Heathrow cannot be left to wither as a sacrifice to the environmental lobby – a third runway is imperative

By Tom Harris

The debate over a third runway won’t end with the government’s expected announcement today. Whatever Geoff Hoon tells the Commons and the country about whether or not the third runway will go ahead, expect the arguments from both sides to continue, if not intensify.

Those who oppose it include those living near Heathrow or underneath its flightpath, environmentalists and (some of) the Shadow Cabinet.

Those who support it include the business community, the major trade unions, the City of London and the (rest of the) Shadow Cabinet.

And me.

My own interest in the third runway has its roots in my experience promoting the Crossrail Bill (now an Act) through parliament. Crossrail is absolutely vital to the future growth of London as Europe’s pre-eminent financial centre. So is Heathrow, and Crossrail will provide a vital link between the City and the airport. That’s why up to a third of the £16 billion cost of constructing it is to be met by the same financial institutions that will benefit from it.

However, if Heathrow is told this week that it cannot expect to expand, that there is no prospect of addressing the existing, near-crippling situation where it is running at 98 per cent capacity, how willing will those city institutions be to put their hand in their own pockets to fund an expensive link to a dying airport?

Crossrail aside, Heathrow cannot be left to wither on the vine as some awful sacrifice to the environmental lobby. Our response to the challenge of climate change must not be to cripple our economy, or to view the consequent job losses, increasing poverty levels and social breakdown in any way as “a price well worth paying” to cut down CO2 emissions. Our most important task is to develop industries and to encourage growth that will not undermine our commitments to cuts in emissions. That does not mean that any activity which produces emissions should be labelled “bad”; it means that our overall target should be adhered to, recognising that certain sectors will see a proportionate increase in emissions while others will see an equally proportionate decrease.

Civil aviation accounts for about six per cent of all of the UK’s CO2 emissions. That figure will rise proportionately as other sectors find ways of reducing their emission levels, but provided our overall emissions reduce over time, that is not something that we should worry about. Quite the reverse: while most of the debate around Heathrow has inevitably focussed on the environment, there is another important aspect which, if not handled astutely, could prove a bear trap for Labour.

The relatively recent (in historical terms) development where those in the lower income brackets have found it much more affordable to fly to foreign parts is something which Labour should unequivocally welcome, just as we welcomed the broadening of private car ownership in the sixties and seventies. If we can’t find new ways of meeting our international obligations without telling the less well off that they’re going to have to sacrifice their holiday abroad instead, then we will have given up any right to be known as the party of aspiration.

For more insight and opinion, visit Tom’s blog.

LabourList has invited opponents of the third runway to post articles outlining their views, and they’ll hopefully on the site soon.