It is a sign of the British political world’s current priorities that Theresa May has finally made the decision to opt for a third runway at Heathrow. She promised it was a decision for “jobs and growth”, both of which may be scarcer in the post-Brexit era in which the new runway will come into service. Pumping hope into the economy is now considered worth alienating every Conservative council and MP whose voters live under the flightpath of planes using the new runway, including Mrs May’s own Maidenhead constituents. It is worth at least one backbench resignation (and maybe a lost byelection) and a novel reinterpretation of the convention about cabinet responsibility in order to accommodate public dissent from at least two ministers. It is worth what will probably be millions of pounds fighting legal challenges over air and noise pollution. Most of all, the decision puts old-fashioned economics firmly ahead of tackling climate change, which turned out not to be worth a single mention in transport secretary Chris Grayling’s opening statement to MPs.
The decision, which has now to be incorporated into a national policy statement on aviation that MPs will vote on some time in the next 18 months, comes heavily gilded with incentives to local residents to take the money and keep quiet. About 750 homes will be subject to compulsory purchase: £1.5bn has been set aside to pay compensation at the market rate for the unblighted value of each home and for the resettlement costs of the residents. At least another £1bn will be paid out for noise insulation in schools and improvements in public facilities. There will be a new community resource fund. Mr Grayling promised MPs that there would be a 50% increase in travellers arriving at Heathrow by public transport, and the cost of improving road access would fall not to the taxpayer but to the developers. The £17bn bill for development is to be picked up by the developers and not passed on to air passengers. A senior retired judge has been appointed to oversee the consultation period. “This is not expansion at any cost, but the right scheme at the right price,” Mr Grayling declared.
There are many flaws in the government case which a determined opposition will unpick between now and the next general election in 2020. Campaigners, including the foreign secretary Boris Johnson, already plan to make it a central issue. This is the decision of a government that is not prepared to think boldly about the implications of its commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 80% over the next 35 years. Instead, a huge investment will be made in promoting leisure travel (which already accounts for almost two-thirds of journeys in and out of Heathrow) in the name of facilitating business connections.
Thousands of jobs will be created – but they will mainly be for baggage handlers and baristas. Mr Grayling made a commitment to at least six new domestic destinations to enhance UK-wide connectivity, a questionable decision if the government review of HS2, the high speed train that will one day link Glasgow and Edinburgh to London, gives the project the go-ahead. If, on the other hand, HS2 is vetoed, the pressure for more highly polluting short-haul flights will only grow. Expanding air travel will make it harder than ever to cut carbon emissions to meet the targets set out in the newly ratified Paris agreement. Air pollution has an even more immediate effect on the health of the local population. The area around Heathrow already regularly breaches safe levels of nitrogen dioxide and, with expansion, will continue to do so up until 2030. Local councils are threatening a legal challenge on those grounds alone. The lobbying organisation ClientEarth has just taken the government back to court for failing to obey an earlier injunction to produce a national plan for tackling pollution.
The scale of an opposition that has been years in preparation may be enough to stall plans altogether. Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP for Richmond Park who has resigned over the go-ahead, warned Mr Grayling that his plan was doomed. He ought to be right. This is a short-sighted investment that may provide a boost to the economy – a mere £60bn over 60 years – at the cost of long-term harm to globally critical climate change objectives. This is no way to run an economy that works for everyone: more flights and greater connectivity will benefit only those who can afford to travel. Those who can’t will gain nothing, not so much as a single airline meal.
