The Guardian has noted that:
The transport secretary, Grant Shapps, promised EasyJet that green taxes would not be levied on airlines six months before the company was given a £600m coronavirus crisis loan with no environmental conditions attached, newly released documents show.
Direct lobbying against environmental taxes by Britain's biggest airline are revealed in Freedom of Information Act responses obtained by Unearthed, Greenpeace's investigations unit.
Evidence of the lobbying came as airlines across Europe were set to receive more than €26bn (£22.7bn) in taxpayers' money for coronavirus bailouts with no binding environmental conditions attached, according to data compiled by Transport & Environment, Carbon Market Watch and Greenpeace.
I will not be alone in finding this staggering, I know.
And this further report by them is as shocking:
The meeting with Johan Lundgren, the boss of EasyJet, took place shortly after Shapps's appointment as transport secretary last year. During the meeting, Shapps reassured the CEO he wanted the Department for Transport to be pro-aviation.
We know that flying is massively polluting.
We also know that most flying is by a fairly small part of the population - maybe 15% at most.
And we know that 92% of air travel is for leisure.
And we know that if we are to meet climate change targets - or even come close to meeting them - then massive change in the volume of air travel is required, where 'massive' means that most of it should not happen now.
What is more, we know that EasyJet paid a dividend of £171 million before applying for this state aid, at a time when it was obvious that the lockdown was inevitable.
So what we have is a minister promising state aid, regardless of the environmental consequences, to a company that is recklessly irresponsible in the face of the risks that it is exposed to, and who says that he will attach no conditions of any sort to it, whilst seeking to promote an industry that all available evidence says is now profoundly harmful.
And this government wants us to believe in its good intent? On this issue? On COP 26? On anything, come to that?
That's very hard when the evidence is that this government is completing failing to uphold its public duties.
We'll probably come out of the Covid-19 crisis deeply scarred. Many more alive now will not make it through it. That should sadden us all.But there will be another side. We cannot say that for sure of the coming climate crisis. There is absolutely no guarantee, and very little hope, of coming out the other side of that without radical action. But the government is in denial on that.
I'm not shocked by this behaviour. It is, despite my best hopes, what I expected. But I am angered by it.
I was working with others on a frequent flying levy before the project got side tracked by this crisis. We need one, very badly.
But most of all we need ministers who take their responsibilities seriously.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I was wrong, wrong, wrong yesterday when I argued for “broad principles” of good behaviour – at my age I really should know better! Easyjet proves it. This is a company that paid out a substantial dividend on 20th March (when the extent of the damage to airlines was fairly clear for all to see) and then comes with a begging bowl for money and permission to keep on destroying our planet “tax free”.
It’s only 0830 and I am angry!
I still maintain that adding beneficial caveats to bailouts should come once things calm down in a crisis. This is only because I have a background in operations and am biased towards prioritising issues during the crisis period. Change can happen later – this period is about survival and reducing the impact financially.
But if I were Shapps I would have been making sure that recipients would know that I would be back later, asking for expected changes to be made. I would follow up, and they’d know it before taking the Queens shilling so to speak.
A big worry is that should levels of pollution ramp up again, it could finish many survivors of Covid-19 off, plus weaken the population for the next bout of flu or epidemic.
Government and industry need to realise that there is money to be had in cleaning up the planet – they need to rotate out of polluting ways and means and into the other – hence GND etc.
Richard this is dreadful news about easyjet and the dividend payout. Neither them or the Minister will feel any shame but they should. However I still confess to be unsure about the legal position on paying a dividend when you have already said you would. That said it hasn’t stopped the banks so I guess it’s not an issue. But it is more proof that shareholders do not own a publicly traded company it’s just nineteenth century nonsense and perhaps it always was.
Directors can change their minds
They have the legal duty to maintain the capital of the company
It can be argued that Easyjet did that only with government support
And that is reckless on all parts
Oh, for sure, strings should be attached to the government’s funding, but on the dividend: yes, directors can change their minds about paying out an interim dividend up until the point of payment, but this was a final dividend that the shareholders had already approved in February. What is your proposed legal mechanism for rowing back on that?
And adjusting post balance sheet event….
Just as it was clear to see that by delaying lockdown the government were causing tens of thousands of excess deaths, it also clear to see that by delaying meaningful action on our carbon emissions the government is creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees and unimaginable suffering and deaths. Of course it is not just our government doing this but to reduce these consequences require countries acting together, with those emitting the most cutting the most.
The people who die of Covid-19 today were killed because of decisions made in March. The decisions our government make today decides how many people die in a couple of decades time.
If the Tories keep dithering and delaying like they did with the Coronavirus, and doing the opposite of what is needed like we see here with EasyJet, they are clearly directly complicit in the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.
It is indeed deeply worrying the government’s pro-aviation policy. There is probably more to it than “saving” airlines whether Easy Jet, BA et al. They also have in mind the expansion of Heathrow and other airports, propping up the oil and aviation fuel refinery industry to get out of the oil price crisis and the general “back to normal” of the travel and tourism “industry”; all of which are great contributors to climate breakdown which it is now abundanty clear that the UK government does not care a damn about as long as their corporate friends can make a profits and pay out dividends.
I have mixed feelings about air travel. Obviously it does add carbon, though it is worth noting that air travel is about 2.5% of the total so even if you entirely eliminated it then the effect on climate change would be minimal. There are much lower hanging fruits such as domestic insulation, electrification of all rail lines, and reducing car travel. That could save 40% of carbon emissions. As much of the family live in South Africa the idea that we would never see any of them does not appeal much. I also love travelling but have never been to many of my target destinations such as Canada (also family), NZ (again some family) and Australia, simply because we have never been able to afford more than one trip every couple of years to destinations outside Europe, and mostly it has been to Cape Town to see my mum, sister, etc.
I think price is not really a very fair way to ration air travel, since rationing it is what is needed, since that would simply mean the rich carry on as before while the other 90% would be excluded. So perhaps it would be fairer to have a proper rationing system. For example, one return flight in Europe and one return flight outside Europe per person per year. You could make the ration coupons exchangeable so that those who don’t travel could sell their allowance to those that want to travel more. That way there is a cash incentive for folk not to use their coupons, while those that want to travel a lot will have to directly pay for the privilege. This would also be progressive since the affluent flyers would have to transfer money to the poorer non-flyers.
With the present technology there is no obvious way to replace kerosene as the fuel. That is simply because the energy density of the alternatives is far too low (i.e. the weight of the energy storage is far too high). The one thing that I think we should look at for the longer term would be airships. They can’t go as fast (maybe 100-150 mph), but modern materials and using helium (and not hydrogen) for lift would solve most of the issues from when they were last tried in the 1930’s. Given the huge surface area then they could be solar powered quite easily. Obviously it would be much more leisurely travel, in fact more akin to a short cruise if going to somewhere like Australia (probably around 3 days), but an airship could have cabins, lounges, an observation deck, etc. The Hindenburg even had a grand piano.
It shouldn’t come as a shock that government is clueless about a strategic way forward.
Trump ‘lite’, but still Trump