The extension of Heathrow is a staggeringly dumb idea. I simply can’t see any real benefit of placing it there.

Meanwhile, far, far too many supine drones and blind slaves to the New Labour strictly-imposed-and-enforced line sat back and went with the ludicrous proposal

Some devils advocacy:

What we’re really concerned about is the net increase in carbon emissions from aviation. If this runway is not built, the same increase may happen anyway, with increased air traffic from other UK airports and even by people traveling to Paris or Amsterdam to take intercontinental flights. We don’t know the extent of these substitution effects, and we don’t know to what extent air traffic will be held back if this runway isn’t built (I’d appreciate links to any research). It obviously looks hypocritical for a government to say it cares about climate change then authorize this runway, but the govt is supposed to be the agent of the people, and I know many more people that oppose this runway than I know people who have actually cut back on their own air travel. So, what are the levers that will actually get people to cut back on air travel? Perhaps the number of runways is not it – perhaps we need steep air travel taxes, and we can have them and this runway too. After all, a new runway will only increase air travel to the extent it makes it cheaper and more convenient; this can easily be offset by taxation (raising funds to invest in clean energy tech etc.). What else will actually reduce airtraffic carbon emissions? Perhaps obligatory carbon offset (of the useful sort) or tough aircraft carbon emission standards and incentives for new technologies are what will actually make the difference, not the number of runways. Are there any carbon efficiency arguments for having air travel concentrated at Heathrow rather than elsewhere? I don’t know.

Now, all this is speculation and while it’s feasible that what the govt ought to do is okay this runway but also bring in lots of tough new environmental regulation to go with it (taxes, etc.) it’s possible that it will do the former but not the latter. And perhaps it is the case that this runway will increase air traffic and not building it will reduce it. I don’t know whether the runway ought to be opposed or not, but I suspect in some cases it is being opposed for symbolic reasons rather than for well thought out ones.

Labour need to expand Heathrow so that they can continue their mass immigration policies. They gave 120,000 work permits to non-EU migrants in a recession year, with huge increases in unemployment. Such migrants regularly fly back and forth to their homelands, adding to co2 emissions.

What about their policy of building 3m hew homes (based on the flawed reports of the discredited Kate Barker)? What about their policy of demolishing large swathes of perfectly sound period properties in the North and replacing them with poor quality estates?

Labour’s environmental policies are a lie. They have only built 2 of the 18 recycling centres required to process the level of recycling that councils are collecting at the moment. Their neglect of our energy provision will be a disaster in forthcoming years.

Only mugs will vote for them

If only McDonnell had gone the whole hog and cast the mace into the Thames…

Whether you’re for or against the runway, there should certainly have been a parliamentary vote on the issue.

What we’re really concerned about is the net increase in carbon emissions from aviation

Aren’t we also concerned about people’s homes? What is it, something like 300 homes that will be bulldozed? One or two schools?

Cabalamat is absolutely right.

#7, uk liberty:

700 homes, not 300, will be demolished.

http://mymarilyn.blogspot.com/2009/01/runway-for-tories.html

I don’t know whether the runway ought to be opposed or not, but I suspect in some cases it is being opposed for symbolic reasons rather than for well thought out ones.

Well, not necessarily. As plenty of others have pointed out, the real reasons are bad enough:

- forcibly demolishing homes
- more traffic and congestion around heathrow (where I live)
- more noise pollution for the local residents
- bullshit being spun about the economic benefits to much needed jobs now (it wont start until 10 years from now)
- concentrating economic growth in the south..
- the environmental cost of many more planes taking off and landing from heathrow

and much more.

For a start, we’re not taxing air travel as we should be, to take into account the negative externalities. And on top of that, the other european countries have made carbon reduction committments they are likely to keep (france, germany) while we’re going to be woefully missing them.

This government’s view that its pro-environment is basically a sham.