Heathrow airport expansion: increasing carbon emissions so rich people can go on holiday more often

A few weeks before the US president elect committed to scrapping the Paris Climate Deal, the UK government approved a third runway at Heathrow. Most of the mainstream political establishment accepts that airport expansion in the South East is necessary for the UK’s international trade, and the substantive arguments have been about where it should be, which makes any form of protest against expansion in Heathrow seem like self-interested NIMBYism.

I think most people have been duped by what is essentially self-interested lobbying on the part of the airline industry, and I have dug out publicly available data from the Office of National Statistics and various other sources to debunk the argument that airport expansion in the South East is necessary for UK international business growth.

If you are feeling despondent and concerned about our prospects of avoiding dangerous climate change, the third runway at Heathrow is an immediate local issue that needs action. It’s something you can influence now, by writing to your MP, donating to the Greenpeace legal challenge to the government, and attending an organised protest. Read on for more data on why:

1. We need to reduce emissions from flights
2. Most flights to and from the UK are rich people going on lots of holidays
3. Most of the growth in flights over the last 20 years is NOT from business flights
4. Growth in UK overseas trade doesn’t mean growth in flights
5. Even if you don’t buy that, projected growth in business flights needn’t require airport expansion
6. Oh yeah, and don’t forget, not all of these journeys need to be flights…

1. We need to reduce emissions from flights

Switching to a green electricity supplier and eating less meat and dairy and ensuring that your pension fund is not financing dirty energy are good places to start in terms of cutting your carbon footprint. So is cutting down on flights. But unlike other switches, there isn’t always an easy substitute. For some destinations, it’s the only way to get there. On a global scale, aviation is only 5% of global emissions. Given the carbon reductions to be made in other industries, why don’t we just live and let fly?

Well, air travel is uniquely high in GHG emissions compared to other industries, a particularly carbon intensive form of transport, and it’s growing fast. Since 1990 emissions from aviation have increased by 87%. (There is a more good data on this topic on the Airport watch website.)

In the UK, we cannot meet our emissions reduction targets under the Climate Change Act and build a third runway. Here is some great analysis from the Green Party on why.

Ok, but surely we need a third runway somewhere in the South East for international business?

A lot has been said about why we shouldn’t have a third runway at Heathrow. . Only the green party are arguing that we don’t need airport expansion in the South East at all.

The argument repeated over and over, most loudly by the airline industry, is that we need airport expansion for the sake of UK international trade. And, given that the UK has decided to Brexit, surely this is more important than ever?

Well, I took publicly available ONS data on flights taken by UK residents overseas, combined it with data on flights taken to the UK by overseas residents, to show that:

2. Most flights to and from the UK are rich people going on lots of holidays

While 52% of the UK population did not fly last year, 10% flew four or more times, accounting for 47% of flights.

(https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-experiences-of-and-attitudes-towards-air-travel-2014).

These are the average household incomes of people taking leisure flights from the main London airports, taken from the 2015 CAA passenger survey:

The average household income in the UK is £25,700 a year.

3. Most of the growth in flights over the last 20 years is NOT from business

If I was an airline, I’d be wanting to expand airport capacity because of my expected volume growth from people going on holiday.

4. Growth in UK overseas trade does not need a growth in flights

I have compared longitudinal data on the number of business flights with the total value of UK exports adjusted for inflation, and couldn’t see any relationship between them.

Some business needs some in-person contact, which for some journeys means flying. But many companies recognise that business flights impose financial, carbon, time and employee well-being costs. That’s why many are reducing business travel, and implementing video conferencing, telepresence and other technologies that help people collaborate remotely. WWF worked with leading UK businesses such as CapGemini, BskyB, Vodafone, Lloyds TSB and Microsoft from 2009 -2011 and helped them cut flights on average by 38% over three years.

5. Even if you don’t buy that, projected growth in business flights doesn’t mean we need to increase airport capacity

Even if you don’t buy this argument and think that we need more airport capacity for international business, why not take a slice out of leisure travel for the very rich? This is exactly what Green Party has proposed, with a frequent flyer levy that gives everyone in the UK one tax-free flight a year, and imposes increasingly punitive taxation on successive flights, which would fund greener alternatives to flying. This would make it easier for low income families to go on holiday once a year. This picture from campaign group A Free Ride sums it up nicely:

We can keep air travel flat overall, increase flights for business, and reduce leisure flights by increasing tax on frequent flyers.

6. Oh yeah, and don’t forget, not all of these journeys need to be flights

In 2013, nine of the ten most popular destinations from Heathrow were short haul flights. That means many could be substituted by train. Trains are ten times less polluting than air travel, and often a lot more pleasant. Instead of succumbing to the logic of the airline industry’s endless plans for growth, why don’t the government support Deutsche Bahn operating in the channel tunnel to unlock fast train travel to Germany?

If this has convinced you, please consider supporting the Greenpeace legal challenge to the government, attend an organised protest, plan to take your next holiday by rail, and share any other suggestions you have for taking action.