25/6/13: 15.48 – links corrected and working now.

Further to our counter-campaign on Air Passenger Duty, here is the argument that expansion of aviation does not inevitably lead to stimulation of the economy (which in any case is not necessarily a good thing) as we argue throughout this site).   It comes from an article by F Ruth  Wood,  Alice  Bows & Kevin Anderson HERE

Aviation as an economic growth provider
Part of the rationale for the renewed examination
of aviation expansion in the UK is that in times of
economic hardship aviation services can stimulate
growth, particularly by providing hub services to new
markets. The economic contributions from aviation
are direct, indirect and catalytic. It is principally the
catalytic effects that are sought from capacity expansion;
the economic contribution presumed to arise by
enhancing the productivity of the country by increasing
connectivity and thus trade and inward investment.
However, the current evidence base upon which the
catalytic impacts can be assessed is limited and there is
no consensus in the literature as to their size [9–11]. That
said, whatever the catalytic impacts, they relate primarily
to passengers flying for business purposes; passengers
who represent just 30% of those using Heathrow, and
typically lower proportions for regional airports [12] .
Any catalytic effects are thus associated with a small
proportion of the passengers currently using UK aviation
services. An additional economic benefit is claimed
to come from overseas tourists to the UK; however,
their expenditure in the UK is offset by UK resident’s
expenditure overseas. For 2011 there was a net deficit of
£13.7 million [105].  read the full article

Elsewhere, Kevin Anderson suggests that only a planned economic recession can get us anywhere near the necessary carbon emissions reduction levels necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change.  Not the language we’d choose but a clear argument for a right size economy.