British lawmakers are pushing to block expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick airports, arguing that additional flights are illegal – pushing Britain past limits on carbon emissions.
The government recently approved a third runway at Heathrow and a second at Gatwick, and backed expansions at other airports.
It and the aviation industry had argued that expanding the airports were vital for the UK’s economic growth and that sustainable aviation fuel, carbon offsetting, and more efficient planes would keep emissions in check.
However, the committee warns that airport expansion would directly increase greenhouse gas emissions from additional flights, ground operations, and surface transport.
Another runway at Heathrow supports more flights, but does that mean more flights total in the world, and greater emissions?
- It may mean smaller but newer planes which are more fuel efficient rather than cramming more passengers into larger but older jets.
- And more flights supports more connections, which may mean planes have a higher load factor – transporting passengers more efficiently (fewer emissions per passenger) and outcompeting other less efficient hubs.
- More flights at Heathrow may mean more London flights instead of Paris flights, growth at one major European hub can trade off against another.
- Heathrow growth from an additional runway is also de minimis relative to world growth (or even China or India annual growth). And all of commercial aviation is about 2% of world emissions.
U.K. emissions are falling and are 43% below 1990 levels. The biggest change, of course, is the near-elimination of coal power. Planes, too, are far less emitting.
The U.K. has been experiencing economic stagnation. Growth last year was less than 1%, in the second quarter of this year it rose just 0.3% quarter-on-quarter. The UK is lagging peers as well. Much of support for Brexit was that they were supposed to break from the economic shackles that proponents blamed on the E.U. but that has not happened. Clearly!
If they actually cared about aviation emissions, though, they’d start with European aviation is more carbon-intensive than U.S. aviation and by a lot, because of air traffic control there that makes planes fly longer, less direct routes and burn more fuel.
Europe has three times the en-route centers compared to the U.S. serving fewer daily flights. Flights tend to zig zag through convoluted airspace in order to hand off planes to unnecessary controllers in order to portect their jobs. The environmental concern over adding a Heathrow runway is not serious.
You can’t fix stupid. Or naive. Or delusional. Or anti-Business. This i what happens when you let Greta make your policies.
London already has six major airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, London City, and Southend). There are at least 7 operational runways already between those airports. (No region other than NYC and LAX has that many options or operational runways.) Perhaps, the London area just needs to better connect those existing airports to mass transit, so that LHR and LGW are not the main two that everyone flocks to.
The goal should be equitable, sustainable growth. Otherwise, I feel like you’re attempting to create a false dichotomy between ‘growth’ vs. ‘climate.’ Listen, I agree that aviation is one of those industries that cannot easily transition to renewables, unless there’s an alternative to jet fuel (there isn’t, not yet). So, for now, the focus should be on continuing to decarbonize other aspects of the economy, such as electricity production, vehicular transportation, industrial processes, etc. (thank goodness they aren’t using coal anymore, see London Fog).
@Dave Flaat — You are not a serious person. ‘Dunking’ on Greta solves nothing. (Besides, she’s taking a sailboat to cross the ocean. Yikes. That’s not the answer either.)
What type of government is in charge?
@jns — They a have a king… (I know what you meant, and that doesn’t matter either.)
As an British ex-pat, I’m proud of what they’ve accomplished in terms of sustainability and vast improvements in city air quality. It’s nothing to do with “Greta” or the monarchy, that’s just cliched nonsense; they’ve made real progress, and the population is generally aligned behind the efforts, unlike in he US, where being environmentally responsible is a political stance.
The LHR 3rd runway discussion has been going on for decades, and if approved, will be impactful on the local area. Compulsory Purchase Orders (aka eminent domain) will take years to complete, and there’s just not a lot of land around LHR. I’ve always supported the expansion of LHR; yes, there’s many other ‘London’ airports, but in reality, only LHR is well-connected. Stansted is not bad, but surrounded by green-belt. Gatwick has always been the red-headed step child, with more charter flights than scheduled; it’s infrastructure is aging poorly. Luton exists because of Easyjet, and is only ‘London’ to the extent that’s the nearest city, but it’s not near. Southend is cute, but laughable, and an hour out of London by train. London City is great for hopping to Europe (or was, pre-Brexit), but obvious is heavily curfewed and limited with the single, short runway.
TLRD; LHR is the best option, everyone knows it, but the gears of the many governments that have overseen the various efforts to get it off the ground move slowly and inefficiently.
CO2 has very little to do with climate. It is the effect, not the cause, of natural warming, as it always has, and as is shown in ice core records as it lags behind temperature. This is due to ocean outgassing of CO2 as ocean temp warms. You’ve been lied to by activists for 3 decades to push their agenda of communism and deindustrialization. So anything done for the sake of CO2 emissions is by definition stupid.
Meanwhile, China cheers you globalists on, then laughs at you and builds a new coal plant a month, and if they need a new airport, they just build it. They don’t fret about it for a decade.
This type is how empires collapse. It’s too late for the UK, but we still have a chance.
@Pete White — Thank you.
@Mantis — No thanks.