Author: John Stewart

The news last week that deaths from stroke, heart and circulatory disease are up to 20% higher in areas under the Heathrow with high levels of aircraft noise than in places with the least noise is startling.  But is it true? 

Dramatic findings, but true?

Within hours of the release of the report, Back Heathrow (http://www.backheathrow.org/), the Heathrow Airport funded body promoting the expansion of the airport, had countered by pointing out that just days earlier researchers had found that Richmond – right under the flight path – was the healthiest place in Britain.  A survey showed that men in Richmond could expect to enjoy 70 years of healthy living (women 72).  Wokingham, Surrey and Windsor – all places affected by aircraft noise – also featured high up in the list.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424383/Richmond-Thames-place-long-healthy-life.html

Both pieces of research were carried out by credible researchers.  Can they be reconciled?  I believe they can.  Firstly, and most importantly, the researchers were looking at different things: it is quite possible to live in Richmond, Wokingham or Windsor and both expect to have 70 healthy years of life and have a 20% greater chance of dying of a stress-related illness.

High-quality research

And, secondly, the standing of the Heathrow flight path researchers – Imperial College – and the quality of their carefully-caveated research, covering 3.5 million people, makes the findings hugely important.  This is why it was extensively covered in the media.  So far, Governments have ignored all similar research which has shown a consistent link between aircraft noise – indeed noise generally – stress and ill-health.  They didn’t deny the findings but presumably felt that some ill-health and early deaths was a price worth paying for the economic benefits aviation brought. 

Influence Airports Commission?

It is too early to say whether this new research with its dramatic findings will suffer the same fate.  What is certainly does do, though, is raise the stakes, particularly at this time when the Airports Commission is considering expansion of airports in London and the South East.  Writing in the Independent the day after the research was released, Simon Calder argued, “48 hours ago a correlation between airport proximity and the risk of heart attacks or strokes was not in the public domain. Now that it is, the spectrum of harm from airports has extended from nuisance to a serious public health threat”

No wonder Back Heathrow was so quick to tweet its rebuttal. 

I’m taking a risk with this blog.  So often campaigners are dismissed as NIMBYs.  And I’ve been campaigning for over 30 years.

The blog was prompted by this news story from India.  There are big local protests in Kerala, in the south west of India, against there are plans by a private company to build a large new airport, for low cost airlines, at Aranmula. The site is within 100 km of two international airports – at Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram. These airports bring in tourists to Kerala, and it is intended that it brings in pilgrims to a nearby site. The land at Aranmula is greenfield, and there are plans to take at least 350 acres, and perhaps much more for an aerotropolis. Local people fear it could destroy paddy 

land and damage the region’s water source. 

The IPCC Report should act as a wake call to the aviation industry

It is just coincidence.  On the day that the IPCC report, calling for immediate action to tackle climate change, is published ICAO (the International Civil Aviation Organisation) is continuing its leisurely deliberations in Montreal to find a way to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation that is acceptable to the governments of the world.

ICAO, an arm of the United Nations specializing in aviation, moves at a snail-like pace.  It has been considering aviation emissions for years but still no recommendations.  Its latest round of deliberations has been prompted by the recent inclusion of aviation into the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme which would have hit all planes using European airports.  But, since most of the rest of the world refused to play ball, the EU suspended the scheme and everybody crawled back to ICAO for yet more negotiations.

The words “urgent” and “ICAO” have never really gone together but today’s IPCC Report suggests that ICAO needs to take lessons from Usain Bolt and get sprinting.  

The words “urgent” and “ICAO” have never really gone together but today’s IPCC Report suggests that ICAO needs to take lessons from Usain Bolt and get sprinting.  Aviation is set to become a serious obstacle to the worldwide community achieving the reductions in global warming gasses required to prevent runaway climate change.

The industry keeps quoting the figure that aviation only accounts tor 2% of worldwide emissions.  That figure is utterly misleading.  It emerged in the early 1990s since when the number of aircraft in the world’s skies has mushroomed.  Although aircraft are becoming cleaner, a more realistic figure is thought to be between 3.5% and 5%.  And in rich countries it is higher.  The worldwide average is only so low because so many people in poorer countries never set foot in an aeroplane.  According to the WorldWatch Institute, only 5% of the world’s population has ever flown:

But it is in the future that aviation will become the real culprit.  While every other industry believes it can find ways to cut its emissions, aviation will struggle.  This is not surprising since aviation is so dependent on oil.  But it means that aviation could account for 25% of UK emissions by 2050.  Worldwide, aviation emissions are set to triple by 2050.

Today’s IPCC Report should act as a wake-up call to the aviation industry.  It doesn’t mean the end of aviation as flying brings important cultural and economic benefits.  It ought to, though, focus minds on the tax-breaks aviation receives: tax-free fuel and VAT-free travel.  A sizeable proportion of flights are over short distances – for example 45% of flights within Europe are 450 kilometres or less.  http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/planes_trains.pdf

Aviation emissions can be cut without crippling the industry.  The industry won’t do it of its own accord.  It needs Government action.  And fast.  That probably rules out the snail-like ICAO which will probably still be debating its next small step when half of Bangladesh lies under water.  Now there’s a thought:  shouldn’t ICAO move its meetings from Montreal to Dacca.  It may concentrate minds.  

Last weekend’s conference in Munich showed just how vibrant the European movement against airport expansion has become.  On Saturday (22^nd June) over 250 campaigners from across Europe packed the sports centre in the small town of Attaching, just outside Munich, sharing ideas and plan Europe-wide campaigns.

Ten years ago this sort of conference would not have taken place.  There was little Europe-wide contact between grassroots campaigners.  

But all that has changed over the past decade.  Campaigners have been in regular contact with each other, building up a European network.

And success has followed.  A third runway has been stopped at Heathrow.  Plans for new airports in Siena and Viterbo in Italy have been abandoned. The residents of Munich voted against a third runway in a referendum last March.  There is huge opposition to the proposed new airport for Nantes in Western France.  Tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets of Berlin to protest against airport expansion.  And, of course, every Monday night for the last 18 months thousands of people have occupied the airport terminal at Frankfurt to protest against the impact of the fourth runway.

People at the conference shared campaigning techniques, including an excellent session on the role of direct action, led by Plane Stupid.

But Saturday’s conference didn’t just hear stories of protest.  There were experts talking about the climate change, noise and air pollution impacts of aviation.  And a powerful talk from Alexander Mahler of the think-tank Green Budget Germany outlining the billions lost to the economy as a result of the tax-free fuel airlines enjoy.

The conference issued a manifesto.  Key demands included an end to night flights and an end to the tax-free fuel aviation enjoys.  These demands will form the basis of Europe-wide campaigns over the coming year.

Campaigners across Europe are forging links live never before.  They are determined to see the aviation industry tamed.

Heathrow Airport’s proposals to reduce noise, published today, are welcome –http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-publishes-commitments-on-noise-reduction-measures-57f.aspx.  There is little doubt that, if they were implemented, they would cut noise for residents.  Measures such as respite periods, steeper approaches, improved sound insulation and the plan to fine the noisier aircraft will improve the noise climate.  Some of the proposals, of course, are dependent on the cooperation of other bodies before they could be implemented.  Steeper approaches, for example, would require permission from Government and the agreement of Air Traffic Control.  But the intent is there: Heathrow Airport is proposing concrete measures which will improve matters for residents.

Of course Heathrow understands that, unless it is shown to be dealing with noise, there is no possibility it will get approval for a new runway.  And that is part of the motivation of it producing them now and releasing them at this time – within a month it will be submitting its eagerly awaited plans for a third runway to the Airports Commission.

HACAN has worked with Heathrow on a number of its proposals – in particular the plans for introducing respite periods.  Whatever our differences on expansion (and on night flights), it is in the interests of our members for us to get improvements to the current noise climate at the airport.  We want to be able to point to practical improvements on the ground.

However, our belief remains that these improvements are unlikely to survive the building of a third runway.  The sheer number of planes would wipe out virtually all the benefits.  With a third runway, the number of planes which could use Heathrow would rise from 480,000 to over 700,000.  A fourth runway airport, such as the Policy Exchange is promoting (but which Heathrow believes is not necessary), would allow 960,000 aircraft to use the airport.

History suggests that it is the increase in flight numbers which causes the real noise problems for residents.  The big deterioration in the noise climate – and the big rise in HACAN’s membership – coincided with the last significant rise in flight numbers between about 1991 and 2001.  It was a time when individual planes became quieter but that was off-set by the sheer volume of aircraft flying overhead.  The chances are that the same thing would happen if a third runway was built.

Incidentally, the impact of a dramatic increase in flight numbers is not reflected in the annual noise contours published by the Government.  That is because the metric used to measure noise annoyance assumes annoyance levels will remain the same if the number of aircraft operations are doubled so long as the individual aircraft noise levels are reduced.  Not reflected in the reality on the ground.