in this report accords with CfIT's approach to internalising the external costs of car travel (as set out in CfIT's Paying for Road Use report).
6. For further information please contact Grant Allan on (020) 7944 6637.
Return to: Aviation's external costs index
Return to: Press Notices Index