The government’s decision on Heathrow expansion today is a case of the wrong answer to the wrong question, accompanied by the usual empty promises about ‘environmental tests’.
It’s an airport, and expansion will lead to a huge increase in flights and emissions. Whatever green promises have been made, they should be taken with a big pinch of salt. But what should infuriate even those for whom climate change is still just a possibility, is the manner in which this decision has been reached.
When protestors climbed aboard the roof of Parliament to protest against the government’s plans, Gordon Brown told MPs; “the message should go out today very clearly that decisions in this country should be made in the chamber of this House and not on the roof of this House.” How does he reconcile that message with his disgraceful refusal to give MPs a chance to vote on the very same issue?
Residents beneath the flightpath remember all too well the BAA Chairman’s promise in 1999 that; “Our position could not be clearer, Terminal 5 will not lead to a third runway”, and the government’s condition that flight numbers would be capped at 480,000 per year, a figure that will be dwarfed as a result of the decision today.
In addition to the lies and sham consultations, the government’s economic case for expansion is hopelessly flawed. It believes the net benefit will be in the region of £5billion over seventy years. Even if that’s true, it works out at £70million a year, or just £35 per person living beneath the flight path.
But it’s not true. The calculation ignores a long list of costs. For instance what will be the effect on London of some 25 million extra road passenger journeys to and from the airport each year? What will be the effect on house prices of increasing noise pollution? What is the cost to the environment of increased emissions? How would the governments’ projections look if air fuel were taxed – currently a yearly saving of £9 billion to the industry?
If the government had genuinely set out to find the best way to connect Britain, it would not have decided in favour of Heathrow. When all its airports are taken into account, London has double the capacity of Paris. Indeed Heathrow is already the world’s busiest international airport.
Instead it would have planned a roll out of high speed rail which would create jobs and provide people with a popular alternative to short haul flying. Nearly a fifth of flights using Heathrow are on routes where a reasonable train alternative already exists. No one is saying people shouldn’t fly. I’m sure the majority of campaigners against Heathrow use planes. It’s about common sense. How can it make sense to operate 32 flights a day from Heathrow to Manchester?
Despite today’s decision, all is far from lost. The Labour Party is divided on Heathrow expansion, and both the Lib Dems and Conservative Party have ruled it out entirely. If the Conservatives maintain a good lead in the polls, and if campaigners can slow the process down by a few more months, the battle against the Third Runway can still be won.
Zac Goldsmith, PPC for Richmond Park, and quarter owner of the Greenpeace ‘Airplot’ in Sipson Village
Related posts:
I don’t often agree with you but on this one, I think you are right. Heathrow is a 1940′s planning disaster and one of the world’s least user-friendly airports. This can only make it worse…much worse.
Will you be supporting Criminal damage at Heathrow in the same way you supported Criminal Damage at Kingsnorth power station.
Why don’t you go to the Bahamas and live off your daddy’s money. What gives you the right to preach your anarchists views to the country when you don’t even have any GCSEs. Continue to smoke your joints and stick it where the sun don’t shine.