Sky News Business Correspondent Joel Hills

Climate change protestors have been pretty busy in recent days, scaling the roof of Parliament today, clambering onto a BA Airbus on Monday.

In the case of each publicity stunt the groups involved were different but the message was the same: No Third Runway.

Leave aside the issue of laughable security, at the centre of all this there is a serious issue: Heathrow, the world's busiest international airport, has run out of space.

If Heathrow is to retain its importance it must expand but the question is should the government allow an airport where a plane takes-off or lands every 45 seconds to get any bigger?

The environmental argument is clear cut and compelling: aviation is a significant polluter, allowing Heathrow to grow by 50% at a time when we should be exploring ways of reducing CO2 emissions is "plane stupid".

This is not just about the well-being of the poor residents unlucky enough to live and sleep under a flight path, they say, the future of the planet is at stake.

But there is an economic issue here too. The airlines all predict (rather predictably) that not building the runway would be a disaster.

But don't dismiss everything they say as spin and self-interest. The fact is for most business travellers and many tourists Heathrow and therefore London is the gateway to Europe.

That's an important economic advantage to the UK and one rival airports like Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam are desperate to steal - indeed in recent years they have been closing the gap on Heathrow (Amsterdam Schipol, for example has 5 runways, compared to Heathrow's 2, and serves 21 UK airports, compared to Heathrow's 9).

The government knows that billions of pounds of British exports and thousands of UK jobs rely on Heathrow.

It estimates a third runway would bring about "net economic benefits" of £5bn - that figure takes into account the costs associated with climate change and increased noise pollution.

The government consultation on adding capacity at Heathrow closes today. The public and the various lobby groups have had their say now the government must make a decision.

If the problem of climate change is to be tackled at some stage the government will have to put the environment before the economy.

It's a tough political call.

Comments

[Chris, Heathrow villages 4 Mar 2008 00:00:44]

What a twisted logic the pro-expansion people employ to justify their selfish lifestyle choices. If Ian cares so much about his mother, why doesn't he uproot her, or move himself, so that they can see one another more often without resorting to long-haul air travel? He thinks nothing of uprooting thousands of inhabitants of Heathrow villages in the mistaken belief that this will cut his twice-yearly journey time. More runways will mean more planes, so get used to delays. Once our planet is destroyed do you really think fines will enable us to turn the clock back? Again, money is seen as the solution to everything. As for trees - the planet could do with more of them and fewer ignorant, selfish individuals with attitudes like yours.

[Maxine Payne sipson 29 Feb 2008 10:22:02]

A Government giving foreign corporations the right of expansion and the right to remove families from there homes.
A country with no human rights given to the families children and old people no right to family life.
Are we talking about China, or a third world country struggling to feed starving people or another country with bad record on human of rights records?

No we are talking about England.
I live in Sipson village under the shadow of government's almighty Airport expansion. I am a women bringing up 2 children in a situation I never thought possible in England. I look around and ask in a country that gives opportunity to every nationality turning up on our doorstep. Human rights to terrorists, murderers, rapists and child molesters what have I done.
My crime is living in sipson village, we don't have human rights it's not in our government's policy to give human rights to families that get in their way.
But the policy of this country to take your home and your land to let foreign companies & industry make billions of pounds from our misery.
At present this has cost us our family life, Worry and distress .
We want to be treated fairly an open market price without government backing would mean these companies that are due to make multi million's of pounds would have to participate in proper compensation level's.

As it stands the money they would offer us falls far short. We cannot afford to move into another village and my husband would have to use a car spending money on petrol and his time to travel. Why should struggling families have to pay and suffer while this government gives foreign companies the right to profit from us.

This is wrong let this be a warning to every family in this country that this government is putting profit's of foreign companies before families. And as a local of Sipson a mother of 2 children and proud to stand up against injustice I will fight till the end.

Mrs M J Payne
Wife of a Very upset & stressed airport worker.

[Ian Tel Aviv 28 Feb 2008 09:59:34]

I travel to England twice a year to see my family, whenever we get to Heathrow we go in to a holding pattern and go round in circles till we land.
This goes on for sometimes up to 30 minutes.
So if the GREEN campaigners are really interested in the truth and not just getting there picture on TV and of course getting points from their friends for doing so, then they need to look at the actual impact on the environment.
The third runway would allow flights to come in to land quicker, less time in the air over London less polution over London.
But they are not interested, no runway, reduce flights, who cares that I want to see my family, who cares that my mother looks forward to my visits. Forget the human side of things, think about the trees, the air and our childrens future.
Not everything is black and white and if they really understood then they would be protesting that if a third runway is built then planes MUST NOT circle over London and flights must be brought straight in to land.
This is a target that BAA can be measured on and if they do not achieve it, fined for failling to manage the airport properly.
I am fed up with these campaigners thinking they know what is best for everyone.

[Khalid 27 Feb 2008 18:09:39]

Sir
If we were to [Imagine] a world without planes then not only would there be more pollutants in the air, but a lot of hot air flowing from face to face.
Putting aside the drivel many a environmentalist puts in the air, economic as well as social climate areas have benefitted and indeed as with everything in life, more can an will be done.
However, what many a green soul fails to comprehend is that we live in the 21st century and I bet you my bottom dollar that each and every campaigner contributes to world pollution, if not direclty but indireclty by way of such nonsensical demos.
Aviation fuel, whilst the least pollutant of all has undergone major cleansing streams, and continues to do so, further paves the way for more and more advanced jets as well as social wellbeing.
The third runway will not only benefit the climate by way of getting planes on the ground quicker as oppose to stacking them en-route but create more wealth for generations to come.
So, as [John Lennon] devoted peaceful measures to get his meassage across, so should these green godesses,whilst at the same time they need to understand that if we were to revert to their perverse logic, no one would move. Other than that, lets hope the courts freeze their assets soonest.

[Geraldine Nicholson, West Drayton 27 Feb 2008 17:57:34]

"(Amsterdam Schipol, for example has 5 runways, compared to Heathrow's 2, and serves 21 UK airports, compared to Heathrow's 9)."

I just love the Amsterdam argument. Let's take a closer look at it. They do not use all 5 runways at the same time, this gives residents respite from aircraft noise, but no-one tells us that.

The 21 destinations UK destinations from Amsterdam are Aberdeen, Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Cork, Durham Tees, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Humberside, Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Southampton, London City, London Gatwick, London Luton, London Stansted.

It would be sheer folly to fly from Heathrow to the London airports, Bristol, Cardiff, East Midlands, Norwich, Southampton - so 9 destinations can be discounted from the 21.

Of the remaining routes, the only destinations not served by Heathrow are Humberside and Liverpool. Humberside is near enough to Leeds Bradford and Liverpool is near enough to Manchester so therefore Heathrow serves the UK just as well as Amsterdam.

Now for the economics, is a third runway worth £5bn per year or £5bn over a 70 year period, it's not clear in the consultation document. However, that doesn't matter - we spend more flying out of the country than visitors coming in do - the deficit seems to increase with the predicted length of the runway but last I heard its £17bn. That £5bn doesn't look so hot now.

Then there's the human element - AT LEAST 700 homes destroyed, we don't know what the road systems will eat up - but there is one proposed through the local cemetary! Not much chance of resting in peace round here.

Schools demolished, left on the airport boundary or under the flight path - great legacy for our kids!

Thousands of homes living on the edge of a building site for X number of years and their homes rendered uninhabitable through substantial increases in noise.

There's more but no-one seems to want to talk about the human aspect!