ISSUE 42 web - Flipbook - Page 61
The Government has more than once refused to
release its analysis of UK carbon targets and how each
sector is contributing to the net-zero goal, following a
request by the Press Association news agency for the
information under Environmental Information
Regulations (EIR).1
• Offsetting measures that depend on an offset
market, which is currently unregulated.
That’s not to say that those technologies don’t have
potential, they clearly do, and I’m pleased to say Ricardo is involved in supporting development of all of
these measures. Ricardo manages the SAF innovation
programme for the UK Government (the Green Fuel
Green Skies competition8); we have a fuel-cell-powered aircraft in the air9; and we are part of a consortium developing an electric drivetrain for aircraft10.
The potential is not the issue. The issue is whether the
Secretary of State can deliver a policy framework to
deliver sufficient change to fulfil his legal duty, and
that is the subject of reasonable doubt. Thus, there is
a genuine question as to whether there is a case for capacity constraint until such technologies can be proven
to deliver. That was the proposition made by the CCC
in their sixth carbon budget recommendations11, but
not (yet, anyway) accepted by the Government.
The CCC has concluded that: “An ambitious heat and
buildings strategy is urgently needed; delayed plans on surface
transport, aviation, hydrogen, biomass and food must be
delivered; plans for the power sector, industrial decarbonisation, the North Sea, peat and energy from waste must be
strengthened.”2
The House of Commons3 and House of Lords4 have
added their criticisms of the strategy, and Client Earth,
Friends of the Earth and the Good Law Project filed
separate claims early this year, arguing that the Government has breached its legal obligations under the
Climate Change Act to demonstrate its climate policies will reduce emissions enough to meet the legally
binding carbon budgets. The cases have been granted
permission to proceed to the High Court and will be
heard together in a full hearing expected to be in June
2022 with a decision later in the year.5
The key test in airports planning policy is whether
expansion would put at risk the UK carbon targets12.
To date, planning inspectors, like those at the Bristol
Airport expansion public inquiry, (refused on grounds
that included carbon emissions, but allowed on appeal), have taken the view that it was reasonable to rely
on the assumption that the Secretary of State would,
in due course, fulfil their duty to meet the targets in
the Climate Change Act13. The Government, they concluded, had indicated expansion would be compatible with net zero, and thus it was safe for them
to consent to an expansion. But relying on that
assumption may get harder.
The energy security strategy announced on 6 April6
fell well short of what was needed. It failed to tackle
on-shore wind, which could be the fastest to build and
is the cheapest form of power generation available
today. It didn’t even mention tidal lagoons as a longterm baseload renewable energy option. It failed to
add any new support for energy efficiency at home
and in businesses. Ricardo is supporting businesses to
tackle electricity prices that are expected to almost
triple (from around 12p to around 30ppkWh). Our
clients will not be helped to bring forward proposals
for onsite, or near-to site but directly connected, wind
and solar projects under this new strategy. Government is failing to support its own carbon targets with
the detail to deliver.
A further issue is that it would be easier to judge an
additional airport development, against progress
within aviation as a whole, if each sector had a defined
target. There is no obligation on an airport seeking
expansion to conduct a cumulative impact assessment
in carbon emissions terms, compared to other recent
airport proposals, and compared to a carbon target
for aviation. But that’s because at the present time,
there is no binding and separate aviation carbon target (or target for any economic sector come to that).
The target is for the UK as a whole.
Aviation
Government has consulted on a strategy to get to
net-zero aviation (the Jet Zero Consultation7 summer
2021). The strategy laid out a desire for a 60% increase
in capacity, and stated this was compatible with net
zero (which is now a duty in law). However, the strategy relies on:
• A rate of improvement in aircraft efficiency that is
hard to see happening in reality (being faster than international historical rates and the UK does not have
the vires to increase the rate of improvement through
regulation).
So, should it be a material consideration to a planning
officer considering an airport that we don’t know how
much aviation will be allowed to emit, compared to
say, housing, in any given time period?
Is it safe to consent an airport expansion when the
Secretary of State is relying on unproven technologies,
limited commercialisation, non-existent markets and
missing cumulative impact assessments? Or should we
pause airport expansion until the technologies and
markets that the Secretary of State is relying on are
proven? At some point in time, the argument will be
tested as to whether the Secretary of State is acting reasonably in such a reliance on unproven technologies
and markets in discharging a duty laid out in the Climate Change Act. At some point, decision makers may
conclude the Secretary of State is not acting reasonably. Indeed, it may be so unreasonable14 as to be
‘Wednesbury unreasonable’.
• A high rate of implementation of so-called
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), derived largely from
wastes or biomass. This requires a wholesale industrial
transformation of fuel supply. Though proposals have
been consulted upon which might drive the use of
SAF up to 75%, these are not yet law; refining capacity does not yet exist; prices and supply chains are unknown; and engines are not certified above 50% use.
• Uptake of hydrogen and electric aircraft, which are
not yet technically or commercially proven.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
59
APRIL 2022
