Dodgy professor lobbies for Runway 3

Friends of the Earth was annoyed to see the story in The Times on 26 June 06 about Heathrow and air pollution - "third runway passes pollution test". This was based on misleading comments by a dodgy professor employed by the Department of Transport.

Being employed by the goverment on the controversial Heathrow air pollution study, Prof Ian Poll ought to be strictly impartial. He seems anything but.

Prof Poll is just one of a whole series of dodgy consultants employed by the government.

See press release below, which includes confirmation by the government on the status of the study.

To his credit, Stephen Ladyman, Secretary of State for Trannsport, wrote a letter to the Times. It started "Your article on expansion proposals at Heathrow Airport ("Third runway passes pollution test", 26 July) may have misled some people into believing that a decision to proceed has already been made." But he rather spoilt it by implying that it was the Times' fault for misleading people, not the fault of his dodgy consultant, Professor Poll. The letter was not published, quite possibly because it was weak and mealy-mouthed, blaming the Times instead of the real villain, Prof Poll.

Press release (July 06)

Friends of the Earth was shocked and annoyed to see the story in The Times on Wednesday about Heathrow and air pollution "third runway passes pollution test". The story was repeated in the Evening Standard, but was more moderate and responsible.

Nic Ferriday, spokesperson for West London Friends of the Earth said, "The Times story was written on the back of a technical study carried out for the Department of Transport (DfT) and published recently. The crucial point is that this report dealt with the methodology that will be used to predict air pollution levels. It did not make the predictions of air pollution levels on which the decision about a third runway will be based. The latter is a quite separate study and the report is expected at the end of the year. Until then, we will not know whether the air pollution from a third runway is acceptable; therefore the article is misleading to suggest that we already have the result."

He added "We were also very concerned to see the comment by Professor Ian Poll, who was appointed to check the validity of the study. He said that the expansion of Heathrow was "desirable". As an expert on air pollution appointed to review a technical study, that is a totally inappropriate comment, going way beyond his remit or area of expertise. It must raise questions about his impartiality and the DfT's choice of technical advisors."

Notes

1. A 'quick and dirty' study for the aviation White Paper showed that 35,000 people would be exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that breach UK and EU standards in 2015 if a third runway was built. If there was no third runway but instead maximum use of the existing two runways, 14,000 would be exposed.

2. The study was stated to make "pessimistic" assumptions. A further study was then made which used a series of more optimistic assumptions (eg on the introduction of cleaner planes) and on possible measures (eg putting the M4 in a tunnel and removing the NO2 with scrubbers). The various scenarios showed anything from 35,000 down to a few hundred people exposed.

3. The latest study is intended to clarify some of the assumptions and to recommend the methodology to be used in predicting air pollution. It was published last week. The actual predictions of air pollution, probably for various scenarios (such as M4 in a tunnel or not) are expected later this year and will be used to inform a decision on the third runway at the end of the year. (We don't expect to see the results of the air pollution study before the decision is announced.)

4 . The Deparment of Transport has issued 'questions and answers' on the study. It says:
Q. What is the purpose of the report?
A. The report sets out the recommended methodology for assessing air quality at Heathrow. These assessments will enable us to determine whether 'mixed mode' and/or the addition of a third runway are possible within the strict air quality limits set out in the Air Transport White Paper. The report does not make any conclusions about the likelihood of meeting these air quality targets.
Q. What happens next?
A. Air quality at Heathrow will now be reassessed using this methodology. We expect to be able to consult on options for mixed mode at the end of the year, followed by decisions on this and a third runway in 2007. Building on the recommendations in the report, the DfT is now preparing an emissions inventory for Heathrow, and is making arrangements to run the selected air quality models, in conjunction with the outputs from modelling of surface access scenarios.

Links

For original story on Runway 3 and air pollution see Government Struggles ..
For more on Runway 3 see Runway 3 issues
For more on Heathrow see Heathrow introduction
Back to Aviation introduction

Updated Sep 06