Be realistic about Heathrow expansion

Rejecting growth at our main airport would not make the slightest practical difference to the future of the planet

Willie Walsh
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 December 2008 13.00 GMT

Aviation is absolutely committed to neutralising and then reducing its climate change impact.
Emissions trading will become a reality in three years' time and advances in engine and airframe technology, lower carbon fuels and operational changes will all have major effects on the industry's carbon footprint.
Global warming is an urgent, complex issue, which many environmental scientists admit they do not fully understand.
I make no claims for a full understanding. What I do know is that global warming is global. Which is why I question the view that expansion of one airport, Heathrow, means catastrophe for the planet.
Heathrow is our national hub. It is a big airport for the UK, but its runway capacity is much smaller than rival hubs in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. That is why it offers a smaller route network, and is more vulnerable to delays.
A third runway at Heathrow would not open before 2020. By then, the EU emissions trading scheme will have applied to airlines for eight years. Carbon emissions will have been capped at 2005 levels – and if airlines want to fly more (from Heathrow or any other airport in Europe), they will be able to do so only if they pay for equivalent emissions reductions elsewhere.
Net C02 emissions in the atmosphere will not increase as a result of expansion at Heathrow.
It is absolutely right that aviation should meet its full environmental costs. In fact, through the UK's uniquely heavy and rising level of air travel taxation (air passenger duty), UK airlines already do – with something to spare.
We must see things in perspective. If we closed every UK airport tomorrow, we would reduce global C02 emissions by 0.1%.
And if we decide not to build a third runway at Heathrow, we will not reduce absolute emissions one iota.
As the economy recovers, demand for travel will grow. If that demand cannot be met at Heathrow, it will simply transfer to rival international hubs such as Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam (which already have four or five runways each).
Lack of runway slots at Heathrow will force people living in the north of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to fly long-haul via continental hubs. So emissions will grow at those airports instead.
For residents of the south-east, the lack of new runway capacity will mean that the direct long-haul network will continue to wither – and they too will have to become accustomed to inconvenient indirect flights via overseas hubs.
And as we buckle our straitjacket, other countries will laugh. France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain already have their extra capacity. Dubai will continue progress on its new six-runway hub, and China with building its 97 new airports in the next 12 years. There are many other examples.
Let's face reality. Rejecting growth at Heathrow would not make the slightest practical difference to the future of the planet.
It would make a huge difference to the ability of UK employers to win and maintain business in a global economy. Multi-national businesses do not have to locate in Britain. If global connections look permanently better elsewhere, they will move.
I want to beat climate change. Aviation is on the brink of neutralising its climate change impacts, and will go on to reduce them. Global warming is global. It is not about Heathrow.