'Dystopian': Rachel Reeves backs third Heathrow runway. What will it mean for the planet?

The government has backed a third runway at Heathrow Airport – a plan environmentalists have slammed as “dystopian”.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves signalled her support for the controversial airport expansion in a speech on Wednesday (29 January), hailing it as a key growth driver

The government will also support plans to bring the second strip at Gatwick into full-time use and increase capacity at Luton airport.

“The last full-length runway in Britain was built in the 1940s. No progress in 80 years,” Reeves said. “A third runway could increase GDP by 0.43% by 2050… and create over 100,000 jobs.”

• Growth and jobs or a net zero nightmare? Why there’s so much opposition to Heathrow’s third runway
• ‘I’m scared – but I’m ready to go’: Why GPs are willing to go to prison to protest the climate crisis
• ‘We have to work with nature’: What UK’s only wild bison herd can teach us about the nature crisis

“We cannot duck the decision any longer… this government supports a third runway at Heathrow, and is inviting proposals to be put forward by the summer.”

The infrastructure proposals come as Reeves reckons with a flatlining economy. They will, the chancellor claims, create thousands of jobs and encourage business investment in Britain. She also denied that the plans would compromise the government’s agenda to reach net zero by 2050.

“There is no trade-off between economic growth and net zero. Quite the opposite. Net zero is the industrial opportunity of the 21st century and Britain must lead the way,” she said.

But environmental campaigners claim that the Heathrow Airport expansion is incompatible with this goal. It will see aviation emissions increase by around seven million tonnes per year – an impact that concerns London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

“I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow Airport because of the severe impact it will have on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets,” he said.

“Despite the progress that’s been made in the aviation sector to make it more sustainable, I’m simply not convinced that you can have hundreds of thousands of additional flights at Heathrow every year without a hugely damaging impact on our environment.”

Last week, Khan told the London Assembly he “wouldn’t hesitate to launch with partners and colleagues another legal challenge” against plans for a third runway.

Anna Krajinska – CEO of Transport & Environment UK – said that the government should focus on changing aviation, not simply expanding it.

 “The chancellor’s decision to grant another airport expansion is dystopian,” she said.

“How can the government aim to meet net zero by 2050 and simultaneously green-light the expansion of a heavily polluting sector? Especially when solutions like sustainable aviation fuels and hydrogen planes are not yet available in sufficient quantities to help bring emissions down.”

Alethea Warrington, head of aviation at climate charity Possible, described it as “economically illiterate”.

“The chancellor wants to boost growth, but new runways won’t strengthen our economy. Bigger airports will only benefit a tiny group of frequent flyers, while worsening the UK’s massive tourism deficit.

“There is no conflict between a safe climate and a strong economy. The chancellor should rethink these dangerous and self-defeating plans, and instead invest in the day to day connectivity provided by affordable, reliable, electrified buses and trains.”

Why does the government support Heathrow expansion?

There is currently no third runway request in planning permission, though Heathrow will likely now submit one.

The last proposal required lowering the M25, rerouting rivers and destroying hundreds of homes. But this, the government believes, would be worth it in the name of growth.  

Over more than a decade of construction, Heathrow’s runway – the biggest privately-funded infrastructure scheme in Europe – would create thousands of jobs, Reeves claimed.  

Once up and running, it would make the airport an import/export hub. Heathrow currently handles £200bn worth of trade a year; a third runway could add an additional £147bn to the economy by 2050.

But aviation has a massive climate cost. Expanding airport capacity would likely negate emission cuts from the government’s clean-power measures. According to the Climate Change Committee – the government’s own independent environmental advisors – “there should be no net airport expansion” without a clear emissions reduction pathway. Britain doesn’t yet have this.

Some economists have questioned whether the plan will actually deliver significant growth.

Dr Alex Chapman – aviation expert and a senior economist at the New Economics Foundation – called for different sorts of investment.

“The UK desperately needs investment, but pushing for airport expansion suggests the government haven’t done their homework because it will not lead to the the sort of economic growth they want,” he said.

“Business travel and air freight have been stagnant for two decades. Incoming tourists are outnumbered almost 3:1, so expansion simply means sending more cash overseas.”

Chapman instead called for “smart public investments in renewables to get energy bills down, in green industry and infrastructure to boost growth and wages, and in the NHS and social security to help us keep healthy”.

The planning permission request will be subject to various legal and environmental processes – and possible legal challenge.

The No Third Runway Coalition estimate it will lead to the demolition of 1,000 homes and render a further 5,500 uninhabitable due to noise pollution.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.