News that Heathrow is proposing not one, but two new runways
in its submission to the Davies Commission on aviation expansion, is the culmination
of a crafty lobbying strategy that swung into action as soon as the last
election was over.
The Tories and Liberal Democrats won votes in London for their
commitment to overturn New Labour's decision to go ahead with a third runway. As
soon as David Cameron got his feet under the table, that policy was rolling
backwards.
Corporate lobbyists told him he would eventually have to
agree and suggested how to do it. Set up an enquiry, they said, shift the
debate away from whether new capacity is needed at all, in light of runaway
climate change, to be about where in the south-east new capacity will be.
Let everyone put forward their views - even Bonkers Boris
and his hair brained island gateway plan.
Get Howard Davies, former head of the Confederation of
British Industry – one of the main cheerleaders for airport expansion – to
finalise his commission’s
report after the next election, so it is not an issue in London . Then whichever party is in power can study
it carefully – and then give Heathrow and the airline industry what it wants.
The Financial Times
has called the Davies Commission a "battle of ideas", but it is no
such thing. It is just underhand chicanery to circumvent popular opposition in London , including in Tory or Lib-Dem strongholds like Richmond and Kingston .
Heathrow made the astonishing claim
that by adding a third, and then a fourth, runway they would be able to reduce
the noise nuisance. They must think we are plane stupid.
The new runway will increase the number of flights by 54%
from 480,000 to 740,000 each year. About 250,000 people are already deemed to be
suffering from noise nuisance so how can more than doubling the number of
flights make it quieter?
Heathrow runs at 98% capacity, unlike rivals at Paris
Charles De Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt
which all have spare capacity. They want to use it to add more long-haul
flights to the industrial and commercial hubs in India ,
China , Brazil and Russia . Heathrow does not want to
be left behind.
Whilst Heathrow has proposed three possible sites for a
third runway - either to the north, northwest or southwest of the existing
airport – this may be no more than a trick. The southern route would put
wealthy homeowners in Richmond
and Twickenham under the flight path. One of the northern routes would require
demolition of the village
of Harmondsworth
The second northern route is almost the same as the original
proposal and would mean demolition of 2,500 homes in Harlington, Cranford Cross
and Sipson and this is the one Heathrow wants.
However, they were at
pains to stress that it is the government that will make the final decision, adding
a figleaf of democratic accountability over the whole sordid adventure.
The government's advisory Committee
on Climate Change has written to Davies, reminding him that aviation
emissions are included in the UK 's
legally binding emissions reduction targets.
The target, which is to reduce economy-wide emissions by 80%
against 1990 levels by 2050, can only be achieved if aviation emissions are
reduced to 2005 levels by 2050.
This is totally incompatible with Heathrow's plans for
airport expansion. Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd., which owns Heathrow, Stansted
and Aberdeen
airports, is itself owned by a holding company called FGP Topco. It is in turn
wholly owned by Spanish firm Ferrovial.
This year the Chinese Investment Corporation – aka as the
Chinese government – bought a 10% stake in Heathrow and the Qatar government
sovereign wealth fund is waiting for European competition regulators to rule on
whether it can buy a 20% stake.
These investments are for one purpose only – to get a return
on capital that makes it a business proposition. So, in the end, neither the
quality of life for Londoners nor the dangers of climate change will be
deciding factor. As always, it will be business as usual.
Penny Cole
Environment editor
No comments:
Post a Comment