Go-ahead for new Heathrow runway

"Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has told MPs the government has approved controversial plans to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

The confirmation of the expansion comes despite opposition from residents, environmentalists and MPs.

Leading business and union figures back the project, saying it will create jobs and boost the UK's competitiveness.

The Tories called it a "bleak day for the environment" and said they would "fight it every step of the way".

And the debate was halted when local Labour MP John McDonnell shouted "disgrace" as the transport secretary said MPs would not get a vote on the decision.

After refusing requests to end his protest he was ordered out of the Commons and suspended for a week.

The government has long argued, in principle, that it is in favour of the scheme, subject to noise and air pollution limits, and undertakings about access and traffic congestion"

 (BBC News Online, 15/1/09, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm)

After hearing about the move from Greenpeace to attempt to block the development of the proposed runway at Heathrow many people actually thought that we might be one step closer to actually having a say to what happens in the UK. However, with recent news reporting that despite all of the opposition that the decision has been made to expand Heathrow. After studying Air Pollution as a unit at University I am well informed of the benefits of airports in boosting the economy but at what cost to the environment?

The government seems to pretend like they are concerned about the environment and claim that they are applying 'sustainable development' to everything they do but the expansion of Heathrow only shows that the government has little regard for the environment. There are many issues to consider when looking at the constraints placed upon airports, many people don't seem to understand that these restrictions are there for a reason. Even the government seems to ignore them by allowing growth within this sector.

Not only do airports create air pollution, they require a large volume of natural resources in order to operate. Vast quantities of water are required for toilets, cleaning (floors and pots) and drinking - this demand is constantly increasing. In terms of energy, the amount of electricity required to light the vast area in which airports cover and the amount of gas needed to keep these large spaces at a comfortable temperature also place high demand on resources and contribute to co2 emissions. Some airports have actually been found to consume the same amount of resources as a small city!

Many people also do not know that the biggest source of pollution at an airport is actually caused by people travelling to the airport by personal transport, these vehicles cause congestion and create many problems for residents around the airport... and of course in the eyes of the airports these emissions do not count towards the emissions created by them!!

I feel let down by this decision and I expect this is just the beginning of many more decisions that will 'improve our economy' at the cost of the environment and our future. What does anyone else think? If anyone wants any information on sustainable aviation just let me know and I will try dig out my old Uni notes and government reports for you to look at.

What we need to focus on is:

*Improving existing infrastructure such as rail and road (as internal flights should not be allowed!)

*Educate the public on the issues and try to reduce the demand (such as discouraging them from taking budget holidays)

*Increase restrictions, or actually enforce the restrictions that already exist.