China & India To Build 320 New Airports
In this newsletter:
1) Britain's Road, Air And Energy Plans At Risk As Heathrow Runway Bid Rejected Over Paris Agreement
The Times, 28 February 2020
2) China To Build 216 New Airports By 2035
Airport Technology, 12 December 2019
3) Europe's Green Suicide & India's Bright Future: India Plans To Open 100 Airports In Five Years
Bloomberg, 30 October 2019
4) Melanie Phillips: It's Ministers Not Judges Who Are Skidding Off The Policy Runway
Melanie Phillips, 27 February 2020
5) Harry Wilkinson: Heathrow, Net Zero And The Grounding Of Britain
The Conservative Woman, 28 February 2020
The Conservative Woman, 28 February 2020
6) Ross Clark: Heathrow’s Third Runway Ruling Should Worry Boris Johnson
The Spectator, 27 February 2020
The Spectator, 27 February 2020
Full details:
1) Britain's Road, Air And Energy Plans At Risk As Heathrow Runway Bid Rejected Over Paris Agreement
The Times, 28 February 2020
Dozens of airport, road and energy projects have been thrown into doubt after judges delivered a crushing blow to plans for a third runway at Heathrow over its impact on the environment.
The Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the government’s policy on expanding the airport was unlawful because ministers had failed to take proper account of how it affected Britain’s climate commitments.
A refusal to properly consider the UN Paris agreement, which limits rises in global temperatures, when approving the third runway was “legally fatal”, the judges said.
The government said it would accept the ruling, striking a severe blow to plans for the runway.
Environmental groups and lawyers heralded the verdict as a milestone in the development of huge infrastructure projects, saying it had “wider implications for keeping climate change at the heart of all planning decisions”.
It could open the door to a series of challenges against plans for roads, the expansion of other airports, gas-fired power stations and coalmines on the grounds that they too are inconsistent with the legally binding climate change commitments.
The Heathrow decision could also have a big impact on plans for the budget next month, which is being billed in Whitehall as an infrastructure budget. The Conservatives are preparing to spend £100 billion over the next five years on building programmes.
Friends of the Earth said the ruling could lead to successful legal challenges on climate change grounds against plans to expand Gatwick, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds Bradford, Southampton and Bournemouth airports.
It warned that big road projects could be challenged on the same grounds, including plans for a route between Oxford and Cambridge, the A303 Stonehenge tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing, a 14-mile motorway and tunnel to the east of the Dartford Crossing that is the biggest scheme of its kind in decades. It may even raise questions over HS2, which has been criticised over the damage it will cause to ancient woodland.
Full story (£)
2) China To Build 216 New Airports By 2035
Airport Technology, 12 December 2019
The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) aims to construct 216 new airports by 2035 to meet the growing demands for air travel.
The Times, 28 February 2020
Dozens of airport, road and energy projects have been thrown into doubt after judges delivered a crushing blow to plans for a third runway at Heathrow over its impact on the environment.
The Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the government’s policy on expanding the airport was unlawful because ministers had failed to take proper account of how it affected Britain’s climate commitments.
A refusal to properly consider the UN Paris agreement, which limits rises in global temperatures, when approving the third runway was “legally fatal”, the judges said.
The government said it would accept the ruling, striking a severe blow to plans for the runway.
Environmental groups and lawyers heralded the verdict as a milestone in the development of huge infrastructure projects, saying it had “wider implications for keeping climate change at the heart of all planning decisions”.
It could open the door to a series of challenges against plans for roads, the expansion of other airports, gas-fired power stations and coalmines on the grounds that they too are inconsistent with the legally binding climate change commitments.
The Heathrow decision could also have a big impact on plans for the budget next month, which is being billed in Whitehall as an infrastructure budget. The Conservatives are preparing to spend £100 billion over the next five years on building programmes.
Friends of the Earth said the ruling could lead to successful legal challenges on climate change grounds against plans to expand Gatwick, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds Bradford, Southampton and Bournemouth airports.
It warned that big road projects could be challenged on the same grounds, including plans for a route between Oxford and Cambridge, the A303 Stonehenge tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing, a 14-mile motorway and tunnel to the east of the Dartford Crossing that is the biggest scheme of its kind in decades. It may even raise questions over HS2, which has been criticised over the damage it will cause to ancient woodland.
Full story (£)
2) China To Build 216 New Airports By 2035
Airport Technology, 12 December 2019
The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) aims to construct 216 new airports by 2035 to meet the growing demands for air travel.
China had a total of 234 civil airports at the end of October, and this number is likely to hit 450 by 2035. This is part of China’s ambition to become an aviation power, reported Reuters.
Data shows that demand for passenger air transportation in China will surpass the US by 2035, representing almost one-quarter of the world’s total flights.
Airports in China managed 552 million travellers last year, which is expected to grow to 720 million by 2020.
China’s current number of airports would not be able to handle this rise in passenger volume. As a result, it has plans to build additional airports to cope with the growing demand.
The primary factors for the aviation sector growth are an expanding middle-class and government policy.
Full story
4) Melanie Phillips: It's Ministers Not Judges Who Are Skidding Off The Policy Runway
Melanie Phillips, 27 February 2020
What’s stopping this third runway is not the courts – it’s the government itself which, as a result of the environmental derangement to which it has fallen victim, is now skidding off the runway of reason altogether.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling over Heathrow airport’s mooted third runway has reignited in some quarters the already highly combustible fury in Britain over judicial activism.
The court has ruled that it was unlawful for the government to have given its approval to the construction of a third runway at Heathrow without taking into account its own obligations under the Paris agreement to reduce carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050.
Cue outrage from commentators who believe that, without a third runway to expand Heathrow, the UK will gravely damage its standing as a global commercial hub. They perceive this to be yet another example of the judges muscling into a public policy issue which should more properly be decided by MPs – and giving victory to Luddite green campaigners to boot.
As readers may know, I have been banging on for years about overreaching judges straying inappropriately and dangerously into the political arena. And as I wrote here only last week, my view of the carbon net-zero policy is that the governing class has taken leave of its senses altogether.
But leaving aside the question of whether a third runway at Heathrow is desirable or not, the court’s critics have got this one wrong. The people to blame are not the judges, but the politicians who created the law they themselves were breaking.
As ever, it’s worth reading what the judges actually said; which you can do at this link to the full judgment, and at this one to the summary.
The ruling was made solely on the grounds that, in approving a third runway through the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), the government had broken its own legal commitments:
“…in particular, the provision in section 5(8) of the Planning Act, which requires that the reasons for the policy set out in the ANPS ‘must… include an explanation of how the policy set out in the statement takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change’. We have concluded, in particular, that the designation of the ANPS was unlawful by reason of a failure to take into account the Government’s commitment to the provisions of the Paris Agreement on climate change, concluded in December 2015 and ratified by theUnited Kingdom in November 2016”.
What is noticeable is the extreme care the court has taken to emphasise the narrow legal grounds for its decision. The judges said:
“We have made it clear that we are not concerned in these proceedings with the political debate and controversy to which the prospect of a third runway being constructed at Heathrow has given rise. That is none of the court’s business. We have emphasized that the basic question before us in these claims is an entirely legal question. We are required – and only required – to determine whether the Divisional Court was wrong to conclude that the ANPS was produced lawfully.
“Our task therefore – and our decision – does not touch the substance of the policy embodied in the ANPS. In particular, our decision is not concerned with the merits of expanding Heathrow by adding a third runway, or of any alternative project, or of doing nothing at all to increase the United Kingdom’s aviation capacity. Those matters are the Government’s responsibility and the Government’s alone”.
The judges also stated that their ruling did not stop the government from proceeding with a third runway plan. It just had to bring it into line with its own legal obligations under the Planning Act and the Paris agreement.
Full post
Data shows that demand for passenger air transportation in China will surpass the US by 2035, representing almost one-quarter of the world’s total flights.
Airports in China managed 552 million travellers last year, which is expected to grow to 720 million by 2020.
China’s current number of airports would not be able to handle this rise in passenger volume. As a result, it has plans to build additional airports to cope with the growing demand.
The primary factors for the aviation sector growth are an expanding middle-class and government policy.
Full story
3) Europe's Green Suicide & India's Bright Future: India Plans To Open 100 Airports In Five Years
Bloomberg, 30 October 2019
In order to revive economic growth, India is planning to open 100 additional airports by 2024.
Bloomberg, 30 October 2019
In order to revive economic growth, India is planning to open 100 additional airports by 2024.
India is planning to open 100 additional airports by 2024, as part of a plan to revive economic growth in Asia’s third-largest economy, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
The proposal, which includes starting 1,000 new routes connecting smaller towns and villages, was discussed at a meeting last week to review infrastructure needed by 2025, the people said, asking not to be identified as the discussion is private. Steps to start a plane-lease financing business in the country was also discussed, they said.
Full story
The proposal, which includes starting 1,000 new routes connecting smaller towns and villages, was discussed at a meeting last week to review infrastructure needed by 2025, the people said, asking not to be identified as the discussion is private. Steps to start a plane-lease financing business in the country was also discussed, they said.
Full story
4) Melanie Phillips: It's Ministers Not Judges Who Are Skidding Off The Policy Runway
Melanie Phillips, 27 February 2020
What’s stopping this third runway is not the courts – it’s the government itself which, as a result of the environmental derangement to which it has fallen victim, is now skidding off the runway of reason altogether.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling over Heathrow airport’s mooted third runway has reignited in some quarters the already highly combustible fury in Britain over judicial activism.
The court has ruled that it was unlawful for the government to have given its approval to the construction of a third runway at Heathrow without taking into account its own obligations under the Paris agreement to reduce carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050.
Cue outrage from commentators who believe that, without a third runway to expand Heathrow, the UK will gravely damage its standing as a global commercial hub. They perceive this to be yet another example of the judges muscling into a public policy issue which should more properly be decided by MPs – and giving victory to Luddite green campaigners to boot.
As readers may know, I have been banging on for years about overreaching judges straying inappropriately and dangerously into the political arena. And as I wrote here only last week, my view of the carbon net-zero policy is that the governing class has taken leave of its senses altogether.
But leaving aside the question of whether a third runway at Heathrow is desirable or not, the court’s critics have got this one wrong. The people to blame are not the judges, but the politicians who created the law they themselves were breaking.
As ever, it’s worth reading what the judges actually said; which you can do at this link to the full judgment, and at this one to the summary.
The ruling was made solely on the grounds that, in approving a third runway through the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), the government had broken its own legal commitments:
“…in particular, the provision in section 5(8) of the Planning Act, which requires that the reasons for the policy set out in the ANPS ‘must… include an explanation of how the policy set out in the statement takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change’. We have concluded, in particular, that the designation of the ANPS was unlawful by reason of a failure to take into account the Government’s commitment to the provisions of the Paris Agreement on climate change, concluded in December 2015 and ratified by theUnited Kingdom in November 2016”.
What is noticeable is the extreme care the court has taken to emphasise the narrow legal grounds for its decision. The judges said:
“We have made it clear that we are not concerned in these proceedings with the political debate and controversy to which the prospect of a third runway being constructed at Heathrow has given rise. That is none of the court’s business. We have emphasized that the basic question before us in these claims is an entirely legal question. We are required – and only required – to determine whether the Divisional Court was wrong to conclude that the ANPS was produced lawfully.
“Our task therefore – and our decision – does not touch the substance of the policy embodied in the ANPS. In particular, our decision is not concerned with the merits of expanding Heathrow by adding a third runway, or of any alternative project, or of doing nothing at all to increase the United Kingdom’s aviation capacity. Those matters are the Government’s responsibility and the Government’s alone”.
The judges also stated that their ruling did not stop the government from proceeding with a third runway plan. It just had to bring it into line with its own legal obligations under the Planning Act and the Paris agreement.
Full post
5) Harry Wilkinson: Heathrow, Net Zero And The Grounding Of Britain
The Conservative Woman, 28 February 2020
MANY will regard yesterday’s Court of Appeal decision to block a third runway at Heathrow as an unwelcome intrusion of judges into our democratic system. They will be bemused that those judges cited the Paris Agreement to justify their decision when one can hardly see China*, or indeed any other signatory to the Paris Agreement, blocking vital airport expansion because of that same treaty.
But to blame the judges is to miss the point. All they have done is to take the commitments of that accord and the Government’s pledge to achieve net zero emissions at face value. It is a simple matter of fact that such expansion cannot be reconciled with reducing our emissions, at least in the short term. This is what net zero means. It means abandoning the pursuit of growth, of new opportunities, of new trading links, and consigning the country to eco-austerity. Yesterday’s decision brings that reality, and the government’s shameful failure to be upfront about its implications, into sharp focus.
When the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016 it was hailed as an extraordinary moment in the fight against climate change. Green journalists parroted this view, useful as it was to politicians and activists desperate to show that progress had been made. Those familiar with the details could see that all it really did was to confirm countries’ existing plans. China, India and other developing countries were allowed to continue increasing their emissions, and the EU reaffirmed its own emissions targets. America’s inclusion was more significant, but it wasn’t long until Trump announced his intention to withdraw.
The result is to leave Britain uniquely vulnerable to the economic consequences of rapid decarbonisation policies. While the more cautious approach of Eastern European countries will act as a brake for the EU, Britain is faced with a fundamental political choice as it leaves. It can choose to embrace the free market and technological progress, which will lead to the more efficient use of resources and indeed reduce the consumption of almost every natural resource. Or it can continue with an opportunity-destroying, unilateral approach of state-mandated decarbonisation. Time to choose.
*China is planning to build 216 more airports by 2035.
The Conservative Woman, 28 February 2020
MANY will regard yesterday’s Court of Appeal decision to block a third runway at Heathrow as an unwelcome intrusion of judges into our democratic system. They will be bemused that those judges cited the Paris Agreement to justify their decision when one can hardly see China*, or indeed any other signatory to the Paris Agreement, blocking vital airport expansion because of that same treaty.
But to blame the judges is to miss the point. All they have done is to take the commitments of that accord and the Government’s pledge to achieve net zero emissions at face value. It is a simple matter of fact that such expansion cannot be reconciled with reducing our emissions, at least in the short term. This is what net zero means. It means abandoning the pursuit of growth, of new opportunities, of new trading links, and consigning the country to eco-austerity. Yesterday’s decision brings that reality, and the government’s shameful failure to be upfront about its implications, into sharp focus.
When the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016 it was hailed as an extraordinary moment in the fight against climate change. Green journalists parroted this view, useful as it was to politicians and activists desperate to show that progress had been made. Those familiar with the details could see that all it really did was to confirm countries’ existing plans. China, India and other developing countries were allowed to continue increasing their emissions, and the EU reaffirmed its own emissions targets. America’s inclusion was more significant, but it wasn’t long until Trump announced his intention to withdraw.
The result is to leave Britain uniquely vulnerable to the economic consequences of rapid decarbonisation policies. While the more cautious approach of Eastern European countries will act as a brake for the EU, Britain is faced with a fundamental political choice as it leaves. It can choose to embrace the free market and technological progress, which will lead to the more efficient use of resources and indeed reduce the consumption of almost every natural resource. Or it can continue with an opportunity-destroying, unilateral approach of state-mandated decarbonisation. Time to choose.
*China is planning to build 216 more airports by 2035.
6) Ross Clark: Heathrow’s Third Runway Ruling Should Worry Boris Johnson
The Spectator, 27 February 2020
Given the government has no detailed plan as to how it will achieve Net Zero without crashing the economy, or exporting our remaining manufacturing industry, the zero-carbon target presents activists with a means to challenge any government policy they feel is inconsistent with this goal.
It may well be, as Tom Goodenough argued here earlier, that Boris Johnson is secretly delighted at the Court of Appeal’s ruling that is was illegal for the government to give the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow without taking into account their own climate policy.
The Prime Minister had, after all, promised his constituents that he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway. He now has the cover of a court decision to shield him from the Conservative party’s pro-runway elements if the project ends up being dropped.
But the Prime Minister should be extremely concerned about the wider implications of this judgement. It is yet one more example of power draining away from elected government in Parliament, towards the courts. The courts are coming back again, and again, interfering in decisions which ought to be taken in the realm of politics.
Part of the reason for this transfer of power is activist judges. Increasingly they are flexing their muscles by straying into political decisions – something a few of us have long been opposing, recently joined by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures last year. But a large part of the blame lies with the government itself (by which I mean the Conservative-led coalition, Cameron and May governments, as well as the Johnson administration). It continues to pass laws placing legal obligations on itself to reach targets and objectives. By doing so it is inviting activists to challenge decisions in court.
As the judge pointed out in his ruling, he hasn’t strictly ruled out a third runway. What he did rule was that the government had failed to take into account its own climate policy when making the Heathrow decision. But who passed the Climate Change Act which imposed a legally binding target to slash carbon emissions by 2050? The original act was introduced by the Brown government in 2008, but the Cameron-led Conservative opposition supported it with minimal dissent – only six MPs failed to vote in favour of it. That committed the government to reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050. Then, last summer, the May government upped the target to net zero emissions.
Given the government has no detailed plan as to how it will achieve this feat without crashing the economy, or exporting our remaining manufacturing industry, the zero-carbon target presents activists with a means to challenge any government policy they feel is inconsistent with this goal. That means just about every new road, airport, gas-fired power station – not to mention HS2. Could the government demonstrate that HS2 is consistent with zero carbon emissions by 2050? I doubt it, given the steel and cement involved in its construction.
Full post
The Spectator, 27 February 2020
Given the government has no detailed plan as to how it will achieve Net Zero without crashing the economy, or exporting our remaining manufacturing industry, the zero-carbon target presents activists with a means to challenge any government policy they feel is inconsistent with this goal.
It may well be, as Tom Goodenough argued here earlier, that Boris Johnson is secretly delighted at the Court of Appeal’s ruling that is was illegal for the government to give the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow without taking into account their own climate policy.
The Prime Minister had, after all, promised his constituents that he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway. He now has the cover of a court decision to shield him from the Conservative party’s pro-runway elements if the project ends up being dropped.
But the Prime Minister should be extremely concerned about the wider implications of this judgement. It is yet one more example of power draining away from elected government in Parliament, towards the courts. The courts are coming back again, and again, interfering in decisions which ought to be taken in the realm of politics.
Part of the reason for this transfer of power is activist judges. Increasingly they are flexing their muscles by straying into political decisions – something a few of us have long been opposing, recently joined by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures last year. But a large part of the blame lies with the government itself (by which I mean the Conservative-led coalition, Cameron and May governments, as well as the Johnson administration). It continues to pass laws placing legal obligations on itself to reach targets and objectives. By doing so it is inviting activists to challenge decisions in court.
As the judge pointed out in his ruling, he hasn’t strictly ruled out a third runway. What he did rule was that the government had failed to take into account its own climate policy when making the Heathrow decision. But who passed the Climate Change Act which imposed a legally binding target to slash carbon emissions by 2050? The original act was introduced by the Brown government in 2008, but the Cameron-led Conservative opposition supported it with minimal dissent – only six MPs failed to vote in favour of it. That committed the government to reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050. Then, last summer, the May government upped the target to net zero emissions.
Given the government has no detailed plan as to how it will achieve this feat without crashing the economy, or exporting our remaining manufacturing industry, the zero-carbon target presents activists with a means to challenge any government policy they feel is inconsistent with this goal. That means just about every new road, airport, gas-fired power station – not to mention HS2. Could the government demonstrate that HS2 is consistent with zero carbon emissions by 2050? I doubt it, given the steel and cement involved in its construction.
Full post
The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment