Leo's blog

Here's a poisoned chalice if ever there was one: BAA are looking for a pair of mugs to take on the roles of 'Heads of Corporate Responsibility' at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. Quite apart from being utterly lacking in any kind of scruples, prospective candidates will also need to be profoundly stupid – BAA is one of the most hated companies in the whole of Britain, and the job entails becoming the smiling face of this celebrated nadir of corporate public relations.

The advert for the post gives a taste of the sort of unsavoury activities that lie in store for the successful applicant. Opening with the line "At BAA, we believe that it's possible for the aviation industry to grow sustainably" – a view that is fundamentally at odds with the conclusions of the UK's best climate scientists – the advert goes on to explain that "whilst representing BAA at external meetings with the local community… you will be the face of our corporate responsibility affairs, and a source of expertise to all affected parties and stakeholders." 'Expertise' here means spin, gloss and lies; 'affected parties' means victims, like the millions of Londoners about to gain noisy flight paths over their homes and schools; and 'stakeholders' include the 2,000 villagers who will be forcibly evicted to make way for the third runway. These terms are probably not meant to encompass the 160,000 people already dying because of climate change each year, or the nations of Bangladesh and Tuvalu which are soon to disappear forever under the rising sea; but they should.

Not us talking, but the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, in a report published today which roasts the government's record on a host of green issues. What they are so particularly unimpressed by in the above quote is the Treasury's half-baked explanation for their refusal to even work out how much the VAT tax rebate to aviation is actually worth each year.

Since its inception in 1997, with a mandate to keep a watch on the Treasury's progress towards keeping its promises on climate change and the environment, the EAC has been an annoying voice of reason within the House of Commons. Why can't they ever say anything nice? Oh wait, no I get it. Today's report has plenty of interesting criticisms to make of the Treasury's many diverse and abject failings with regards to climate change, but the Committee seems especially underwhelmed by this government's approach to the problem posed by aviation emissions. As they've been saying for years now, "Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK, its contribution to global warming is enhanced through releasing emissions at altitude, its growth is being fuelled by largely inessential journeys (especially short-haul journeys, where there are rail alternatives), and it is very lightly taxed (notably aviation fuel is untaxed internationally)."

Amongst last week's astonishingly supportive media carnival, there could be heard a lonely voice denouncing our actions on the roof of the Commons. That voice belonged to Michelle Di Leo, of comedy aviation industry lobby group Flying Matters.

Flying Matters are the leading purveyors here in the UK of the kind of 'discourse' analysed by the boffins in my last blog; in some respects they are a bit like Plane Stupid's Evil Twins, regularly popping up in the papers and on telly saying outlandish things in support of their industry's expansion plans. Like the luminaries celebrated in the 2005 feature film Thank You For Smoking, Flying Matters' main purpose is to mislead policy-makers and the public about the harm caused by their client industry.

The Journal of Sustainable Tourism recently published a paper by pair of Scandinavian academics, entitled, "It Does Not Harm the Environment! An Analysis of Industry Discourses on Tourism, Air Travel and the Environment". In a nutshell, they show that aviation industry spin-doctors lie through their teeth, using a limited set of deeply flawed, broadly irrational, and fundamentally dishonest arguments to misrepresent their contribution to climate change in order to keep people flying. Say what?

The authors ask why, with growing awareness of the problem of climate change, does consumer behaviour with regards to air travel not appear to be changing at all – despite the fact that 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions released through tourism-related transport in the EU come from air travel. They go on to analyse some of the aviation industry's discourses (chat) around air travel's environmental impact in an attempt to find an answer.