The elephant in the room

By Kieran Roberts

On balance, I’m firmly supportive of Labour. It’s the party that have made the most progress environmentally and due to Labour, Britain led in aiming for a fair deal at Copenhagen. The policy on Heathrow however makes me ashamed.

One of the obvious arguments against Heathrow is the gridlock it would bring to reaching emission targets. Although air travel pollution currently accounts for a fraction of what other forms of transport do, particularly the car, it is far more polluting in itself. Mile for mile, planes emit over 6 times more carbon than cars and by 2050, if expansion continues as predicted, air travel will account for over 50% of Britain’s emissions.

This is even more damning when we consider Bruce Duguid, head of investor engagement at the Carbon Trust’s remarks:

“The growth of aviation might have to be stopped once it reaches a 25% share of the UK carbon market because there will not be enough carbon permits in the trading scheme for other industries.”

Labour have pledged themselves to reducing emissions and ensuring aviation’s carbon dioxide emissions are 2005 levels by 2050. If these are serious targets, it renders expanding Heathrow devoid of any logic and hollows out the principal behind building a greener Britain.

The government argues that Heathrow is crucial to the economy’s competitiveness. Airport expansion is vital for the long term health of the economy and if Heathrow is crowded, business leaders will move elsewhere to countries with larger, less crowded airports. Really? Regarding the latter point, a poll by Continental research revealed only 4% of ‘business leaders’ thought Heathrow expansion would benefit their business.

The argument of air travel’s contribution to the economy is also flawed. Heathrow expansion it is estimated would bring £850 million to the economy by 2020. I don’t dispute the benefits of that. However when we look at this nationally, all regions other than London run a great financial deficit from aviation. With the predicted swelling of airports, the total cost of aviation by 2020 will be a loss of £30,500 million.

The case for long term economic growth looks increasingly insubstantial. As far as Labour is concerned, the problem doesn’t stop there. Labour is the only one of the three major parties to support Heathrow expansion. I can’t vouch for the Conservatives stance tomorrow but, for now, that’s how it stands.

The justified opposition to the expansion in west London where Labour currently holds 44 seats could cause a major problem. Some of the west London Labour seats have majorities of just 484 and 184 and a poll by Greenpeace shows a quarter of voters in the area less likely to vote Labour due to Heathrow expansion may spell defeat in west London.

All these points I think show Heathrow expansion to be a costly mistake but there is one element, above all, that proves Heathrow should not have a third terminal. The village of Sipson will be demolished. Home to thousands, communities, schools and livelihoods will be literally destroyed to make way for big business and bigger pollution. It’s not right, it’s not fair, it’s not Labour. Say no to Heathrow.