The Observer view on a third Heathrow runway: Rachel Reeves is flying in face of a dire climate threat | Observer editorial

andOr 20 years old, politicians, industry leaders and activists in the courts, parliament and public meetings were fought about the idea of ​​building a new runway for Heathrow. For some, the third runway will not only enhance the number of passengers at the airport, but will be a symbol of the country’s determination to search for economic renewal. For others, it may prove, in live terms, our complete failure to understand the dark global threat posed by increased carbon emissions.

Last week, Rachel Reeves chose to enter the battle. Noticeably, for a supposed green consultant, she chose to do so Project support He requested the expansion of Heathrow to raise its annual passengers ’annual capacity by about 140 million. “The third runway in Heathrow would open more growth, enhance investment, increase exports and make the United Kingdom more open and more connected.” It was a bold step. History is unlikely to be seen as a reasonable or justified type. Almost every level – political, local or environmental – its decision appears naive, if not fool.

Consider the local impact of building a third runway. like John McDunil, the deputy, has indicatedThe third runway may mean that 4000 properties in the Hayes and Harlington circle – in which Heathrow sits – will be demolished or made not noise or air pollution. About 10,000 men, women and children will be forced out of their homes as a result. In addition, schools, churches, and community centers will be lost if it is moved in the Heathro runway. For a nation in the midst of the housing crisis, moving forward in a project with this bright result seems strange.

The local population can be expected to protest a great power, and many London will be supported by the rest of London. Regardless of the demolition of thousands of homes around Heathrow, the new runway will require the conversion of a river and the redirect of the M25 under a huge new tunnel. The disorders will be large and durable.

Critics also indicated, growth in the southeast can be stimulated in ways that will cause a much lower disruption, such as the proposed extensions of the light Docklands railway and Bakerloo tube line, and the construction of the Crossrail 2 line. They have low environmental effects.

For its part, Reeves claimed that a third runway would reduce the number of aircraft that revolve around Heathrow – while burning fuel and removing carbon dioxide – because it is waiting for the slot of landing. In addition, the introduction of sustainable aviation fuel in the coming years will reduce the carbon fingerprint in the industry in the long run. Both demands are doubtful.

The sustainable aviation fuel – made from renewable sources such as crops and agricultural waste – is currently working on only a small part of flights throughout the planet, and increases production under real challenges for manufacturers. accident Royal Community Report When calculating that the development of enough crops to make all our flying fuel sustainable requires about half of the UK agricultural lands to turn this purpose.

There is no evidence to support the prosecution that the increase in Heathrow’s ability will make it easy to provide landing holes. The new runway is constructed specifically to increase the number of flights inside and outside the airport, and this increase will soon click on the provision of landing holes, so the planes in stacks are likely to continue in southern England.

Reeves has not been published in these allegations, and activists have truly expressed doubts about the advisers asserting the benefits of the third runway. They point out that in 2023, the UK flying was equivalent to the equivalent 32.9 million tons of carbon dioxide Nearly 8 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the country for that year. It is difficult to see how building a third runway in Heathrow, which will increase flights there from 480,000 to 720,000 per year, will help reduce this emissions number. Reeves arguments appear and unrealistic, at the very least.

Waiting for a long time to announce the moves to enhance the economy after imposing harsh financial measures last year, Reeves appears to have been terrified and excessive compensation for an unlimited step to stimulate growth. In simple phrases, the decision to support a third runway plan in Heathrow left the green credit papers for the new government in Thaters.

Britain is committed to Achieving Safar by 2050At this point, the United Kingdom had to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100 % of 1990 levels. If such a goal was achieved, the nation takes over its role in saving the world from catastrophic storms, drought, loss of coral reefs and catastrophic sea levels, Many changes in our behavior and restrictions should be tolerated. On air travel may be one of these.

It will be an unforgivable waste of money to build a dedicated edifice to support an industry linked to the result of the climate that threatens to lead to global instability. From these perspectives, Heathrow III seems a terrible political mistake.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you want to provide a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered to be published in our Messages Please section Click here.