The case for Heathrow Expansion - (Cheese) Pie in the Sky

Simon Bullock

28 August 2012

Last week I borrowed my dad's rucksack to carry essentials for a climb up Glas Tulaichean in the Cairngorms. He had a handy first aid kit in a top pocket, which I removed, and replaced with an extra cheese pie.

The British Mountaineering Club won't be asking me to post safety blogs on their website.

While I was on the summit a huge, slow thunderstorm barrelled in from the south - a black, cold monstrosity the Met Office had stolidly failed to forecast. I munched on my pie. "It's more use than a first-aid kit" I thought. "Its extra weight will stop me getting blown 400 metres into that dank bog way below."

I can invent all sorts of nonsense when I need to. 

Getting back to work today I see Tim Yeo can do the same. The papers are full of stories of Arctic Ice disappearing. A big hurricane is about to hit Florida. The USA has had shocking droughts, the UK some of its wettest weather in history. Climate change is already happening and it is bad news. And one of the UK's chief science advisors says we are on course for far worse - a fifty-fifty chance of temperatures rising by 3 degrees above pre-industrial levels - with 5 degrees not out of the question. And yet, the big decision seemingly in the balance is whether the Government should change policy and build a new runway at Heathrow.

There are few things more stupid when faced with worsening climate change than building yet more huge carbon intensive infrastructure, which lock-in emissions for decades. And that's exactly what Heathrow expansion will do.

Mr Yeo argues that Heathrow's emissions are no problem - because aviation will be covered by the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EUETS). The argument runs that because the EUETS caps European emissions, an increase in the UK's emissions will simply mean fewer emissions from Poland or Italy. And so, it literally doesn't matter what anyone does.

This argument is bunk.

First, the EUETS is a broken policy. Its cap is far too high - so is not in line with world governments stated policy of preventing 2 degrees warming. It's also not a proper cap - huge quantities of 'offsets' are allowed, buying in credits from countries without caps. So emissions in the UK genuinely do matter.

Second, to get the EUETS to work in future will need a big political fight to close loopholes and lower the cap. There are huge lobbying forces at work here - the more countries lock themselves into high-carbon, the less likely they are to lobby for a tougher cap. Locking-in to more high carbon infrastructure like Heathrow will just make it even less likely that countries like the UK will fight for an EUETS worth having.

The economic case for Heathrow expansion has always been dodgy, but on climate change grounds alone it should be thrown out.

Assuming the EUETS will sort out climate change is as risky as packing cheese pies instead of bandages.