Transport Insights

A parliamentary committee has published a report on the government’s plans to add more airport capacity, the gist of which is that both the economic case and the climate impact are distinctly dodgy.

It follows ministers talking up plans to add a new runway to Heathrow, despite claiming that it will “only go ahead if it aligns with our legal obligations on climate change”.

Adding to the scepticism from Transport Committee chair Ruth Cadbury that I reported on Wednesday, the Environmental Audit Committee states starkly:

Whilst the Government support for airport expansion has been largely based on its expectation of economic growth, the Government has been unable to direct the Committee to any evidence that supports its assertion.

On climate change, the committee says:

The mitigation measures the Government is relying on to decarbonise the industry, primarily Sustainable Aviation Fuel, efficiency savings and emissions offsetting, each have their limits. However, the Government has so far not factored in these limitations. This leaves substantial risk to the UK target of Net Zero by 2050.

Summing it all up, it says:

The Government is yet to set out how it will ensure climate, environment and biodiversity targets can be delivered whilst consenting to airport expansion; and what level of economic growth the UK can expect from this significant infrastructure development.

Top marks to committee chair Toby Perkins for getting a few good puns into his quotes:

Having ruled out the kind of demand management measures likely to seriously reduce emissions, ministers need to make clear what alternative tools they are willing to use to ensure targets are met. New technological developments are promising and may in time provide an alternative route forward. But are they yet ready to be the basis for justifying this level of aviation expansion? 

At the same time, the government is proposing to expand airport capacity because it will help to grow the economy. But Ministers were unable to point us to solid evidence setting out how much growth such expansion would deliver. If these plans are ever to get off the ground, it’s vital that the government provide us with some hard facts. 

This problem can’t simply be outsourced to industry; the scale of the challenge is too great and only government has access to some of the tools needed. It’s time for the government to step up and take responsibility for its own targets. I’m concerned that the alternative is a lose-lose scenario that leaves a dynamic net zero economy out on the runway.