Another BBC article about Heathrow expansion frames the issue in the terms chosen by the business promoting it, with the only mention of the climate, in true BBC style, being a reference to “climate campaigners”.
Not building a third runway at Heathrow Airport would be a “huge missed opportunity” for the UK, the boss of the country’s busiest airport has warned.
Thomas Woldbye told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it would be “good to know” the government’s position on the project, after Prime Minister Andy Burnham refused to say whether he backed expansion.
The airport’s chief executive said if its owners could not invest in a third runway, the money “will be invested somewhere else in the world”, suggesting a decision would be made in the new year.
It’s not clear why the BBC has given the CEO of a private business a platform to lobby the government in support of its business interests – except that it provides a good news story.
The BBC then completely forgets any idea of balance, going into he said, she said mode instead and mentioning
potential to deliver around £40 billion in economic benefits across the country
from the Department for Transport, without mentioning that these are projected to be cancelled out by disbenefits.
Interesting journalistic takes on the latest advice on Heathrow expansion from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which appears to rule the whole thing out, barring some major fudge or magical thinking from the government, which of course we can expect.
Heathrow expansion incompatible with climate goals, UK government advisers warn
Expanding Heathrow would add as much carbon to the atmosphere as the city of Birmingham and is incompatible with the UK meeting its legally binding climate targets, the independent Climate Change Committee has warned.
But here’s the rub:
“There is no credible pathway for Heathrow airport expansion within the UK’s climate commitments under current policies,” the committee said in a report.
The CCC appears to have left the door open for the government to bring in new policies – or pretend to do so.
In fact, the Guardian has a different take on the story:
Heathrow airport should be allowed to expand only if airlines pay for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the government’s climate advisers have said. … The “only way” to manage such expansion within the UK’s climate commitments was for the aviation industry to become more efficient, use an increasing proportion of “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAF) in place of fossil fuels, and pay for the permanent removal and storage of carbon from the atmosphere.
This has led to some people smelling a rat:
But campaigners rejected the CCC’s plan of relying on nascent technologies to wipe out the impact of an expansion that would commit the UK to much higher emissions for decades, and called on ministers to halt all airport expansion.
Tony Bosworth, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, accused the CCC of “pulling its punches”, pointing to recent research by the Tyndall Centre that found SAF and carbon removals were unproven and unlikely to ramp up in time to the extent needed to justify airport expansion.
The airlines are unhappy and say the costs would price a lot of people out of flying. The FT says:
The CCC forecast that the costs borne by the industry lowering emissions, which would run into the billions in total, would add about £150 to flights to Alicante in Spain and roughly £400 to the price of a ticket to New York.
Of course, if that were to happen, you probably wouldn’t have the demand to justify the new runway, which still seems to be predicated on helping people make these types of flight en masse in a climate emergency.
In fact, putting the costs onto the airlines, and therefore the passengers, is a matter of equity. The FT says:
Half of UK residents did not fly abroad, and a third of all international flights were taken by the top 5 per cent of travellers, classed as anyone who takes more than five round-trip flights a year, the CCC said.
On the subject of magical thinking, Carbon Brief reported last week:
The UK government has slashed its hopes for electric planes and “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAFs), ahead of giving the green light to a third runway at Heathrow.
An “ambitious” rollout of new technologies and efficiency upgrades will only cut flight emissions by a quarter over the next two decades, according to forecasts quietly released in June.
This would leave aviation emissions in 2050 nearly 50% higher than expected under the “jet-zero” strategy, launched by the previous Conservative government in 2022.
This appears to be already factored in to the CCC report. So what will the government try next?
One of the things my research into transport journalism is addressing is the way that mainstream outlets tend to look at transport issues in consumer terms rather than looking at systemic issues and this BBC report, which treats air travellers as victims of climate change rather than contributors to it, is a case in point.
In an “In Depth” piece, Theo Leggett, international business correspondent, warns:
Aviation faces hotter, stormier skies – and passengers might have to accept more disruption
Looking at a particularly stormy day in June, which caused significant disruption to flights, Leggett does at least name the underlying problem:
The timing in this case was clearly unlucky. But there are concerns that such incidents are only going to become more common as the effects of climate change mount up around the world and weather systems are likely to become increasingly unstable, making disruption more likely and adding to costs for airlines, airports and travellers.
As far as it goes, it’s a good article, which notes that disruption from climate-driven weather patterns extends beyond storms:
Heavier rainfall, for instance, increases the likelihood of flooding. In a worst case, this can paralyse airport operations, as happened in April 2024 when torrential downpours hit Dubai International Airport. It briefly had to close its runways, while disruption lasted for two days. More than 1,200 flights were cancelled, affecting tens of thousands of passengers.
I’m not saying the government’s latest consultation on Heathrow is a stitch-up but ministers are very clearly signalling where it is going.
third runway at Heathrow moves a step closer as government launches public consultation on the framework for future planning decisions
Alongside bullshit claims about “over £40 billion of benefits to the UK” – over what period? – there are clear signals that the facts will be made to fit the policy:
This marks another key milestone in delivering a final planning decision in 2029, making sure it meets key tests on noise, air quality, climate and economic growth.
It’s not exactly subtle: those key tests will be met. So are they really tests?
And there is a hint of menace for the meddling Climate Change Committee:
The independent Climate Change Committee is being formally consulted to advise on how expansion can be consistent with the net zero framework.
The answer is that expansion can be consistent with the net zero framework. The answer that the committee has to give is how.
But these are definitely tests, right? With the possibility that they might not be met and the new runway won’t be built?
It remains possible of course that ministers are being disingenuous in another way and are just going along with it all in the expectation that it will never happen – they just don’t want to be seen to be pulling the plug.
A baffling announcement from the transport secretary has shone a light on her department’s determination to make the facts (or predictions) around carbon emissions fit Labour’s policy of expanding aviation in a climate emergency.
On 19 February I wrote to the judge hearing the above claim in respect of my ongoing duty of candour in those proceedings.
There is no reference before this, or indeed anywhere in the statement, to any claim or proceedings, although Alexander does later make equally baffling references to:
an order of the court from 10 December 2025
and to having
apologised to the court and the parties and submitted a statement from a senior official in the department to explain the error and correct our position.
At no point does she say which court but, unpicking all this, it looks as if the case is the legal challenge to Alexander’s decision to back expansion of Heathrow. You can tell this because she protests that
I’ve previously raised the question about whether the government is putting sufficient cash into our transport networks to fund climate change adaption, with ministers often just saying they are putting in more money rather than asserting that it’s enough.
But a new written parliamentary answer from transport minister Keir Mather doesn’t even bother to address the question of whether there will be more money.
Asked by Sarah Dyke, Liberal Democrat MP for Glastonbury and Somerton:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if she will provide additional funding to help mitigate ongoing soil moisture deficit effects for railway companies.
Mather gave a long and rambling reply on behalf of Heidi Alexander that began with a description of the problem…
The Department for Transport funds Network Rail to operate, maintain, and develop the nation’s railway infrastructure. As the climate changes, we expect to see hotter, drier summers, and therefore we will expect to encounter more instances of soil moisture deficit.
The transport secretary has declined to say that she is confident that Network Rail has the funds to keep the railway safe as landslips hit the rail and road networks, driven by climate change.
Appearing before the Transport Committee, Heidi Alexander was asked by Rebecca Smith, Conservative MP for South West Devon, if she was
confident that Network Rail has the resources to safely maintain the railway network during this control period.
Her reply emphasized that spending has gone up, which it has, rather than answering what is the real question:
We are spending more money in Control Period 7 on activities to address improving resilience connected to weather and climate change. So climate change adaptation, I guess, is the phrase that I’m searching for. So in Control Period 7, we’re spending 2.6 billion, which is significantly more than we were spending in Control Period 6. So I think it’s right that the Network Rail are doing that because they are very alive to the challenges that changing weather patterns have for the rail network.
Smith had referenced a recent incident in Cumbria, i.e. the derailment of a train caused by a landslip onto the track. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch has said its preliminary examination found that a drainage channel running across the slope above the washed-out material, was unable to accommodate the volume of water present, saturating the material and initiating the landslip.
But, as this BBC report points out in a detailed piece that looks at the wider issue, that was followed by a landslip affecting the A592 in the region, which Westmorland and Furness Council said could be closed for months. After Storm Desmond in 2015, the nearby A591 was blocked by landslips that both blocked the road and washed its base away.
With rail getting all the funding it needs, the local LibDem MP has used the derailment of a passenger train in Cumbria to highlight the risk of landslips on the rail network as climate change increases the risks.
A high-speed Avanti West Coast train said to be travelling at around 80mph partly derailed after hitting a landslide in Cumbria early this morning.
The operator said all 86 people plus its train crew were evacuated to a nearby hotel and were were assessed by paramedics, with four treated for minor injuries but none requiring hospital treatment.
Former LibDem leader Tim Farron called for an investigation into whether enough resources were being spent on the line.
The line from chancellor Rachel Reeves that the green light for more carbon emissions from Gatwick shows that the government is “backing the builders, not the blockers” tells you all you need to know about how serious a government this is.
It is government by slogan and forget the climate emergency.
On LinkedIn, Alex Chapman of the New Economics Foundation points out just how flimsy the economic case is, highlighting a section of the decision letter that shows that the socioeconomic case only provides a “moderate” case in favour of Gatwick’s plans to fly more people abroad to boost other countries’ economies.
Chapman also points out that ministers are trashing their own climate plans:
He concludes:
Proceeding was the politically easiest option, but it was not responsible, nor was it evidence-based.
Leave a Reply