£62bn in carbon emissions | New Economy Foundation

In a climate emergency, any project or policy that generates new greenhouse gas emissions will have a huge cost to society.Either we suffer the consequences of a deeper ecological breakdown, or someone, somewhere, has to ‘Clean’ those gases.Cost of cleaning up new emissions, experts say ‘Abatement costs”. The more ambitious a country’s climate goals are (i.e., the closer the date or the lower the target emissions level), the higher the cost of abatement. This is because in the context of rapid decarbonization, most options for reducing emissions are Already done, eliminating the new emissions may require more expensive technologies or policies.

Since 2009, government economists have been tracking the cost of abatement per ton of carbon dioxide or the equivalent gas — that’s the cost of cleaning it up, also known as ‘carbon value”. September 2021 The government updated their carbon numbers. The short-term carbon value more than tripled, from £70 to £240. Future values ​​are also expected to rise, to a lesser extent (Figure 1). The change belatedly brings the government’s carbon numbers into line with the more ambitious national climate target of net-zero emissions by 2050, passed in 2019. The impact is huge, and the government now faces two main problems.

We’ve been making decisions based on flawed evidence

First, governments are making decisions about new programs and policies every day. All public agencies (at least in theory) must use the government’s carbon value to inform their decisions.Weigh the pros and cons and usually end up with an overall estimate of the investment ‘benefit-to-cost ratio” or ‘Net present value”. This monetary figure includes the cleanup cost of any GHG emissions the project expects. Disturbingly, now that the carbon value has been updated, these projects are using an outdated number: the old carbon value. Basis for the decision is grossly underestimating the cost to the climate and our society.

To highlight this issue, we recalculated the total net present value (balance of costs and benefits over a set project life cycle) of potential emissions from all active airport expansion projects in the UK. Eight airport expansion projects are active in the legal planning process, ranging from those in the early consultation stage (eg Gatwick Airport) to those already approved but facing legal challenges (eg Southampton Airport).

Emissions associated with airport expansion can be divided into several categories. The main two are: whether the emissions are from carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases, and whether the emissions are caused by departing or arriving flights. Smaller emissions are also generated when the airport infrastructure itself is built.

Taking the UK’s largest airport as an example, Heathrow Airport is planning a new runway that will increase passenger departures by 40m per year. Our calculations show that the cost of carbon emissions from Heathrow’s proposed 2025 to 2050 expansion has doubled, from around £50bn to more than £100bn, based on updated government carbon values.

Airport companies are often reluctant to disclose the actual cost of their plans in terms of climate damage. Where they provide estimates, they usually only show the cost of emissions from departing flights.together with others, we try to ensure According to the latest government guidance, government policymakers can understand the true climate cost of airport expansion. But now it turns out that even that guidance is flawed. Of the eight UK airports in the process of expansion, all have significantly underestimated their climate costs. Gatwick Airport, for example, is currently in a formal consultation on its proposed expansion, but the case they made to the public in the consultation paper used outdated carbon values, significantly underestimating the climate cost of their plans.

In Table 1, we show the recalculated climate costs for all eight active airport expansions, and for comparability, only the values ​​associated with the planned creation of outbound flights between 2025 and 2050. Eastleigh Borough Council and Leeds City Council recently approved the expansion of Southampton and Leeds Bradford airports respectively, but they did so on the basis of climate costs, in both cases £500m are too low. The climate cost of the Stansted Airport expansion, which was recently approved by the Planning Inspectorate, will be more than £1bn higher than previously thought.

Table 1: The net present value of departing flight emissions from eight ongoing airport expansion projects in the UK has more than doubled following the BEIS carbon revision.

Eight ongoing UK airport expansions result in net present value of GHG emissions from new departures in £millions (2025-2050).

Source: NEF analysis Department of Transportation, and planning documents submitted by Gatwick, Luton, Manston, Southampton, Leeds Bradford, Bristol. *Emissions at Stansted Airport have been adjusted as described in New Energy Fund, 2021.

The public and future generations are taking on a significant carbon debt

The second problem the government now faces may be more costly. Information the government now has from its own economists suggests that the additional emissions associated with plans such as the airport expansion would cost society too much. These emissions are often produced and promoted by private entities such as airlines and airports. However, at present, the government does not have an effective system to charge these enterprises for their pollution.The government’s main emissions tax policy, the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS), exempts flights to non-EU destinations, exempts non-carbon emissions (about half of aviation emissions), provides airlines with free carbon allowances (equivalent to Up to 82% of all emissions), and toll Far less than the true cost to society per ton of emissions.

Current UK ETS prices do not reflect the updated carbon value. The UK ETS priced emissions at around £50 per tonne, £190 less than the actual cost of abatement. Ultimately, the bill to clean up these emissions will be accepted by wider society and taxpayers. Essentially, huge subsidies are being passed on to big polluting corporations, and debts are being passed on to future generations. For example, the NEF modelling in Table 1 shows that the proposed expansion of Gatwick Airport would have an emissions cost of £9bn between 2025 and 2050, considering only outbound flights. Of this, only £600 million (7%) is estimated to be billed to airports through the government’s current policy tool, UK ETS. The remainder will be picked up by the wider society and taxpayers at a later date (Figure 3).

Cumulatively, the emissions price of eight active airport expansion plans is projected to be £73.6 billion from 2025 to 2050 (Table 2). The airline industry may only have to pay £11.8bn (16%). The rest will represent a massive £62bn grant to polluting industries, and a huge cost to the rest of society – be it economic, environmental or both.What’s more, since most flights are operated by a few main wealthy frequent flyer, this handout is highly regressive, burdening the entire British society with a cost largely borne by the elite. This aviation giveaway adds to an already lucrative arrangement in the industry, where aviation is exempt from VAT and fuel taxes. While Air Passenger Duty (APD) makes up a small portion of these giveaways, the government has also recently reduced APD rates for domestic flights (90% of quilt Only 2% of English flyers).

Table 2: Overall, the eight airport expansions underway in the UK are expected to generate £62 billion worth of emissions.

Net present value of emissions (in £ million (2025-2050)) associated with the expansion of eight airports using the BEIS 2021 carbon value versus net present value of traded emissions (2025-2050) using the latest BEIS (2018) trading emissions price series 2050) for comparison.

Source: NEF analysis Department of Transportation, and planning documents submitted by Gatwick, Luton, Manston, Southampton, Leeds Bradford, Bristol. *Emissions at Stansted Airport have been adjusted as described in New Energy Fund, 2021.

Air travel issues must be addressed urgently.Lord Deben, Chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) said last month, “If the UK is to meet its climate targets, there is no room for any expansion of the airport. CCC’s policy recommendations are “There will be no net expansion of UK airport capacity unless the industry is on track to sufficiently exceed its net emissions trajectory and be able to meet additional demand”. That test has not been passed and will not be met for many years to come. Given this and the UK A major change in government assessment guidance has resulted in an unusually high climate cost of the proposed scheme, and all active UK airport expansions should be suspended immediately and reassessed against the new guidance.

To address air travel demand management more broadly (i.e. reducing passenger numbers to sustainable levels), the government should reassess the tax relief it grants to the industry and develop a broader green tax plan. In doing so, fairness and equity should be a priority, which cannot be achieved through something like a blunt carbon tax. frequent flyer tax would be the most effective way to ensure that everyone can still enjoy the benefits of air travel while reducing emissions.

Image: Pixel