Heathrow: The Third Runway

As environmental campaigners continue their long term struggle to prevent a third runway from being added to Heathrow, even the materialist with little or no care for the planet's long term future cannot help but ask themselves what the appropriate balance is between economic success and environmental prudence. Personally I think that the environmentalists arguments are deeply flawed. Firstly the question is presented in flawed terms. It is not so much a matter of whether Heathrow should obtain a third runway, it is when should Heathrow build it. In terms of timing I don't believe it could be better. The economy is ailing and the third runway will not only attract further tourist interest, it will help keep business presence in London strong. Additionally it provides a stimulus to regional airports. Currently flights from airports such as Newcastle are being squeezed out to make way for long haul flights that are more profitable. This damages the viability of tourism and business interests in the North East due to a simple lack of connecting flights. It also harms the quality of life for those who live in the area. This is not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs that would be created planning, building, maintaining and operating the facility.

The advantage to economic boons such as a new runway at Heathrow is that we can then afford to tackle other environmental issues. The taxes created by the additional flights help pay for public transport and other green initiatives. General prosperity encourages homeowners to add small wind turbines, solar heating and loft insulation not to mention allowing the government a greater scope for providing funds for similar projects. Governments in times of economic boom are also more able to draft higher environmental standards and pass laws as it is less likely the economy will be hampered.

Now, this is not to say that the new runway will solve the economic crisis or indeed have any tangible impact for the next few years and during that time it could do real environmental damage. In fact I would be deeply skeptical about the whole proposal were it not for the high-speed rail interchange designed to accompany it. A major source of emissions involved with any urban location is motor vehicle transport and the proposed interchange could drastically reduce the number of cars driving to and from Heathrow. In turn, simplistic as it may sound, this will reduce congestion on the M25 and other roads and hopefully the efficiency of all vehicles will therefore increase. In addition, it cuts journey times from Heathrow to Kings Cross by two thirds, further encouraging business and tourism.

What has surprised me is the lack of compromise and negotiation on behalf of both parties. I would have thought that promises to increase the number of solar panels, small wind generators, to use green building practices and to leave aside advertising space for green issues would have gone some way towards making the project more realistic environmentally and appeasing the protesters. The only concession that has been mentioned, is requiring the new runway to be used only by the newest and most efficient aircraft. A good start, but I would have thought that more could be done. Ultimately the project needs to go ahead. The world is growing move competitive and with stiff competition for tourism and business locations, the UK needs to keep pace.