Why we need a third runway at Heathrow

Suzy Dean (Modern Movement): The Heathrow expansion project, which will see a new 7,200ft runway built and support a new terminal capable of handling 35 million passengers per year, is about to be seriously debated. This Thursday both Campaign against Climate Change (CaCC) and Modern Movement will be demonstrating outside Parliament. While CaCC will continue to make a case for abandoning plans to build a third runway at Heathrow, Modern Movement, a new organisation set up which campaigns for greater mobility, will be supporting the expansion. 

The campaign to stop the building of the third runway is a curious one - chiefly because the focus on air travel as a source of climate change is disproportionate to the impact that it actually has. If international experts are to be believed, by 2050 aviation will be responsible for 5% of total global warming, a small percentage and certainly not one that justifies the prevention of the third runway which will make millions of journeys faster and more pleasant every year. Indeed, a third runway could even be justified on environmental grounds: namely, that the existing two runways running at near-capacity force planes to circle for longer overhead while they await a landing berth (Even top climate scientist and advocate for carbon-reduction James Hansen admitted as much to the Observer, before then retracting. See here)

Despite the low impact that flying has on the environment, a large number of politicians, unions and airlines are defensive about the third runway. Both opposition parties and 28 of Brown's own cabinet voted against the third runway which won with a majority of just 19 votes. New aviation limits including new emissions targets, a commitment that only the cleanest planes can use the new flight slots and a cap on the initial number of flights that will be allowed have been welcomed. Geoff Hoon remarked that ‘taken together this gives us the toughest climate change regime for aviation of any country in the world. Colin Matthews, BAA chief executive, even commented that ‘a third runway will only go ahead if strict environmental limits are met.'

Despite the shaky evidence and low level of assumed environmental damage of aviation, politicians seem more eager to please environmentalists than ordinary people. There seems to be a discrepancy between people's appetites for flying and politicians attitudes towards aviation. Given that the number of UK airline passengers expected to fly between now and 2020 is expected to double, and millions of people vote with their feet by flying each year, one would expect politicians to be more in favour of the third runway development which will make travel even easier for the masses. However, the new green etiquette which has permeated nearly all aspects of our lives from the way we run our homes (recycling) to the way we are encouraged to shop (ethically, locally sourced) has made many politicians as well as the public feel guilty for questioning the prioritisation of the environment over people. The British Social Attitudes Survey found that 63% of those surveyed thought people should be able to travel by airplane ‘as much as they like' which fell to 19% when they were asked the same question with the extra words ‘even if it harms the environment." Rather than evincing a strong support for environmental priorities - that is, carbon-reduction - we can also take the survey to indicate a strong compulsion to go along with green ideas, to toe the accepted public line, even if they contradict people's own subjective aspirations. 

Many critics of the third runway argue for less flying, to adapt to our current infrastructure, or even reduce absolutely the number of flights, than for cleaner flying. Ian Godden, Society of British Aerospace Companies commented that aircraft is now 75% quieter than they were 30 years ago as well as 70% more fuel efficient than 50 years ago. With this in mind, it seems to make more sense that environmentalists, much as do Modern Movement, support investment and innovation in cleaner transport, arguing for better technology over restrictions on people. This is not just for the benefit of UK citizens, but those in developing countries such as China and India whose right to travel has already been questioned by environmentalists, such as Zac Goldsmith, who has previously commented that ‘the earth cannot sustain the process of third world countries catching up with us'. What would be seen as a historically progressive development - the Chinese taking to cars and planes en masse - is only a nightmare for environmentalists like Goldsmith.

Aside from the fact that building the third runway is supposed to create 60,000 jobs, and have a generally positive impact on the stagnant UK economy, we should support the third runway because the forecasted damage to the environment is low yet the social benefit is high. The social benefits of flying; the opportunity to experience new countries, develop relationships abroad and take breaks in new places has been, wrongly, reduced to carbon counting. Rather than measuring and controlling the use of infrastructure that we have we should build and develop what we have in line with what people need, focusing on innovation rather than restriction. Being well-travelled was once a virtue and an aspiration, like being well-read. We should embrace the fact that it has become a necessary part of the modern lifestyle and stand up to the shrill cries of a green minority which has up till now dominated debate. All those in favour of meeting people's needs and aspirations should join Modern Movement on Thursday 19th February, 5.30PM, Parliament Square. See http://www.modernmovement.org.ukfor more details.