Morning:
9°c
Third runway 'a white elephant' says scientist
Ellen Widdup, Evening Standard30.07.08
The Government's former chief scientific adviser has poured scorn on its plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport.
Professor Sir David King branded the scheme "a white elephant" claiming the plans were both short-sighted and economically unsound.
"I'm looking at this from a marketing point of view - if we're moving towards decarbonising our economy this must mean that alternative means of transport - land transport - will be favoured over air transport," he said.
"This must mean that by pricing carbon dioxide, by putting fuel tax on aviation fuel as well, that we will drive people toward land-based travel rather than air, and investments in new runways will turn out to be white elephants."
Sir David, who made his comments in an interview for the Ecologist Film Unit, has previously described climate change as "a far greater threat even than global terrorism".
But Business Secretary John Hutton today insisted the Government could support an expansion of aviation with climate change in mind.
"We will help make flying greener rather than restricting people's opportunities to fly altogether," he added.
"So we will take the necessary decisions on airport expansion to ensure the UK has the transport infrastructure it needs to continue to attract business from across the globe."
His comments follow the release of a report commissioned by the City of London Authority which claims that building a third runway at Heathrow Airport is the "obvious" solution to
airport congestion.
The study rejected alternatives, such as building a new airport in the Thames Gateway. The authors said Heathrow was currently "deeply unpopular" with business leaders because of delays, traffic and security issues.
But critics of the third runway scheme said this was even more reason why BAA and the Government should invest more time and money into improving the services they already have - rather than adding to them.
Reader views (13)
A third lane is a must if London is to survive but not at Heathrow put it where its needed most and that's on the roads. The A4 and M4 is useless, getting in and out of West London is beyond a joke, there are sections of the M4 that go down to one lane. As for the A40 on the westway, its pathetic. Heathrow as an airport was past its sell by date a long time ago, you have to be crazy to want to expand on that
- Mr S.Port, London
"the increasing cost of flying will take away much of the need for more airport capacity." Well said M Wilkinson. You have just stated exactly why a third runway option is being sought. Would be a waste of money if they were to build a new airport that nobody used.
- Nathan, Sydney, Australia
Toby Hall - well put. The only comment that I can add is the John Hutton - as a lawyer turned politician - may know about talking but can be expected to have no idea about the real (science) world.
- Paul Luton, Teddington, UK
Aidan- you can say that about anything, when you break things into simple seemingly 'small' percentages. Avian emissions are the fastest growing category, and whilst they make up a 'small' percentage of the total, a lot of the science is showing that emissions at high altitude are far more damaging- and therefore estimates around the 15%-20% mark are suggested as being more relevant in terms of their contribution to warming. Hutton states "we'll make aviation greener"- this reminds me of a great Friends of the Earth analogy- it's the equivalent of saying we'll sort smoking by producing a cancer free cigarette. Considering our main airplane long haul model is still the Boeing 747, it will be decades before 'green' air travel at the volumes a 3rd runway would allow could be legitimately developed. And then there is the question of illegally exposing an extra 30-odd thousand residents of west London to above who safe levels of the pollutant oxides of nitrogen...and then there's the 100s of thousands exposed to excessive noise... Sir David King is totally correct on this one!
- Toby Hall, london, uk
Third runway is one issue. Air travel is another and cannot be greatly reduced without vast infrastructure costs linking the new rail networks (still to be planned let alone built) into the intercontinental air network. It's pure fantasy land.
But these crazy people still insisting on a false science of global warming are going to leave us without power or light or warmth or food stuck in our cold hovels while they incur vast CO2 output building all these wind farms which don't work and rail networks in everyone's garden taking up agricultural land from food production. They're all mad!
- Christina Speight, west london
"We will help make flying greener rather than restricting people's opportunities to fly altogether,"
It's a pity the gov. aren't as keen to help out motorists in the same way as big business.
- Dave, london
Air travel may only represent 2% of current emissions, but it is also almost totally for discretionary purposes. We can chose to not take a city break without impacting our lives whereas not heating our homes is a much bleaker choice. With the projected increases used to try and justify a 3rd runway the percentage would rocket in the very near future.
- Mark, London, UK
Heathrow expansion should be a very last resort, not a
first choice. Politicians are by definition short sighted and easily influenced by powerful pressure groups. I recently saw on television some idiot making calculations based on a hypothetical future aircraft.
Better rail links and the increasing cost of flying will take away much of the need for more airport capacity.
- M Wilkinson, London UK
Now what would be really sensible, would be to enable people to hop onto a Eurostar elsewhere in the country than London, giving them easy access to Europe with timetabled links onto European nations' high-speed rail services that avoided excess waiting and improved speed to destination. This would therefore reduce the need for short haul flights, freeing up capacity at Heathrow and reducing CO2 emissions.
- Matthew, london
Given that aviation accounts only for around 2% of global emissions -- and this is a global issue that the UK can't address alone -- I am baffled why air travel comes in for so much attention from the climate change lobby.
- Aidan Reid, london, uk
You are totally right. It's clearly obvious that Britain need to invest in a first class railway to link London to the main cities. I am from France and the TGV does the job perfectly (Paris to Rennes in Britany just under 1h20) and French people prefer to travel by TGV rather than plane. Maybe the issue is not a third runway to decrease congestion but the desire to stay in the top 3 airports in the world in term of passengers!
- Pamela, London W13
We should charge airlines for the full cost of the pollutions and noise they emit including but not limited to pricing carbon dioxide and by putting fuel tax on aviation fuel.
We should also be moving forward with a new north/south rail line so as to remove the bottle necks from the current rail system. There should be a dependable rail link from most towns in the UK to Heathrow operating close to 24hrs a day with parking at the stations that is cost effective for a 2 week holiday.
Hence most internal flights in the UK become a think of past.
However Heathrow will operate a lot better with a 3rd runway, and a 3rd runway will reduce the number of plains that spend a long time “stacked” and emitting carbon dioxide for no benefit.
Therefore I do not mind BAA funding and building a 3rd runway, provided the also fund a set of quality rail links form Heathrow to connect into a new north/south rail line.
Why can’t we have a world class rail system AND a world class airport?
- Ian Ringrose, Cambride
Professor King is right. I was at Heathrow recently and counted 36 planes on the departure board that were flying within mainland Britain to Edinburgh, Manchester, etc.
Our airports are bursting at the seams because we are using planes as a replacement for Britain's decrepid rail network. The money currently earmarked for Heathrow runway 3 should be diverted to a high-speed rail network for everyone to use.
- Liz, London
