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.)
That’s what you get with a bunch of tree hugging, whiny liberals running the place.
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.
@mantis – lol
@Pete White — Thank you.
@Mantis — No thanks.
Anyone hold them accountable for the $300 plus passenger tax, which is pure robbery. They also started collecting this in the name of protecting the climate, but never used it for any purpose.
Just here to see the comments and trolling related to the cult of climate theory…
@DaninMCI — Yeah, as if sea-level rise would matter to someone in Kansas City… eh, might be hotter in summer; your river could dry up, a return of the dust bowl. Probably not good. Or, just increased property values as eventually all the Floridians move there. Eww.
A third runway would drastically cut the number of aircraft circling over the south of England in a holding pattern during peak times everyday. That would be better for the environment and better for passengers.
I’ll presume the deniers avoided the movie ‘Don’t Look Up’ (2020), you know, because ‘woke,’ or whatever; however, for those who do recall the film, its premise, etc., there’s that scene: “No politics; we just want the job the comet will bring…” (how some of y’all sound) Anyway… *no ‘jobs’; they all die* I know, metaphors are hard.
For the ‘free market’ folks still out there, I wish we could at least agree that government subsidies for an established, incredibly profitable industry like ‘oil and gas’ is absurd in 2025. Like, if you cared about the debt or deficit, you’d agree to stop those tax cuts and to stop funding them to drill more oil on public lands. (Oh, what’s that, oil ‘needs’ it, but the people don’t need healthcare. Got it… hmm.)
Yes, we can agree, because there are no oil and gas subsidies. It’s the highest taxed industry out there (a tax is a negative subsidy). What you’re probably thinking of is provisions in the tax code that all industries take advantage of, like writing off bad investments. That’s not an oil and gas subsidy. Name one if you think I’m wrong.
Happy to now discuss green energy. Yep, a shit ton of subsidies, and it’s neither green, nor does it produce much more energy than it consumes in mfg/shipping/install/maintenance/disposal, and much of that energy it produces is dumped because it doesn’t align with demand…and lets not even mention all the very dirty mining and manufacturing processes involved in green energy, plus how it’s dominated by china.
Sorry, I forgot you’re an idiot. “Trump bad socialism good, no kings, especially those elected!” is more your level.
The great undertold economic story of the past two decades is the decline of Europe, economically and culturally. Endless wars over centuries couldn’t stop Europe’s growth, but this generation finally managed it.
There are so many ways in which the UK is the poster child for the slow motion, self-loathing suicide of Western Civilization. It’s really sad to watch.
@Mak — Horrible take, sir.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” While I don’t agree entirely with Edward Abbey’s approach, the quote attributed to him is apt here. Unchecked growth should not be our goal as a species or society. There’s a better, more balanced way for reasonable progress.
As to your over-simplification and apparent attempt to diminish a complicated history, yeah, usually… ‘war bad.’ And, also, no, this or any other ‘generation’ isn’t responsible for all ‘problems.’ Sure, there are individuals who have had an outsized impact, for better and worse, but it’s not Boomers vs. Millennials, or some other nonsense.
@Doug — Say what you really mean by ‘Western’ Civilization. (That was thinly-veiled, sir.)
@1990 Americans for some reason venerate Europe . . . the UK even more than the rest and with even less justification than the rest of Europe. For centuries Europe has led the world in mass murder and intolerance, and just when it seemed to have the problem solved succumbed to imported intolerance, combined with welfare state sloth and it’s new eco-religion that gladly sacrifices quality of life for mysticism. I’ve lived all over the world, and Europe is one place I have no desire to return to, and visit only when required to do so. A trip through England and Scotland is a trip through a destroyed civilization and a glimpse into America’s future.
@Mak — Oof. What a doozy.
On the US and UK, umm, yeah, we haven’t forgotten that the USA was formerly a British colony (not that the ‘break-up’ was clean, though, much time has passed since then), and we do also speak English, for the most part, so there’s certainly some shared history and culture, for sure; also, we’ve spent precious blood defending our allies in Europe, especially in the last century, yet, as they have also been their for us, more recently, as well.
As to the rest of the world; my goodness, plenty of needless suffering all-over, recent and distant past, alike. No one group has a monopoly on violence or war. Yeah, sometimes individuals have better ideas or new technology, not just Americans or Europeans. Lest you attempt to ‘go there,’ no one is ‘superior,’ and we’re all still humans.
As to claiming that concern for the environment is a false religion; that’s also absurd, and undeserving of a serious response. Personally, I’m not even a fan of organized religion; more harm than good, in my opinion. Wish they’d return to the roots of their ‘good books,’ and actually practice what they preach (love thy neighbor, help the poor, etc., but, I get it, that’s ‘socialism’…)
I’ve enjoyed my visits to the UK; it’s not wasteland, by any means. That’s hyperbolic and untrue. Scotland is particularly beautiful, especially the Highlands, and the people there are incredibly resilient. Ultimately, I pity your rather sad viewpoints.
Like the Homeless Industrial Complex it makes the NGO/Non Profit/Consultant class rich but never actually fixes anything because that would take away the NGO/Non Profit/Consultant class.
@George Nathan Romey — Yeah, ‘Big Homeless’ is to blame… good one! *facepalm*
You can always count on 1990 to prioritize his feelings over facts.
Still worshipping at the altar of virtue signaling word salad, and desperately clinging to climate hoax / pseudo science. The struggle is real.
Spoiler alert – multiple things can be true at the same time! China can build a ridiculous number of new coal power plants every year. And at the same time it can rely on a ton of wind and solar power to the tune of 25% of its power needs, all while leading the world in EV production. China also uses more coal than the rest of the world combined and emits more greenhouse gases than the US/EU combined. China’s government can also pretty much do whatever it wants because local or regional opposition is irrelevant, including building massive power transmission lines from one end of the country (where there are massive solar farms) to the other end. Whatever you may think, NYT published two amazing articles on China’s power supply and consumption earlier this month which are well worth an informative read.
Meanwhile, climate change exists, and yet for both strategic and economic reasons the US was still correct to utilize fracking to become the largest producer of oil. It’s also still a very good thing to continue to develop and deploy renewable energy sources. Texas is #1 in oil and natural gas and also is #1 in wind and solar. Wind/solar (and storage from batteries charged by wind/solar) provided 36% of ERCOT’s (TX) energy over the past 9 months. Whatever happened to good old American greed – why do we have to be so limiting when we should want it all!
Balance is tough! It is sometimes very hard to be equitable about anything in the world when China isn’t particularly equitable about how it goes about things. And yet, it is important to keep asking ourselves relevant questions about whether the expansion of X, Y or Z is a good thing. Hard to have standards sometimes when others do not, but yet, standards do matter. And many standards are good for business (I’ll take a plane made by Boeing any day over the week over Comac…).
On Heathrow, I think Gary’s article largely gets it right, as did @Pete White above. I would personally be shocked if the UK Government did not approve the third runway next month.
Finally, for what its worth…. EVs are actually fun to drive! Everything isn’t a Prius in Eco mode. The amount of torque from the second that you press the “gas” pedal in a modern EV… very enjoyable. They got the marketing on these things all wrong – the being a bit better for the environment part should be the cherry on top.
TLDR – long arc of history, slow but upward progress, use points for business class travel.
@Peter — Those were fascinating articles (on mainland China solar panels, etc.) They are ‘winning’ on renewables; we should be more concerned than most here admit.
@Reality over Feelings — I provided facts and my positions to start, and have engaged with several of you on your own opinions, for better and worse; however, you, like a few others, add nothing. Care to share an idea, so we can then debate it? You’re welcome to just call me names. But, please, make it spicer. Feed me.
For those who deny climate change: Consider what the Earth would be like without the greenhouse effect. Oh, that’s right, you can’t because we wouldn’t be here. The greenhouse effect already gives us 33C (or 59 maga degrees) of warming. We’ve added 50% to the CO2 levels–the only reason we haven’t already broiled ourselves is the natural level already blocked most of what it could.
And what’s this natural path where warming causes CO2? Normally warming creates plants, a small amount of them end up buried, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. The feedback loop is negative. (Yeah, there is a path **if** it gets hot enough. We can see it on Venus where it baked the carbon out of the rocks.)
That being said, no country has really been serious about CO2. It’s always about pretending to quiet down the protests. It’s a bogeyman to blame to distract people from the economic cost of another runway.
As for the climate varies naturally–yeah, which is why we see the repeated claim that warming has “stopped.” The forces at work in a short enough window are cyclic or random and the year-over-year change looks like noise or cyclic. But on a longer window the increasing CO2 dominates. Plot it out and you get something roughly sawtoothed–except the saw isn’t flat. Each peak is higher than the last one.
And don’t equate “natural” with “good”. A look at the historical record shows Earth has snowballed and that Earth has warmed to the point that few fossils were left. We probably could not survive either of these. And, yes, the sun is warming. Very, very slowly. Average CO2 levels have dropped over the eons, this will “soon” be stopped by CO2 reaching minimum levels–but “soon” is 50 million years.
@Loren — Well said, once again! (Great YouTube channel, Climate Town, if anyone’s ever interested in a ‘fun’ take on some of these topics. Gotta reject both denialism and doomerism.)
It is now time to also expose the scam that SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) actually is.
@ 1990. Agree those of faith should return to their books. Moslems are required to donate a specified portion of their net worth annually to the poor. Extra points for donating more. We give to 3 orphanages as a primary project. It is not just donating funds but hands on; when you go buy a bag of rice, buy another and deliver it to them. Anyone in need (which would be someone where the extended family can’t take care of him anymore) can get a meal and clothing at the nearest mosque.
Build all the runways you want; Britain’s economy has been toast since Brexit.