Editor's blog: Heathrow's third runway
Plane Stupid protests in London
Monday, 20, Jul 2009 03:57
A new study suggests a third runway at Heathrow Airport would add £30 billion to the UK economy, but environmentalists remain concerned over the ecological impact of the development.
Here travelbite.co.uk's Chris O'Toole takes a look at the ongoing debate - arguing the benefits of expanding the airport outweigh the concerns.
What has happened so far?
Economic Impacts of Hub Airports - released today by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) - forecasts building a third runway at the airport would deliver between £8.6 billion and £12.8 billion in increased productivity to the UK, as well as approximately £20 billion in wider economic benefits, such as higher levels of employment.
Furthermore, some 60 per cent of this benefit is predicted to be outside London and the south-east of England.
David Frost, director general of the BCC, said: "This comprehensive study clearly outlines the economic benefits of expanding Heathrow - an important part of the debate which too few people fully understand.
"Connectivity is vital to the UK economy as businesses seek to develop new global opportunities that will allow them to generate wealth and jobs.
"Without additional capacity at our major hub airport, we will continue to fall behind our Continental competitors.
"The age old phrase 'time is money' is apt as we look for solutions going forward. We must invest now to safeguard our economic future or we risk wasting £30 billion fumbling around for an alternative."
Alternatives suggested include a completely new airport in the Thames Estuary - thought to be favoured by London mayor Boris Johnson - a high speed railway linking the north and south of the UK - a policy endorsed by the Conservative party - or a reduction in demand for air travel.
However, economic arguments were one of the strongest suits played by the Labour government when announcing its support for the construction of a third runway and sixth terminal at the airport earlier this year.
The Department for Transport has also stated the runway should not be used at full capacity immediately; with flights limited to 125,000 a year until 2020, rather than the 222,000 at full capacity.
Plans for the Heathrow expansion can be seen here.
What happens next?
Despite the support of bodies - including the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Trades Union Congress (TUC), London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) and Institute of Directors (IoD) - campaigners argue the environmental cost is greater than the economic benefit.
Accurate figures on the cost of environmental change vary wildly, but those produced by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) conservatively put the cost at £70 a tonne of CO2. This over the duration of the runways lifespan the total emissions cost would rise to between £8 billion and £20 billion and wipe out any economic benefits.
This, however, seems short-sighted.
If the runway is not built at Heathrow it will be built at Gatwick or another airport in the south-east. The costs will be forced ever higher by delays, but the construction of additional airport capacity is inevitable.
Opposition has also come from Greenpeace which has acquired a plot of land in the centre of the proposed site, with the aim of maximising the legal avenues to oppose the scheme, and Camp for Climate Action, which has employed direct action tactics at the airport.
The issue is also likely to be key in the constituency during the next general election, with the Tories promising to scrap the plan.
Perhaps a stronger argument is the destruction of the village of Sipson - with as many as 4,000 homes destroyed by any potential construction. However, the government argues any displaced persons will be fully compensated.
Noise pollution is also considered an issue by local residence.
Overall the arguments against expansion are unconvincing.
Air travel represents a tiny - although growing - fraction of the UK's carbon output. The third runway at Heathrow is being held as a test case, but its actual development will be negligible to this country's carbon footprint.
More troubling is the loss of a small village - but should one community be permitted to stand in the way of the whole country? I would argue not, despite the obvious arguments to the contrary.
It appears the economic arguments, in this case, outweigh the environmental ones.