There is a problem with the climate crisis that effects are locked-in before they are noticed. For example, we are basically at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels now but it is likely that 2.0C is already “locked-in” so that if we were to stop all emission of climate gases now, we would still reach 2.0C. This is a serious problem because it means that real, effective change to avoid climate disaster is likely to be to late. That raises the question is it worth the bother trying to prevent further climate disaster and the planet becoming uninhabitable: if it’s wasted effort shouldn’t we just enjoy our final years instead?
22.35pm GMT There’s more to it than that. There’s the problem that the climate-destroyers are in ascendance and now blatantly disregarding climate destruction. It’s then more of a question should we continue campaigning if we’re not being effective, achieving. I consider that we are achieving and the situation would be worse otherwise. It appears that we are achieving in UK despite Ed Miliband being so taken with the carbon capture false solution promoted by fossil fuels.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy.
Protests against the Rosebank oilfield in Edinburgh in 2024. Labour pledged in its manifesto to halt new North Sea licensing, but Rosebank was awaiting final approval when the party won the general election. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian
Lobbyists argued it was unfair for their industry to be treated the same as others as end product – oil and gas – inevitably produced emissions
Experts have accused the fossil fuel industry of seeking special treatment after lobbyists argued greenhouse gas emissions from oilfields should be treated differently to those from other industries.
The government is embroiled in a row over whether to allow a massive new oilfield, Rosebank, to go ahead, with some cabinet members arguing it could boost growth and others concerned it could make the goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 impossible to reach. Labour made a manifesto commitment to halt new North Sea licensing, but Rosebank and some other projects had already been licensed and were awaiting final approval when the party won the general election.
Documents seen by the Guardian show the industry group Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) asking for Rosebank and other oilfields’ “scope three emissions” – those caused by the burning of extracted oil and gas – to be treated differently because that was the point of their business.
A court case recently found the licence granted to Rosebank by the previous government was unlawful as it failed to take these emissions into account.
A court has ruled that consent for two new Scottish oil and gas fields was granted unlawfully and their owners must seek fresh approval from the UK government before drilling can begin.
The written judgement on the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields came after a case brought by environmental campaigners, Uplift and Greenpeace, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
In his judgement, Lord Ericht said a more detailed assessment of the fields’ environmental impact was required, taking into account the effect on the climate of burning any fossil fuels extracted.
He said work on both fields could continue while the new information was gathered but no oil and gas could be extracted unless fresh approval was granted.
Permission for the Rosebank oil development, 80 miles west of Shetland in the North Atlantic, was granted in autumn 2023.
In a 57-page judgement, Lord Ericht wrote that there was a public interest in having the decision “remade on a lawful basis” because of the effects of climate change – which he said outweighed the interests of the developers.
The UK government is set to back plans for a third runway at Heathrow, the country’s busiest airport, and to expand two other airports near London: Gatwick and Luton. The move is designed to support the government’s “mission” to grow the economy.
Air transport is notoriously hard to decarbonise. Unlike the energy system, or even road transport, there is no renewable alternative to switch to immediately. If electric or hydrogen planes become reality, it won’t be for many years yet. Therefore it’s not clear this airport expansion can fit within the UK’s legal and arguably moral requirement to cut emissions and remain within its carbon budget.
It certainly goes against what the government’s official advisory body the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recommends. The CCC’s 2023 report to parliament stated that: “No airport expansions should proceed until a UK-wide capacity management framework is in place to annually assess and, if required, control sector GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions and non-CO₂ effects.”
Those non-CO₂ effects of aviation include water vapour, soot and other gases like nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxide, all released directly into the high atmosphere where they help form heat-trapping clouds. Estimates suggest they could triple the greenhouse impact of aviation.
In 2019, the last year of available data pre-COVID, domestic and international aviation accounted for around 8% of the UK’s total emissions. The non-CO₂ effects makes aviation a larger contributor to climate change than that number suggests.
The sector itself struggles to build a coherent decarbonisation roadmap based solely on “supply-side” improvements to things like fuel efficiency or, in a recent example from EasyJet, thinner paint. The demand side – taking fewer flights, frequent flyer levies, or restrictions on domestic flights as have been introduced in France – is rarely mentioned.
Unfortunately aviation is a prime example of the Jevons effect where any improvement in efficiency has been wiped out by increased demand. With a growing global middle class pursuing a higher consumption lifestyle, aviation emissions continue to grow even while other sectors have shows some efforts to reduce their own.
A third runway at Heathrow was first proposed back in the 2000s. This photo is from a 2016 protest. Dinendra Haria / shutterstock
The UK has mandated that synthetic aviation fuel (SAF), a more sustainable alternative to regular jet fuel, must make up 10% of aviation fuel by 2030. But only 1.2% of aviation fuel is currently SAF and the industry has not published any plans to show it can scale up in time. Indeed, the sector’s own plans for growth will outstrip efforts to decarbonise through synthetic fuel, delivering a neutral effect at best.
The consumer-facing airport sector has also been accused of greenwash. For instance, Luton Airport recently published adverts making the claim that its own expansion would be stopped if it did not meet stringent environmental targets. However, the Advertising Standards Authority found that consumers would naturally believe that would include air traffic and not just terminal operations (a terminal’s heating or lighting is, of course, largely irrelevant when its core business is as emissions-intensive as flying).
The difficulty of decarbonising aviation while the sector still grows is exemplified by the government’s recently launched consultation on adopting the Corsia carbon offsetting scheme for international flights and how it might work with existing cap and trade schemes. All of which encourage or excuse excess emissions through a charging mechanism.
Growing pains
“Kickstarting economy growth” and “Make Britain a clean energy superpower” are two of the UK government’s six “missions”. However, by expanding airports in support of the former, it risks failing the latter.
A new report by thinktank the New Economics Foundation shows that airport expansion could balance out all of the emissions saved by the government’s clean power plans by 2050.
There is evidence that airport expansion can bring some of the economic benefit that government needs. However, another New Economics Foundation report has found that air travel is no longer a catalyst for productivity growth. So the economic benefits of a new runway are really confined to the airport operation itself – projects for engineers and builders, service jobs for people living near Heathrow, and so on.
Aviation is the privilege of the richer part of society, both globally and within the UK. Figures from Our World in Data shows the richest 50% of the global population produces 90% of the aviation emissions.
While many more UK residents have experienced flying than in the past, most flights are still taken by a small, wealthy subset of the population, which will typically capture the largest share of any new capacity. Each year, around half of British residents do not fly at all.
The focus on London airports for the largest scale expansions will shift the balance of the economy further towards south-east England, and increase inequality within the UK economy. And while these plans might bring some of the GDP gains the government is desperate to deliver, all the evidence shows they will be at the expense of its environmental targets.
Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark RichardsOrcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels. Second version, corrected text.
