
The Socialist 21 January 2009
No more bailouts for bosses!
Fast news: My Lords, Ladies and cash dispenser
Gaza war paves way for further conflict
Protesting against Gaza attacks
Egypt: Gaza conflict fuels anti-Mubarak opposition
Readers' comment: media reporting on Gaza
Fighting the cuts in Greenwich
Shop workers need a fighting trade union leadership
Hoover workers march in protest at job losses
Obama takes power: What change will the Democrats bring?
Refugees and repression in war ravaged Sri Lanka
Exiled Zimbabweans demand Brown acts
Capitalism kills, concludes study of privatisation era
Opposing the expansion of Heathrow
Waltham Forest anti-incinerator campaign: Residents get results
Campaigners fight attacks on education and the environment
What's going on? The meanderings of a comic mind in confusion, by Mark Steel
PO Box 24697, London, E11 1YD
020 8988 8777
editors@socialistparty.org.uk

Link to this page: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/563/6783
![]() | |||
Home | The Socialist 21 January 2009 | Join the Socialist Party
Opposing the expansion of Heathrow
The government's decision to give the go ahead for a third runway at Heathrow has dominated headlines in London. The expansion will raise the number of Heathrow flights from 480,000 a year to 700,000 according to government figures.
Neil Cafferky
The big businesses backing the project are adamant that it is vital to the competitiveness of Heathrow, and to the economy of London and so to the UK as a whole. At present Heathrow operates at 99% capacity, meaning that the slightest difficulty can cause severe delays. In contrast European competitors operate at 75% capacity.
Also, New Labour, and some trade unions, have argued that expansion will generate much needed jobs, and that the government will enforce anti-pollution measures to lessen its environmental impact.
So do their arguments stack up? On closer examination the answer has to be a resounding no.
Wildly optimistic
Firstly, New Labour has refused to acknowledge that the economic downturn has made their projected figure of 700,000 extra flights by 2030 look wildly optimistic. Added to this, the evidence that increasing the number of flights will benefit the UK economy is weak. The majority of the increased flights will be connecting flights to other destinations meaning the amount of money actually spent in the UK will be 'no more than the price of a cup of coffee in the departure lounge' as a former head of British Airways put it.
As air travel is one of the most heavily subsidised forms of transport in Britain (eg domestic aviation does not pay any fuel duty or VAT), there would be minimal return for the UK taxpayer.
Many victims of Heathrow delays would welcome an end to them. However, they are as much a result of privatisation of the airport authority (and British Airways) as they are of lack of capacity.
The environmental evidence is even more damning. Aviation already accounts for 13% of overall UK climate change impact. By 2050, if expansion continues, it will account for half of the UK's 'carbon budget'. Added to this is the fact that aviation emissions have two to four times the impact in the upper atmosphere as emissions produced on the ground.
Also, the European Commission has warned that the UK will exceed recommended emissions of nitrogen dioxide in the area if the expansion goes ahead.
The prospect of greater air and noise pollution, not to mention the planned destruction of the village of Sipson, has ignited a storm of protest to the Heathrow proposals. The government is still acutely vulnerable to electoral and political pressure on the expansion, so it is far from a foregone conclusion.
A broad constellation of forces, including environmentalists, trade unionists, local residents, the Conservative Party and several rebel Labour MPs, will continue to oppose the project.
It would be wrong to single out air travel as the greatest obstacle to cutting carbon emissions, but measures such as giving workers longer holidays could allow people to take more leisurely and less polluting forms of transport.
However the reality is that capitalism cannot provide an integrated, properly planned transport system that is a vital component of any strategy to reduce carbon emissions. Under a socialist plan of production, air, sea, rail and road travel could be integrated, and sufficient investment put into non-polluting forms of travel to ensure a better and cleaner planet.
In this issue
Fast news: My Lords, Ladies and cash dispenser
War and occupation
Gaza war paves way for further conflict
Protesting against Gaza attacks
Egypt: Gaza conflict fuels anti-Mubarak opposition
Readers' comment: media reporting on Gaza
Socialist Party campaigns
Fighting the cuts in Greenwich
Shop workers need a fighting trade union leadership
Hoover workers march in protest at job losses
Socialist Party feature
Obama takes power: What change will the Democrats bring?
International socialist news and analysis
Refugees and repression in war ravaged Sri Lanka
Exiled Zimbabweans demand Brown acts
Capitalism kills, concludes study of privatisation era
Environment and socialism
Opposing the expansion of Heathrow
Waltham Forest anti-incinerator campaign: Residents get results
Campaigners fight attacks on education and the environment
Socialist Students
Socialist Party review
What's going on? The meanderings of a comic mind in confusion, by Mark Steel
Home | The Socialist 21 January 2009 | Join the Socialist Party
Related links:
Carbon dioxide hits 800,000-year high: end profit-driven pollution
47,000 kids exposed to illegal toxic air
UN climate change summit: more hot air from Marrakech
Hinkley Point C: wasteful, dangerous and polluting
Workers warned boss of tech failure danger
Book review: Spy drama gives insight into capitalist coup plot
Support BA cabin crews' strike for fair pay
Heathrow expansion exposes Tory divisions
Labour councillors could stop unsafe 'driver-only operation' tomorrow
Aberdeen bus drivers strike against pay cuts
Bristol South Socialist Party: How can councils protect public services?
Local paper reveals Labour candidate 'tried to defect to the Tories'