Does Heathrow’s third runway remain best option for British trade?

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies, will be offering lessons learnt from the No Third Runway campaign to delegates of People Power with John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace and Juliette Jowit, Senior Writer for the Guardian.

Transport Correspondent Gwyn Topham’s piece, ‘Does Heathrow’s third runway remain best option for British trade?’ demonstrates this is an issue that has not been forgotten. Here John responds to Gwyn’s piece with some particularly Good thoughts on the matter:

London First has simply refused to engage in a realistic debate on what is required to assist the economy of London. They have dredged up environmentally outdated solutions to deal with airport capacity; its proposals sound like the last roar of a dying dinosaur desperate to recreate a lost world.

It is simply not viable to call for an aggressive policy of airport expansion. No major political party is supporting this development, the cornerstone of London First’s proposals. With 720,000 residents already impacted by noise from Heathrow – that is, 28% of all people disturbed by aircraft noise across Europe – further expansion would be politically toxic. 

London First’s proposals are also economically unnecessary.  Too Dirty for Business?, a report produced by the campaign group HACAN, shows that it is not a lack of airport capacity which threatens London’s current position as the top city in Europe to do business but its poor environment. 

The report shows that London’s excellent transport links to the rest of the world make it Europe’s premier business city.  That position is under threat because many of its rivals score more highly on quality of life, pollution and a lack of traffic congestion.  Should no further airport capacity be built, it cannot be assumed London will lose the top spot.

Campaigning | Charity