Government gives green light to third runway

Posted by tracy - 15 January 2009 at 1:56pm - Comments

We all huddled around a tv in our press department to watch Geoff Hoon's statement in parliament. Unsurprisingly Hoon announced they would approve plans for a third runway at Heathrow. But the irony of stating that the UK would have the strictest regulations on aviation emissions and at the same time allowing the construction of a third runway was lost on what sounded like cows let loose in the Houses of Parliament - I'm assuming those were actually MPs.

Hoon said that use of the new runway would be limited to half capacity, so you've got to ask yourself why build it? With the introduction of a new high speed rail between major cities in the UK which was also supported in the speech, we could eliminate the 100,000 flights a year from Heathrow to cities less than 300 miles away. Passenger numbers at Heathrow would fall to 1990 levels, negating the need for any more runway capacity. Hight speed rail will only make a difference to emissions if it is instead of airport expansion.

Hoon said any additional capacity added to the third runway after than would be reserved for more efficient planes. The aviation industry has already pumped billions into researching more efficient and quieter engines (Rolls Royce alone spent £3bn over the past five years), yet over the past 16 years the average fuel efficiency of jet engines has improved by just 1.5% per year.

Even with this steady improvement we're still talking about more planes, and that means an overall increase in emissions. If engine efficiency were improved by an ambitious 2% per year, this technological progress would be completely wiped out by expanding Heathrow.

If Gordon Brown thinks this is a green runway then he must be colour-blind. The package is designed to patch up a cabinet split and will do very little to reduce the huge environmental impact of an expanded Heathrow, which will now become the single biggest emitter of carbon-dioxide in the country.

Geoff Hoon accepted that there would be a sizable increase in emissions from a new runway, but suggested that electrification of cars would - supposedly - offset those increases. Vehicle electrification was meant to contribute to the government's 20% renewable energy target, not to offset a third runway.

While Hoon announced a new target to cap emissions from aviation at 2005 levels by the year 2050, these new emissions caps aren't even legally binding. The loopholes in this are so big you could fly a jumbo jet through them.

Regardless of what the government has said today, this new runway is far from inevitable and with you're help we are going to confront them every step of the way. We already have over 13,000 people signed up as beneficial owners on the plot of land on the third runway site and we won't be giving it back anytime soon.

Refering to Geoff Hoon's statement about more effieicent airplanes, she asked if the government is going to bring out cigarette's that don't give you caner?

I am disgusted that in a so called democratic society our government can totally ignore the fact that more people DIDN'T want the runway than did.

700 homes will be bought up under compulsory purchase orders... that's an invasion isn't it? 700 people do NOT want to move house yet 'The Management' says they need to and bully their way through to overpower the citizens and invade their land.

This isn't the end... I 'own' a bit of the Greenpeace land... What's the next step Greenpeace? What do we do next to overthrow this barbaric governments decision?

Tell you what.... CHEQUERS is 1,500 acres..... USE THAT GORDON!!!!

I was wondering, can't the court of Human Rights do anything? When we consider that a whole village is to be wiped out to make room for this monstrosity? Surely removing and demolishing their homes and businesses is a breach of their human rights?

Well the tories will probably in government by the time this becomes a reality, and they oppose it, so it's therefore unlikely to happen.

u lose green peace

I am with Jeremy Clarkson on this issue and totally fed up with all the propaganda we are subjected to ad infinitum.
After watching TV programs such as 'It Isn't Easy Being Green', I have come to the conclusion that - in the long run- most of the fatuous schemes punted are doomed to failure and will cost their owners and the working taxpayers far more than doing nothing to address so-called climate change.
The activities of adherents of the fashionable green religion are already interfering with rural lifestyles to an unacceptable extent and are viewed with great suspicion by the drinking / smoking and sporting classes, who are penalised for everything they enjoy such as frequenting pubs,driving cars and being fat. Let us have cheaper road fuel, coal to keep us warm and good food so that we can work harder to keep the green people happy in their chosen lifestyle without inflicting their ideas on the rest of us.

1) Shame on them.
2) Disappointing news but exciting energy amongst opposition
3) Economic reasons? Great Economy Gordon. Try green agenda
4) Cross rail announcement. Oh yes very slick - Lets make rail viable alternative $$
5) Democracy? Bye Bye Gordon Brown

dont worry ill give my land back to heathrow

Perhaps the Government should show us their true colours. They should build the high-speed rail hub first. There won't be much opposition to that, and it will create quite a few jobs.

In the meantime they could cancel the rebuild of Kingsnorth et al.

And finally, they could ensure that the wind turbines that have been sitting off the Kent coast are connected to the national grid, and then get off their backsides and get their renewable energy programme running flat out.

You do that, we only want people who understand what they are doing on our side.

You should then spend your time constructively learning about what a mess we are going to be in if we don't stop global warming.

Email all airplot owners asking them to signt the pms website, also we could contact other environmental organisiations and ask them to do the same for their members like WWF and Friends of the earth etc.

David

Thank you for contacting me about Heathrow and the plan for a third runway.

I have been aware for some time that the Government is inclined to go ahead with the expansion, and I have refused to back them in order to obtain concessions which benefit Slough.

The first was to ensure the government rejected proposals to use Heathrow more intensively. This rejection of mixed mode operations (as they are known) gives residents under the flight paths a break from overhead aircraft noise for at least 8 hours each day.

I have insisted on legally binding conditions on air quality, limits on noise and really significantly, better access to the airport by public transport, especially from the west. I believe I am likely to secure electrification of the western main line which could lead to a direct link to Heathrow and will mean a better rail service for Slough and an end to the pollution and excess carbon emissions of diesel trains.

There are also tentative plans for other changes, including high speed rail links to London, the West Midlands and Scotland. There will also be investment in electric cars. More details of all the government's transport announcements can be found at www.dft.gov.uk

£6 billion will be invested in the national road network to reduce delays across the most congested parts of the motorway network - this will include an extra lane on most of the M4. In my view, this is unlikely to reduce congestion in Slough because the traffic is held up at the 2 lane elevated section going in to London. I have told the Minister that such a proposal is likely to increase emissions and damage local air quality.

The extreme pressure on jobs as a result of the credit crunch has led me to soften my resistance to the growth of Heathrow. So many local people work at the airport or its direct suppliers and so many local businesses choose to make Slough their home because it is so near Heathrow. I have therefore concluded that in order to halt the relative decline of our national airport (which used to serve more destinations than all other European airports, except Munich, and has now slipped behind airports in 5 other European countries) it is not enough just to improve the infrastructure around it. But it is also probably right to stop opposing the runway if the promised concessions, including better surface transport links, legally binding emission controls and restricting the use of the new landing slots to cleaner aircraft, have been made.

Please do not think I have come to this conclusion lightly and I will continue to insist on these points.

Please do get in touch again, if you have any further points you would like to raise with me about this.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely, Fiona Mactaggart

------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it, my MP is in favour of expansion!

Her reasons for being in favour are:

'the credit crunch' Nice long term thinking there!

'So many local people work at the airport or its direct suppliers and so many local businesses choose to make Slough their home because it is so near Heathrow' They will continue to live near to and work at the airport

'to halt the relative decline of our national airport' Are you kidding me? I don't think anyone living under the flight path has noticed this 'decline'.

Because 'Heathrow used to serve more destinations than all other European airports, except Munich, and has now slipped behind airports in 5 other European countries' So what? Stop chasing money and listen to the real issue

it is also probably right to stop opposing the runway if the promised concessions, including better surface transport links, legally binding emission controls and restricting the use of the new landing slots to cleaner aircraft, have been made. You actually believe the promised concessions are going to happen!

"Protecting 175,000 jobs at the airport and 100,000 related to the airport," some idiot calling himself the Northern ireland Secretary said on Question Time tonight (Some guy from the Jewish Chronicle thought he said 100,000 new jobs).

How do they get away with such lies? If the runway didn't go ahead, would Heathrow close? No, so how are all these jobs going to be lost. They are not, it's a lie. A new runway would create virtually no new jobs in west London.

The truth is that this is a classic example of the government ignoring the people and pandering to big business. It would be interesting if someone checks how much money BAA has given to the Labour Party, or how much it will at the next election.

Refering to Geoff Hoon's statement about more effieicent airplanes, she asked if the government is going to bring out cigarette's that don't give you caner?

I am disgusted that in a so called democratic society our government can totally ignore the fact that more people DIDN'T want the runway than did. 700 homes will be bought up under compulsory purchase orders... that's an invasion isn't it? 700 people do NOT want to move house yet 'The Management' says they need to and bully their way through to overpower the citizens and invade their land. This isn't the end... I 'own' a bit of the Greenpeace land... What's the next step Greenpeace? What do we do next to overthrow this barbaric governments decision? Tell you what.... CHEQUERS is 1,500 acres..... USE THAT GORDON!!!!

I was wondering, can't the court of Human Rights do anything? When we consider that a whole village is to be wiped out to make room for this monstrosity? Surely removing and demolishing their homes and businesses is a breach of their human rights?

Well the tories will probably in government by the time this becomes a reality, and they oppose it, so it's therefore unlikely to happen.

u lose green peace

I am with Jeremy Clarkson on this issue and totally fed up with all the propaganda we are subjected to ad infinitum. After watching TV programs such as 'It Isn't Easy Being Green', I have come to the conclusion that - in the long run- most of the fatuous schemes punted are doomed to failure and will cost their owners and the working taxpayers far more than doing nothing to address so-called climate change. The activities of adherents of the fashionable green religion are already interfering with rural lifestyles to an unacceptable extent and are viewed with great suspicion by the drinking / smoking and sporting classes, who are penalised for everything they enjoy such as frequenting pubs,driving cars and being fat. Let us have cheaper road fuel, coal to keep us warm and good food so that we can work harder to keep the green people happy in their chosen lifestyle without inflicting their ideas on the rest of us.

1) Shame on them. 2) Disappointing news but exciting energy amongst opposition 3) Economic reasons? Great Economy Gordon. Try green agenda 4) Cross rail announcement. Oh yes very slick - Lets make rail viable alternative $$ 5) Democracy? Bye Bye Gordon Brown

dont worry ill give my land back to heathrow

Perhaps the Government should show us their true colours. They should build the high-speed rail hub first. There won't be much opposition to that, and it will create quite a few jobs. In the meantime they could cancel the rebuild of Kingsnorth et al. And finally, they could ensure that the wind turbines that have been sitting off the Kent coast are connected to the national grid, and then get off their backsides and get their renewable energy programme running flat out.

You do that, we only want people who understand what they are doing on our side. You should then spend your time constructively learning about what a mess we are going to be in if we don't stop global warming.

Email all airplot owners asking them to signt the pms website, also we could contact other environmental organisiations and ask them to do the same for their members like WWF and Friends of the earth etc.

David

Thank you for contacting me about Heathrow and the plan for a third runway.

I have been aware for some time that the Government is inclined to go ahead with the expansion, and I have refused to back them in order to obtain concessions which benefit Slough.

The first was to ensure the government rejected proposals to use Heathrow more intensively. This rejection of mixed mode operations (as they are known) gives residents under the flight paths a break from overhead aircraft noise for at least 8 hours each day.

I have insisted on legally binding conditions on air quality, limits on noise and really significantly, better access to the airport by public transport, especially from the west. I believe I am likely to secure electrification of the western main line which could lead to a direct link to Heathrow and will mean a better rail service for Slough and an end to the pollution and excess carbon emissions of diesel trains.

There are also tentative plans for other changes, including high speed rail links to London, the West Midlands and Scotland. There will also be investment in electric cars. More details of all the government's transport announcements can be found at www.dft.gov.uk

£6 billion will be invested in the national road network to reduce delays across the most congested parts of the motorway network - this will include an extra lane on most of the M4. In my view, this is unlikely to reduce congestion in Slough because the traffic is held up at the 2 lane elevated section going in to London. I have told the Minister that such a proposal is likely to increase emissions and damage local air quality.

The extreme pressure on jobs as a result of the credit crunch has led me to soften my resistance to the growth of Heathrow. So many local people work at the airport or its direct suppliers and so many local businesses choose to make Slough their home because it is so near Heathrow. I have therefore concluded that in order to halt the relative decline of our national airport (which used to serve more destinations than all other European airports, except Munich, and has now slipped behind airports in 5 other European countries) it is not enough just to improve the infrastructure around it. But it is also probably right to stop opposing the runway if the promised concessions, including better surface transport links, legally binding emission controls and restricting the use of the new landing slots to cleaner aircraft, have been made.

Please do not think I have come to this conclusion lightly and I will continue to insist on these points.

Please do get in touch again, if you have any further points you would like to raise with me about this.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely, Fiona Mactaggart

------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it, my MP is in favour of expansion!

Her reasons for being in favour are:

'the credit crunch' Nice long term thinking there!

'So many local people work at the airport or its direct suppliers and so many local businesses choose to make Slough their home because it is so near Heathrow' They will continue to live near to and work at the airport

'to halt the relative decline of our national airport' Are you kidding me? I don't think anyone living under the flight path has noticed this 'decline'.

Because 'Heathrow used to serve more destinations than all other European airports, except Munich, and has now slipped behind airports in 5 other European countries' So what? Stop chasing money and listen to the real issue

it is also probably right to stop opposing the runway if the promised concessions, including better surface transport links, legally binding emission controls and restricting the use of the new landing slots to cleaner aircraft, have been made. You actually believe the promised concessions are going to happen!

"Protecting 175,000 jobs at the airport and 100,000 related to the airport," some idiot calling himself the Northern ireland Secretary said on Question Time tonight (Some guy from the Jewish Chronicle thought he said 100,000 new jobs). How do they get away with such lies? If the runway didn't go ahead, would Heathrow close? No, so how are all these jobs going to be lost. They are not, it's a lie. A new runway would create virtually no new jobs in west London. The truth is that this is a classic example of the government ignoring the people and pandering to big business. It would be interesting if someone checks how much money BAA has given to the Labour Party, or how much it will at the next election.

Follow Greenpeace UK