Jonathan Essex, Surrey Green Party, notes:
'The aviation report from the cross-party Transport Committee highlights the continued two-faced nature in which MPs seek to address the issue of aviation. It still considers the economy first and considers our environment and future separately.

The report concludes by stating: 'We believe that the aviation industry is very important to the UK economy and therefore find it unsatisfactory that the Government leaves such a key industry to the vagaries of the market'. The recent Stern Report on the economics of climate change agrees, that it is exactly this market failure that is causing climate change - so the remedy to this market failure has to be to stop airport expansion.

Jonathan Essex, Green Party continues, "The way forward should not be to build more, but to demonstrate leadership. It seems that current MPs remain wedded to the BAA, and find it impossible not to fly in the face of climate change, when challenged to fight for a better future'.

How ironic that while Brown 'calls on the world to make a historic agreement' in Copenhagen that MPs of all parties are, yet again, calling for the business of flying, the fastest-growing source of greeanhouse gas emissions worldwide, to continue as usual by expanding both Heathrow and Gatwick, to the West and East of Surrey. Typically, the report calls for expansion of airports while climate change left to be resolved by 'policy' to consider at some point in the future. As the Government sides with the bankers when 'saving the world' from the economic crisis it seems wedded to the aviation industry when challenged to act on climate change.'

Finally, the report argues that aviation is very important to the UK economy while noting that expansion should include Gatwick which is 'unlikely to ever be anything other than a low-cost carrier-dominated leisure airport'. How can exporting our tourism overseas be good for the economy? Research by Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign shows that airport expansion actually destroys at least four times as many UK jobs through exporting tourism than are created. Jonathan Essex, adds, "Letâ€^TMs keep our jobs and not fly in the face of climate change."

ENDS

Contact details
Jonathan Essex, 07801 541 924, 01737 765 654, essexjonathan@yahoo.co.uk

Notes.

1. Key references from the report appended as follows.
See at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmtran/125/125i.pdf

This states that: 'it seems unlikely that Gatwick will ever be anything other than a low-cost carrier-dominated leisure airport." and continues: 'Gatwick [has] had only limited success [and has] been unable to sustain the level of demand for international services that is necessary to operate a hub airport.' and notes that 'and services at Gatwick and Manchester have been relocated to Heathrow following the implementation of the Open Skies agreement with the USA.'

It states (para 100) that 'We are not persuaded that refusing a third runway at Heathrow would be helpful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.' Clearly the committee has adopted Margaret Thatcher's favourite catchphrase, "there is no alternative" and is applying it to air travel - assuming that it is not if, but where air travel continues to increase.

Extracts from para 108 and onwards:

The enforced sale by BAA of Gatwick airport is intended to lead to greater competition between airports in the southeast of England. Gatwick airport submitted evidence to us independently of BAA, stating that it expects its annual passenger traffic to reach 40 million within a decade and that it is keen to explore the option of a second runway at Gatwick.

Some witnesses told us that, if a third runway at Heathrow were to be constructed, a second runway at Gatwick would not be viableat least, not within the 2030 timescale.

There is, in any case, a legal restriction that prevents construction of any additional runway at Gatwick prior to 2019. However, other witnesses considered that, in terms of demand, Gatwick would be a better location for a new runway than Stansted and that, in terms of airport planning approval, 2019 was not far off.

The delays in arriving at a final decision on a second runway at Stansted, coupled with the recession and declining passenger numbers, mean that a second runway at Stansted is unlikely to be completed prior to 2019 when the restriction on an additional runway at Gatwick expires. The Government should reconsider whether the additional runway, if required, should be located at Gatwick rather than Stansted.

2. Members of the Transport Committee include one Surrey MP:

Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Chair) Liverpool Riverside Labour Co-op
Mr David Clelland MP Tyne Bridge Labour
Rt Hon Jeffrey M Donaldson MP Lagan Valley Democratic Unionist
Mr Philip Hollobone MP Kettering Conservative
Mr John Leech MP Manchester Withington Liberal Democrats
Mr Eric Martlew MP Carlisle Labour
Mark Pritchard MP The Wrekin Conservative
Ms Angela C. Smith MP Sheffield, Hillsborough Labour
Sir Peter Soulsby MP Leicester South Labour
Graham Stringer MP Manchester Blackley Labour
Mr David Wilshire MP Spelthorne Conservative

3. The government's commitment to reduce climate emissions by 2050 still excludes international aviation, shipping and all of the freight that is imported to the UK from overseas. The aviation industry is lobbying for this situation to continue, through emission trading schemes that can offset the emissions from aviation to poorer countries and other sectors. This report reiterates this approach, rather than limit on flights and airport expansion, as a way to 'manage' aviation emissions.

4. Jonathan Essex is a member of Surrey Green Party and the Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Reigate.

Jonathan Essex, parliamentary candidate for Reigate at the next General Election, joined the Wave march in London along with thousands of others, seeking to convince decision-makers to take more urgent action on climate change.

Jonathan Essex said "For effective action on climate change we need strong political leadership now. This needs to be reflected in the UK budget as well as in Copenhagen. This means stopping the 9 billion a year subsidy a year on aviation and so we expand our local bus services, not Gatwick airport."

"Contrary to a few emails highlighted by sceptics there is no dispute that carbon levels in the atmosphere are rising. Most scientific bodies recognise the danger of their destabilising effect on global climate. One of the founding principles of the Green Party is the precautionary principle: if we are not sure about something we should exercise caution, particularly in respect of future generations and the fragile balance of natural ecosystems on which all life depends. Even if some people are not sure whether human beings are responsible for causing the rise in carbon emissions or not, it is wise to assume that we are responsible, until it is safe to assume we are not."

At the summit the Green Party is calling for:

- A much higher level of ambition. At the very least, the summit must provide clear foundations for a global deal: binding emissions reduction targets, uniform rules for measuring emissions, strong compliance mechanisms and common but differentiated responsibility - recognising different historical contributions to envirronmental degradation, so that fairness is at the heart of any new deal.

- Reductions to be made domestically. It is unfair to dump our responsibility on poorer countries - we need real cuts iin UK emissions, not complicated and confusing off-set schemes.

- World leaders to establish significant funding for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries who bear the cost in loss of life. This could prove to be a real sticking point, as the scale of financing needed for this purpose has so far been vastly underestimated.

- It is time for governments to recognise that investing in the alternatives to polluting, finite fossil fuels, together with a shift to a more sustainable economic model, will actually benefit society and the economy as well as the environment â€" and therefore have the courage to be more ambitious. Nationally this means implementing a Green New Deal
with a programme of investment to insulate people's homes, get local renewable energy and public transport infrastructure projects up and running, that use local employment and benefit everyone. If you took away the need to reduce carbon emissions this investment would still improve life in communities across Britain.”

Jonathan said "It is also time for Surrey to set out an ambitious set of plans to not just reduce the council's own emissions but make easier for businesses and households to follow their lead. Conservatives in Surrey recently failed even to allow a debate on the need to reduce climate emissions, and seem to shy from effective leadership nationally too. For me this is a moral question. I joined this march to declare it is worth fighting for a fair future - and tthat this must be matched by different political decisions both nationally and here in Surrey. "

“We mustn't let disputes about the causes of the climate crisis distract us from the realities of its effects on life as we know it. We have a moral obligation to exercise caution. We
need more courageous, concerted and urgent action from the decision-makers at the Copenhagen summit and back here in the UK.”

Note to editors.

Jonathan was working in Bangladesh until 2005, where he witnessed the impacts of climate change first hand. Jonathan now works for a charity to highlight the emissions due to the construction industry and helps set up charities to reuse surplus building materials. The photo was one that Jonathan took during the monsoon season when Dhaka flooded in 2004.

Jonathan Essex says, "This result shows we have continued and growing support in Redhill. You said you wanted action on local issues - like improving our rubbish doorstep recycling and putting the empty council buildings in the middle of Redhill to community use - as well as a positive direction for the future. Redhill and Reigate needs action to build a stronger communities today, to pull together through the recession. It is not easy being green, which is why the council must demonstrate leadership on the issues that matter, rather than cutting our local services. Thanks for your continued support. I will continue to do what I can working with you, and taking a stand for Redhill over the coming year.

Meanwhile in the European Elections in Reigate and Banstead the Green Party came third after the Conservatives and UKIP. This highlights the increased support for Caroline Lucas, our Green MEP for the South East, across the whole borough.

Surrey Green Party has today warmly welcomed the decision by Runnymede Borough Council to challenge Surrey County Council in the High Court if it grants planning permission for the Trumps Farm waste incinerator in Virginia Water.

Jenny Gould, Green Party activist in Runnymede says, "We welcome Runnymede 's commitment to improve waste without incineration locally. The Green Party does not support incinerators in anyone's backyard." 

Jonathan Essex, who is the Green Party candidate for Redhill in the forthcoming County Council elections and one of the Green Party^'s MEP Candidates, said "Environmentally aware members of all political parties are opposed to waste incineration and have been working hard to stop Surrey going down this route. It is time for Surrey County Council to end its plans to incinerate waste and raise its target for reuse and recycling instead. That is why the Green Party supports the Zero Waste Charter which seeks to stop all such destructive and polluting practices".

Jonathan Essex continued: "The Surrey Waste Plan is defunct. The ruling by Mr. Justice Collins in February on the Capel site makes clear that the Plan is a flawed document which cannot reasonably be used to support any planning applications.

"But it is not just for this reason that the Plan needs to be revised. The Plan was not prepared or scrutinised to be compatible with the latest government policies and targets to mitigate climate change. Compatibility with PPS1 (Supplement on Climate Change) was excluded from discussion and consideration by the government Inspectors, even though this planning guidance is a crucial component of government policy.

"The Waste Plan needs to be revised and will certainly look very different once the government's greenhouse gas reduction targets have been taken into account."

Jonathan Essex added: "The Joint Municipal Waste Strategy also needs to be revised. It currently includes a statement from the County Council supporting two incinerators which was voted on by our county councillors but endorsed by none of the boroughs/districts. Incineration relies on the immediate release of large volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere rather than capturing and sequestrating the carbon in the waste. The ratio of energy generated per unit of greenhouse gases released is typically two times worse than for coal-fired power stations.

"More ambitious targets for recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion can and must be set. As for residual waste, incineration must be abandoned. The Green Party looks forward to being an active partner in developing updated waste plans for Surrey which are fit for purpose."

BETTER TOGETHER, a report for the Green Party, has found that the energy the network wastes every year would power several big city tram systems or 68,000 homes.

It concludes that competition between mobile phone companies is wasting almost 300 GWh a year due to duplication of telephone network equipment and the amount of energy currently wasted by the mobile phone networks would be enough to:

• Run almost a third of the London Underground.
• Power seven Docklands Light Railways.
• Keep the Blackpool Tramway going for 137 years.
• Meet the electricity needs of around 68,000 homes.

A solution would be to force mobile phone companies to cooperate to cut the industry's emissions as part of Britain's fight against climate change.

Caroline Lucas, who's also leader of the Green Party, said:

"While ordinary households come under pressure to save energy, it's unacceptable to allow these duplicated 'phone masts to continue with such shocking and wasteful ways.
"The amount of electricity being squandered is more than enough to power every home in Oxford and Didcot combined."

Dr Lucas called on the government to step in with some regulations:

"In the short-term operators could be required to share base stations at times of low demand. The government should direct Ofcom to ensure that the sharing of the new 800 MHz frequency band is done in a way that is energy efficient."

She added that long term measures could go even further to cut waste:

"Ultimately they could build a new shared infrastructure. They could cooperate on a ‘super-network'. With the climate crisis deepening, Britain can't afford this amount of gratuitous waste."

Gillian tells the story of what happened:

ASHTEAD TESCO DEFEATED!

In August 2008 Tesco submitted a proposal for a HUGE 1,115 sq. m. supermarket, with 9 flats above, on the former Esso Petrol Station site in the heart of Ashtead village - which has an adult population (over 17 years old) of 10,300. Tesco wanted to extend the main village car park by demolishing a house, buying up 2 large gardens and felling 50 trees. Parts of the car park would be raised 3ft., over-shadowing surrounding properties, with barriers of up to 10 ft. A Campaign Group -"S.A.V.E."- Save Ashtead's Village Environment - rose up to oppose this totally preposterous scheme.

Firstly, we flooded homes and shops with thousands of fliers to explain how the proposal contravened Mole Valley District Council's "Local Plan" on numerous planning grounds, which would all irretrievably destroy our unique village environment and character, and to encourage more letters of opposition. The final figure was almost 800 - with only 8 in favour! Rallying posters and maps of the scheme were displayed all over Ashtead and we held a public protest at the site (see photo).

We objected that the supermarket would be disproportionally large and out of scale with the village - 9x bigger than the existing Co-op! It turned its back on the High Street, with its main entrance at the rear, facing the car-park, thereby dissuading shoppers from entering other shops. Valued independent food shops would be forced to close, severely restricting consumer choice. Ashtead already has a Tesco Express and there is a Tesco Superstore only 2 miles away!

Tesco anticipated over 400 shopping trips per hour so that car-parking - with only 40 extra spaces - would be totally inadequate. 40-60 lorry deliveries a week and the extensive opening times would cause excessive - indeed dangerous - traffic levels, noise and pollution. With environmental damage and disturbance to neighbouring homes, Ashtead would become just another clone, souless "Tesco-Land" with a vast, aerodrome-like expanse of concrete at its centre.

Next S.A.V.E. launched a petition, displayed in over 30 shops and businesses. We campaigned at to Ashtead Station and in many local organisations. The response was over-whelming - 6,318 signatures, with new ones being added right up until the Planning Meeting. We fostered good relationships with the local press and blew up the numerous resulting articles and photos for display in shop windows, which kept everyone fired up!

On 4th March 2009 the Council UNANIMOUSLY voted to reject the application, on ALL of the above grounds. On 26th March Tesco registered an Appeal, only to "pull it" a week later to "work further on the traffic solution"... We await developments but are hopeful Tesco has finally realised that its ill-judged and totally inappropriate scheme will not be tolerated in our wonderful village.

Gillian Russell 16th April 2009
Spokesperson for "S.A.V.E."
01372 270610 / 07802 472032