Heathrow Expansion: What About the Climate?

After spending the last couple days wandering through airports on an overseas journey from Toronto to Stockholm I decided that tackling a spicy issue out of England invovling the further expansion of London Heathrow airport would be a fitting post-holiday return to the blogosphere.

The plan is to construct a third runway at London Heathrow which, proponents say, would be an economic boon for the Brits, and would allow the airport to increase the number of flights using Heathrow from 480 000 anually to 702 000 by 2030.

Ministers are expected to pass the strongly protested bill tomorrow all but ensuring the construction of the third runway, which Friends of the Earth director Andy Atkins is saying “…would shatter the government's international reputation on climate change.”
What Atkins is referring to is Britain’s goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80% before 2050; a goal which will likely be impossible of reaching if the plan for the third runway goes ahead.

Ultimately it comes down to a battle between politicians who see the economic positives of jobs being created as well as maintaining Britain’s image as a world hub and environmentalists who see Britain re-neging on their commitment to fighting climate change.

In this argument one only needs to go as far as looking at the stances the opposing sides are taking to see who has a better grip on reality.

The politicians are saying things like “We sincerely believe that Heathrow’s modernization is the only way to reduce aircraft emissions and cut disruption” and “Heathrow’s status as a global hub is at stake.” I think if these statements were re-worded to say something like “We sincerely believe that the only way we’ll get approval for this plan is by somehow making it appear green” or “We’re losing money fast” they would give a more accurate description of what is really going on.

Environmentalists are calling attention to the political propaganda that uses the current economic situation to overplay the benefits such as the creation of jobs while almost completely ignoring the environmental risks as well as the construction the new runway will require the demolishing of over 700 homes.

This technique, a common one in advertising, is playing off the emotions of people that are facing job-loss or struggling to make ends meet and points to a major problem, one that I discussed in the blog “How We are All Destroying the Rainforest in Borneo.”

The problem is that environmental concerns clash with the sustainability of the economy. If we are to slow progress, people will lose jobs, but if we don’t slow progress, we will destroy the planet. This is a paradox however that must be solved. We need a long term solution that helps people meet their daily needs while maintaining quality of life for both ourselves and the planet.

In this case, the truth is that expanding Heathrow airport is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Building a new runway will create new jobs under the period it is being built but does little to help the economy long term while blatantly ignoring the environmental side of the equation.

It seems that when a problem arises that conflicts with environmental concerns it is rarely the environment that wins (and this project will almost certainly be approved tomorrow.)

I don’t want to be one of those doomdayers but Sir Issac Newton once said: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction” and I maintain the politicians that continuously sacrifice the environment on the insatiable altar of economics are catalysts pushing us towards a great collapse.

Will Grassby