In defence of Manchester Airport. Sort of.

I'm a climate activist and I'm sick of people banging on about aviation.

I'm sick of the use of Manchester Airport as a convenient whipping boy and lightning rod for all our frustrations and concerns.

Climate change is a bastard of a thing to campaign about. Bypasses, GM food, Globalisation, they were all solid concrete objects, or had easy symbols. Climate change is a lot more slippery because it- or its cause, the burning of fossil fuels- is EVERYWHERE. We eat oil, we drink oil, we wear coal, we cook with gas. Fossil fuels give us the lifestyle we have today.

And that's the dirty little inconvenient truth that dare not speak its name.

Look at the current response to Manchester City Council's "Call to Action." This is a flawed document, by any sane individual's reckoning. There's huge gaps, there's huge silences. And the danger is that our focus on airports is going to distract us from all the other problems.

What about all the other principles? What about the lack of consultation? What about the lack of mention of food, reducing consumption (not just energy demand). I could go on, and at a later date I will.

But for now a few basic points:

• Manchester Airport, in its ground operations, is actually pretty good. Not good enough, but pretty good. The problem is that the Airport's sole reason for existing is to service the dirty great big metal birds that take off and land there.

I am NOT saying the airport can expand, or that the City Council should be allowed to fudge this issue.

I am NOT saying people should stop campaigning on aviation. Airports ARE a big factor in our emissions, despite the BAA/MAG propaganda, and- crucially- they are something that we could "easily" give up in a way that we can't stop heating our houses. It's a quick win and we need some quick wins at this late late stage in the game that we've been losing for 20 years.

[Deep breath] I AM saying that right now I think I would rather see the Manchester Airport stay the same size and everything else that's wrong with the Council's Climate plans and wrong with Manchester and Climate Change sorted out. The stuff to do with resilience, social justice, consultation. The stuff to do with non-existent or counter-productive campaigning and ghetto-pathologies.

• The airport may or may not be our biggest challenge in reducing our emissions- I don't know, but it is NOT our only big problem. Surely we can all agree on that?

• Bashing the Airport lets us sub-contract out our thinking and our politics. We can just evade all the things that would make it harder for us to build coalitions. If we focus on the Airport, we don't have to focus on the need to radically reduce meat consumption. To challenge consumerism. Or the very nature of capitalist growthmanship and wealth inequalities. If we focus on the Airport we can pal up with the Liberal Democrats and the Tories and so forth. We need to do that, IMHO, but with Eyes Open.

• This is lazy politics, and our children will not thank us for focussing so exclusively on reducing aviation emissions (though they won't thank us if we don't get real swinge-ing cuts either. Basically, our children are going to be very very pissed off with us)

PS *We MUST shrink the airports, providing a just transition for ALL the workers whose livelihoods would be affected. But we're not even having THAT discussion. We're not even offering a positive alternative vision. Because it should be union-based intellectuals and policy wonks doing that, and folks in the universities. But they don't seem to exist. Or am I wrong? I hope so.

PPS This cartoon never got the distribution it deserved...

Catalytic Action 9: A Green Airport

The Executive of Manchester City Council- in effect the “Cabinet” of the 96 seat elected body, has recently accepted a report called the “Call to Action.”

A London-based consultancy called “Beyond Green” wrote the report, (for £32,000 plus expenses), which commits the Council to nine “catalytic actions.”

They are:

1. World-leading neighbourhood regeneration

2. Retrofitting Manchester's civic heritage

3. A business alliance for climate change

4. Low carbon energy infrastructure

5. Low Carbon Communities

6. A climate-ready Local Development Framework

7. The Manchester Prize

8. Greening the City: i-Trees

9. A green airport

We here at MCFly Towers think that these sorts of things go better with consultation. While we are waiting for the Council to announce just what it is going to do on this question, we will be posting one “catalytic action” per day on the MCFly blog, with a brief analysis. We invite the people of Manchester (and heck, why not beyond) to comment on these. We will pass on your comments to the Council.

That's not to say the other parts of the report aren't worthy of comment too- it's just that we have to start somewhere, and here is as good a place as any...

Catalytic Action 9: A green airport

"Aviation is one of the most controversial factors in climate change. Although currently accounting for a relatively small share of the UK’s carbon footprint, a Tyndall Centre analysis has shown that if air travel continues to grow at the expected rate, with realistic improvements in efficiency, then by 2050 air traffic alone will contribute the entirety of the carbon emissions the UK is likely to be able to allow.

"Manchester Airport is one of the principal components of economic growth in Manchester. The City Council’s agrees that global rates of air traffic growth are unsustainable in the long term but believes that it is not a realistic option for individual airports or cities to suppress their growth unilaterally ahead of international agreements that lead to orderly, market-based reductions in overall emissions and the contraction in air travel that they may bring about.

"For this reason, the City Council will continue to support the Airport’s growth plans while strongly advocating the inclusion of aviation and shipping emissions within the scope of a comprehensive international carbon cap-and-trade mechanism. The City Council will also press for the increased investment in major rail capacity that is likely to be an essential, practical substitute for reduced levels of air travel within the UK and northern Europe.

"Manchester Airport has committed to becoming carbon neutral in its site energy use and vehicle fuel – including major improvements in the way people access the airport from the surrounding area. This is a very stretching commitment, and the City Council will do everything it can to help the Airport achieve its aims – including involving the Airport in all the major actions identified in this plan."

OK, deep breath.

Surely this is not an "action", it is a process. It's going to take years to completely go carbon neutral, and I don't see quite what it is going to catalyse. Most of the people jetting off for various reasons won't notice, really, will they? So who else is this aimed at?

Surely "a green airport" is in any meaningful sense an oxymoron. Like "friendly fire" or a"healthy cigarette" (I'm old enough to remember cigarettes being advertised on television as 'low-tar'). Surely this late in the game we should be admitting this?

Surely the Call to Action could have mentioned that Manchester City Council owns 55% of the airport?

All that said, the airport is a convenient whipping boy...

Hopefully "Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport" will soon get its website updated to inform its readers of this "catalytic action" and produce its own analysis...

And also hopefully, Manchester Friends of the Earth will dust off its plans to write an alternative Master Plan for the Airport...

Catalytic Action 8: Greening the City: i-Trees

The Executive of Manchester City Council- in effect the “Cabinet” of the 96 seat elected body, has recently accepted a report called the “Call to Action.”

A London-based consultancy called “Beyond Green” wrote the report, (for £32,000 plus expenses), which commits the Council to nine “catalytic actions.”

They are:

1. World-leading neighbourhood regeneration

2. Retrofitting Manchester's civic heritage

3. A business alliance for climate change

4. Low carbon energy infrastructure

5. Low Carbon Communities

6. A climate-ready Local Development Framework

7. The Manchester Prize

8. Greening the City: i-Trees

9. A green airport

We here at MCFly Towers think that these sorts of things go better with consultation. While we are waiting for the Council to announce just what it is going to do on this question, we will be posting one “catalytic action” per day on the MCFly blog, with a brief analysis. We invite the people of Manchester (and heck, why not beyond) to comment on these. We will pass on your comments to the Council.

That's not to say the other parts of the report aren't worthy of comment too- it's just that we have to start somewhere, and here is as good a place as any...

Catalytic Action 8: Greening the City i-Trees

"Climate change adaptation – ensuring that Manchester enjoys a high quality of life with the advent of already inevitable climate change – is a critical aspect of the City’s plan. Key elements of this include making sure that buildings and public transport can be comfortable at higher temperatures, that the way streets and public spaces are laid out and furnished provide shade and shelter from extremes of weather, and that Manchester can cope with increased frequency of storm events. These will become especially important as the need to mitigate further climate change encourages more people to walk and cycle and supports a culture of being out-and-about in the city.

"The Manchester City South Partnership with Red Rose Forest has developed the “i-Trees” proposal for long-term investment in greening in the City South area which centres on Oxford Road, the busiest road corridor in the North West and a major gateway to the City Centre."

-snip-

"A detailed feasibility study has been completed and implementation of the early stages of the project are commencing. In incorporating the project into this Call to
Action, the City Council’s aim is to:
Help accelerate delivery of the programme, corralling a wider body of capacity, expertise and resources to ensure that visible change in the environment is realised as early as possible..."

So, who can argue with planting trees? It's like motherhood and apple pie. Who could be AGAINST it? And Red Rose Forest has done some very useful work, which should be championed.

But why "i-Tree".? Was this dreamt up by Beyond Green? Or by RRF? And what IS an 'i-Tree'? And why on earth should anyone restrain themselves from bursting out laughing as such tosh? Imagine you're a climate skeptic and you hear someone wittering on about i-Trees? Is that going to confirm all your prejudices or what?

Catalytic Action 7: The Manchester Prize

The Executive of Manchester City Council- in effect the “Cabinet” of the 96 seat elected body, has recently accepted a report called the “Call to Action.”

A London-based consultancy called “Beyond Green” wrote the report, (for £32,000 plus expenses), which commits the Council to nine “catalytic actions.”

They are:

1. World-leading neighbourhood regeneration

2. Retrofitting Manchester's civic heritage

3. A business alliance for climate change

4. Low carbon energy infrastructure

5. Low Carbon Communities

6. A climate-ready Local Development Framework

7. The Manchester Prize

8. Greening the City: i-Trees

9. A green airport

We here at MCFly Towers think that these sorts of things go better with consultation. While we are waiting for the Council to announce just what it is going to do on this question, we will be posting one “catalytic action” per day on the MCFly blog, with a brief analysis. We invite the people of Manchester (and heck, why not beyond) to comment on these. We will pass on your comments to the Council.

That's not to say the other parts of the report aren't worthy of comment too- it's just that we have to start somewhere, and here is as good a place as any...

Catalytic Action 7: The Manchester Prize

"The City Council proposes the introduction of a Manchester Prize with the aim of establishing the City as a centre of design for sustainability and a place in which good ideas from around the world, connected with the creation of low carbon, environmentally beneficial ways of living, are demonstrated.

"Through the Manchester Prize, Manchester will become a living laboratory for applied climate change solutions and networks among those involved in making it happen.

"The Prize, which has been under consideration for some time, offers several strategic advantages, including a reinforced reputation as an ambitious City, evidence to governments and investors that the City is serious about climate change and the opportunity to bring the best thinking and design from around the world to bear in Manchester and create transferable reference points for future common practice.

"Private sponsorship will be sought for the Prize, pump-primed by a proposed allocation from the Innovation Fund, and the City Council will seek the support of AGMA in organising the first Prize for 2011."

Hang on. First Prize won't be awarded until... 2011? And then how long till implemented?
And then how long until it starts to reduce carbon levels? By how much? What resilience impacts?

When MCFly editor Arwa Aburawa went to the recent Overview and Scrutiny Committee, she asked why there was no consultation. Twice she was told, in effect 'because we're so determined to act NOW, and we don't want to be distracted from ACTING NOW'.

2011.

This is terrible. This is just a frigging gimmick.

OK, deep breath.

We already KNOW lots of the things that need doing. This search for new "transferable reference points for future common practice" is just like a smoker waiting for a new less addictive fag to come on the market to make it easier to quit, and puffing away merrily in the meantime.

They cannot be serious. Can they?

Catalytic Action 6: A climate ready LDF

The Executive of Manchester City Council- in effect the “Cabinet” of the 96 seat elected body, has recently accepted a report called the “Call to Action.”

A London-based consultancy called “Beyond Green” wrote the report, (for £32,000 plus expenses), which commits the Council to nine “catalytic actions.”

They are:

1. World-leading neighbourhood regeneration

2. Retrofitting Manchester's civic heritage

3. A business alliance for climate change

4. Low carbon energy infrastructure

5. Low Carbon Communities

6. A climate-ready Local Development Framework

7. The Manchester Prize

8. Greening the City: i-Trees

9. A green airport

We here at MCFly Towers think that these sorts of things go better with consultation. While we are waiting for the Council to announce just what it is going to do on this question, we will be posting one “catalytic action” per day on the MCFly blog, with a brief analysis. We invite the people of Manchester (and heck, why not beyond) to comment on these. We will pass on your comments to the Council.

That's not to say the other parts of the report aren't worthy of comment too- it's just that we have to start somewhere, and here is as good a place as any...

Catalytic Action 6: A climate-ready LDF

"In the City of Manchester the key vehicle for achieving these aims is the Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF is the spatial expression of the Community Strategy and as such climate change activity needs to be embedded within LDF, as in the Community Strategy and the Local Area Agreement. There will be several different parts to the LDF and as such several opportunities to embed low carbon planning and design requirements into the City’s future architecture.

"In April 2009 the City Council will publish the ‘Refining Options’ stage of its LDF Core Strategy, the principal statement of Manchester’s spatial planning objectives and principles.

"During consultation on Issues and Options earlier this year, some respondents argued that climate change imperatives mean Manchester should not seek to grow its population further and should place greater constraints on development than hitherto.

"The City Council recognises that development adds to Manchester’s carbon footprint, both in the ‘embodied energy’ that is used simply in the process of constructing buildings and infrastructure and in the additional emissions generated by extra residents. However, it rejects the suggestion that this argues for reducing the pace or quantum of development in Manchester. That would run counter to the City’s regeneration goals, but on a broader perspective is also the least sustainable course of action: continued population growth in and around Manchester is a welcome and unavoidable consequence of the City’s rising prosperity and demographic change; and development in and around urban cores offers the most economically, socially and environmentally beneficial way of absorbing this growth."

Well, again, isn't this something the council was going to have to be doing anyway?? So isn't this "money for old rope?" There is no, in the terrible jargon of carbon offsetting " additionality."

So, during the previous consultation, various greens went "er, how are you going to square the circle of continued growth and reducing carbon emissions?" (this is- another jargon word- known as 'decoupling'. Like two train carriages are 'de-coupled' from each other, the idea is that if you make your production processes much much more efficient, you can still have growth. Critics would say it's like someone on a diet thinking they can lose weight while eating twice as much of the "low-fat" option...)

And how does the council respond? Does it respond with the sort of 'radical new thinking' that the Call to Action is supposed to represent.

Er. "However, it rejects the suggestion that this argues for reducing the pace or quantum of development in Manchester. That would run counter to the City’s regeneration goals..."

So, in effect, the Council is sticking its fingers in its ears, shutting its eyes so hard their retinas are detaching and shouting "La la la" very loudly.

We live in la-la land...

What is to be done? Be ready, really ready for the LDF Refining Options consultation. If they're not going to consult on the Climate Strategy (they promised they would, but it is now a safe bet they won't), then Manchester's "green" activists need to be ready to rock and roll in April.

Concerned but not convinced: Manchester Council and the lack of public consultation

Today, MCFly went along to the latest council meeting dealing with the recent Call to Action to highlight problems with the report and its catalytic actions. We wanted to ask the Overview and Scrutiny Committee why the six-months public consultation promised in February 2008 had been replaced by the rather vague “Proud Of”campaign and Robbie Gillett from Manchester University Student Union was also at the meeting to ask about the council's 'Green Airport'.

Public consultation
MCFly directly asked about public consultation and told the committee that we didn't feel that the 'Proud Of' Campaign was good enough. Beverley Taylor, head of Environmental Campaigns, replied:
“It's not an action plan at the moment, it's a call to action and hopefully by the end of the year we'll have an action plan that has a lot of information but also has the response from all the different sectors.
“There is still quite a high number of people who don't understand what climate change is about or are mixed up about what its about. If I can quote the national MORI poll, I think the quote was 'concerned but not convinced'. It about targeting those people in a positive way.”

In contrast Vicky Rosin, the Assistant Chief Executive was very clear about the limits of public consultation with the council.
“What we decided is to bring forward a number of actions and show real leadership from the council. Consulting on the actions we intend to take forward is not something that's part of our exercise as consultation means we are prepared to change it and we intent absolutely on taking this action forward.”

Richard Cowell, the Executive member for the Environment also added that: “Yes, we've set a firm direction of where we want to go, we're not going to carry on consulting getting nowhere.”

It seems, that now that the catalytic actions have been decided the Council is absolutely unwilling to take on board any genuine public input which questions them (including the controversial Green Airport). The 'Proud Of' Campaign which seeks to engage more people in climate change is great but it is NOT six-months public consultation and is it NOT geared directly towards the report with a real ability to change it significantly. There has clearly been some slippage in the council's initial promise of real public input which remains unaccounted for.

Green Airport
Cllr Norman Lewis brought up the issue of 'Green Airport' stating that:
“If the proposed expansion of the airport happens as driver of economic growth, it wipes out all the hard work that might be out in by business to reduce CO2 emissions.”

Gillett also pointed out that “We are the generation that is going to be most affected by climate change and we want to act on it and work with the council, but if the council is going to pass the buck onto a national level then that will jeopardize the sincerity of how it is perceived amongst students.”

Cowell answered: “We will seek to look at aviation in terms of international perspective, not as a unilateral act.
“Concrete actions will be flowing from this [Call to Action], at the Executive meeting the Liberal Democrat Leader [Cllr Ashley] was calling for just purely symbolic, unilateral actions around the airport. I've used the word symbolic- that's not what were about. This report is based on our community strategy and on concrete catalytic actions we can take to deal with problem of CO2 emissions.”

One of the major issues MCFly had with the Call to Action report was the lack of concrete targets or outcomes from the catalytic actions. With regards to the airport, the report itself acknowledged that any direct impact on CO2 emissions was “subject to airport decisions and other factors.” Furthermore only 4 out of the 9 catalytic actions had any significant impact on CO2 emission. In fact, the Manchester Prize which was action number 7 had no direct impact was considered simply 'totemic'.

Action Now!?
Cowell reiterated the need for immediate action stating that climate change is a “problem we need to start addressing now.
“If you're suggesting that we hold off, hold off, hold off and hold off until there is international agreement on aviation, I don't think that's the right approach to take. We have had 17 principles brought in last year, we've has a great deal of work put into this document and we're ready now to get on with actioning now, to start making a difference now. I'm not prepared to hold off and hold off.”

However, as reported by MCFly on a number of occasions, the council announced the 17 climate principles back in February 2008 and promised a Climate Strategy in the same year with six-months public consultation. This didn't happen and almost a year later the 'Call to Action' has been released with the final detailed action report now expected December 2009. Planned to coincide with the international summit at Copenhagen, we might add..

Don't Feed the Trolls!

Quite a while back (early December) I blogged about Peter fuckwit Sissons,
a BBC presenter. He interviewed Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader, on the day
of the tedious Climate March in London. And trotted out a ludicrous 'is climate
change even happening' set of questions, which I thought the BBC had realised was
intellectually dishonest and bankrupt years ago.

And finally, somehow, someone has left a comment on that blog!

I include it here, without cutting any a single foam-flecked word from it,
and with my responses interspersed.

There is a basic (eponymous) rule of blogging/the tinterwebs that I am
breaking here, and I may ruefully rue it, but I think there is a Principle
At Stake Here.

tallbloke has left a new comment on your post "MEN,
eh useless or what?":

Peter Sissons was quite right to question Caroline Lucas on
the validity of man made global warming theory. Science is
an ongoing process,
Yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't things we are sure of.  I take
it you are pretty sure about gravity.  Or that eating a cake full of
cyanide is a bad idea.
Or that there is a causal link between asbestos/cigarette smoking
and dying of lung diseases.  "Science is an on-going process" can be
simply a code for "there are things I wish weren't true."

digression
Oh, and science can be kind of post-normal. And these problems 
can be wicked, if you kuhn believe it.
end digression

and the standard geen party line of 'the debate is over'
doesn't change that.
Geen or green? If it's deliberate, I'm really embarrassed for you. It's
childish and demeaning (to you) and, crucially, not even funny. Jokes
are supposed to be funny. If accidental, it's  at best careless: ironic
for someone who is claiming to overturn established consensus.
Surely self-appointed "mavericks" have to be more careful?

More crucially, you are framing this (deliberately or accidentally?) as
a debate between the BBC and the Green Party.  You are at risk of
claiming Climate Change 'theory' is a creation of the Green Party.
You are ignoring the IPCC, the WMO, Woods Hole, Scripps, NASA's 
Goddard Centre.  And, oddly, the Financial Times, which is by far the
best newspaper on Climate Change. Do you think the Green Party is
in a secret conspiracy with the FT? And the insurance industry too?
Or do you have some other overarching explanation?
New evidence of other climate drivers and the uncovering
of the falsification of data by Hansen, Jones and Mann
means the question is still wide open.
Well, if *I* were making such a sweeping claim, I would feel obliged
to provide some actual references, and links to peer-reviewed science.
You have obviously not felt under such an obligation.  Interesting.
More likely you are waiting for me to ask for some, and then send a
long list of previously discredited articles by Viscount Monckton and
the like. And your "new evidence" will be the same old spurious 
sunspot stupidity.

You can choose not to publish this comment, which would
of course be a perfect demonstartion of the way the contrary
opinion is stifled by those afraid of scientific truth and
open debate.
Ah yes, the deep-seated need of climate denialists to be
martyrs heroically bearing the slings and arrows and slights of a
sinister Green Conspiracy.

Oh, and "demonstartion".  You have chosen not to spell-check
your email. Why should we take you seriously, if you are unwilling
to display basic courtesy?

Oh, and let me share a secret with you.  Most people working
hard on climate change have been through years of this sort of
thing. And at least some (I've not asked everyone) went through
the same process as me- of actually getting excited and hopeful
when someone said climate change wasn't happening, things were
going to get better. And then we read the so-called evidence and
reports, and realise that no, the horrifically gloomy stuff we had
previously gotten used to was more likely, was happening faster
than was even predicted.  Have a read of Elizabeth Kolbert's Field 
Notes from a Catastrophe, or Fred Pearce's The Last Generation.
You seem to think the Green Party is talking up climate change.
Why would a political party wanting votes do that?
You seem to think that climate activists are unreflectively hooked
on gloom. Well,  I and my colleagues aren't.  We think hard, and
search hard for information.

You (deliberately?) misunderstand what MCFly is about.  We are
not here to debate the science. We are here to inform the people
of Manchester about what the council, businesses and locals are
doing about climate change.

If you want to learn more/flame about the science, there are plenty
of places you can do that.  RealClimate.org is an obvious place
to begin.

I suggest, if you are so sure of your facts and so eager that
your contrary opinion is not "stifled", that you spend the sort of
time we do at MCFly on setting up your own website, and inviting
other people (us, for example) to comment on it.    We don't have
the time or the inclination to get involved in trolling and spamming
with people who don't even give references for their unwarranted
smears on people like Hansen and Mann, who anyway are only a few
among a much much broader consensus on the science
(Oreskes reference).

As you so astutely and incisively pointed out at the beginning of
your comment, “science is an ongoing process.”
Now, most people would say there is overwhelming empirical evidence
to support the hypothesis that you are trolling. Still, science being
what it is, I have to allow for Black Swans.  I'm going to try to (get
you to) falsify my hypothesis that you are a troll.

If you can come up with a short (no more than 300 words), legible,
spell-chekced and properly referenced [peer-reviewed, not funded
by oil and coal companies. That excludes Pat Michaels, for example]
reply to the above points, then sure we will post it.  We will publish
a blog post that links to whatever website YOU set up to display your
wide and deep understanding of climate science.

If you can't, this conversation is closed. We don't have time
for trolls.