Afternoon:
10°c
Amid the fury of the row over Heathrow expansion, the environmental debate gets increasingly eccentric. George Monbiot, in yesterday's Guardian, was keen to rebrand the green cause as a proletarian one: the third runway is about providing flights for toffs with second homes, he says. He even has a sideswipe at Agas. He claims that people campaign against patio heaters for snobbish reasons, whereas the equally evil but middle-class Aga gets away with murder.
Monbiot confuses class with money. In my experience, Aga-owners tend to be environmentally conscious toffs. They are often penny-pinchers (accidental greens) who use their beloved cooker to heat one room in a freezing house: it is for everything from defrosting the dog to making toast. The Aga set, like the Queen, turn off lights and wear ancient clothes; they don't support the polluters behind the third runway.
Which brings us to the only class who might conceivably support the third runway: the business class. Baroness Valentine, chief executive of London First, would have us believe that London's business leaders are keen on a third runway. Interestingly, she neither names any nor does she acknowledge that two of London First's key sponsors are BAA and British Airways. Her argument - that we need a third runway in case other people think we are uncompetitive - is as vague as it is irritating. London First claims to be "London's champion"; how this will be achieved by making our city a noisy, polluted transport hub (a threat so great its Mayor is considering legal action) is hard to fathom.
It seems the only people who actually want this runway are Gordon Brown, because he's decided that it represents "progress" to have half the world changing planes in London; Spanish-owned BAA, who cannot even run their existing airports; and British Airways, whose interest is so vested as to be irrelevant. Valentine says our "rivals" will be "gloving up" early for the upturn; she cites Dubai and Shanghai, two cities which illustrate how sincere her environmental concerns are.
Valentine claims that a raging argument is "democracy in action": not if the majority view is ignored. If our unelected PM starts his election campaign approving something this unpopular and environmentally unfriendly while making hypocritical noises about light bulbs, he's toast.
* Catherine Ostler is editor of ES Magazine.
Reader views (7)
we need to replace short haul planes with high speed rail which also take cars off the road. also why should we suffer more noise and air pollution to make it easier for people from overseas to change planes. business isnt everything. there are also security issues with having one main airport as a hub. Also new planes like the Boing dreamliner have longer ranges which means more direct flights. Mirabel in <ontreal, now closed, was intended as a hub as it was expected that international flights would need to refuel but then the planes were able to go further and flew right over it !
- Nick Sloan, welwyn england, 15/01/2009 04:14
Report abuse
It's all folly, as you say. Pure Hubris.
Keeping up with the Schmidts. We must have more runways because the Germans have more runways. Let them cover the entire country with tarmac and fumes if they think that's so clever.
We don't need it.
BAA and BA might benefit, but nobody else in London or the rest of the UK.
- Alex Mckenna, Manchester, 14/01/2009 22:16
Report abuse
Good sense and truth seem to have left this government when it comes to aviation. Will the party of that did so much for working conditions in the 19th and 20th century destroy the lives of so many in the 21st century for the same motive - Profit.
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 14/01/2009 18:00
Report abuse
Thanks for some sense in this debate. I'm sick of the parroted phrase 'competitive hub' - as if London's future depends on long haul travellers changing planes at Heathrow rather than Frankfurt. The only economic gain from this activity is seen in BAA's shopping malls. It does not even guarantee London connections to more major cities, as BA has been cutting these regardless of capacity.
- Colin, London, 14/01/2009 15:48
Report abuse
Well said Ms Ostler. Any advantages created by a third runway will be more than offset by the quality of life in London - already an issue - thereby discouraging international businesses from locating here.
- Philip Norland, Bayswater, 14/01/2009 15:36
Report abuse
I disagree. My aga has changed my life. It is my central heating, my kettle, my toaster and there is nothing like it for cooking meringues.
- Maureen O'Rourke, Guildford, 14/01/2009 15:33
Report abuse
Aga cookers are for snobbish sentimentalists who would be happier in the 18th or 19th century than in tyhe 21st. There is no evidence that Agas produce better culinary results and plenty of evidence that they pollute the planet. Ban them - and let the middle classes fume!
- Alex, London, 14/01/2009 13:30
Report abuse
