BRINGING HIGH FLYERS DOWN TO EARTH

30-10-2006

The government's chief economistis today calling ongovernment and business to work together tocombat global warming. Fair enough. But The Stirrer has another, simpleralternative. Halt all airport expansion now - and bring the high flyers down to earth.

It might sound radical, draconian even, but let's face it - if we are serious about combating global warming, extreme measures are needed. Simply stopping thegrowth of all Britain's airports would send a signal to the world that we are really serious about tackling the most important issue of our time.

Just consider what's planned for Birmingham International; by 2030 a second runway should have been built, and the existing one extended. Communities in nearby Catherine De Barnes and Hampton In Arden will have suffered years of blight, andpeople who remain in those areas will see the quality of their lives go rapidly downhill as more and more airlines pile in. All this to cope with rising demand, fuelled in many cases by budget airlines flogging off cheap seats on under-sold flights.

Other airports around the country, urged on by the government, have similarly ambitioustargets. They're all based on the same “predict and provide” lunacy that infected transport planners in the 80's when they insisted we needed more and more major roads to deal with traffic congestion, and were then surprised that the new routes became as busy as the old ones.

Let's not pretend thatforcing Britain's airports to get their feet back on the groundwould solve climate change overnight. Aviation accounts for only5% of greenhouse gases, and we need to deal with a whole range of causes from polluting power stations to those pesky stand-by buttons on our TV sets.

Flying, though, is the fastest growing cause of Co2, and as our awareness grows of the calamitous global crisis we are all contributing to, it's ludicrousthatshould evenconsider making it easier to take to the skies, instead of more difficult.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm no plane hating Luddite. This week, Stirrer business will take me to New Yorkand I'll shortly be heading to Berlin on a cheap flight for a stag weekend. I love the freedom that flying in general and budget airlines in particular offer to working people.

What's more, Birmingham Airport is, in my experience, staffed by intelligent thoughtful people who care about their neighbours, and the planet. They will also tell you how vital they are to the local economy.

But something has to give - and I suspect that in a world where some of the poorest nations are already suffering from rising sea levels and chaotic weather patterns, that “something” may just have to be jaunts to the sun for a fiver.

This does not have to mean that we'll never fly on holiday again, or that firms who rely on overseas trade will be forced to stop doing business abroad. Restricting airport expansion would simply mean that we have to start addressing which flights and routes are important and then charge prices which reflect the damage they cause the environment.

There are plenty of positives that might come from this. If we take bold action and address the future now, we can steal a competitive edge over countries like the US and China which are still in denial about climate change. Our businesses could lead the way in video-conferencing, and our holiday-makers could spend more of their hard-earned cash in British resorts.

Let your imagination soar - instead of a 747 - and see how we could be on to a real "win-win"; a solution that's better for our country, and better for our planet. The alternative simply doesn't bear thinking about.