How Would Heathrow’s Third Runway Affect Air Pollution?

David Cameron runs the risk of a political minefield and a heavy backlash from environmentalists, should he choose to act upon the advice of the Airports Commission and sanction the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

The Commission, headed up by Sir Howard Davies, recommended that a third runway could and perhaps should be built at the airport, but only if it complies with air and noise pollution requirements from the EU. Critics of the ruling say that any interpretation of the facts which believes a third runway could comply are either erroneous or deceitful.

Making a Bad Situation Worse

London already suffers from the worst air quality levels in the UK, which experts don’t expect to meet EU safety levels until at least 2030. Such an achievement would be two decades later than the imposed deadline of 2010.

With the expansion of Heathrow to include a third runway, officials could surely kiss goodbye to even that optimistic forecast. Quite apart from the increased air traffic and the accompanying emissions the planes would emit, the rise in road traffic as cars, taxis and buses make their way to the airport in higher numbers would prove disastrous for the city’s air.

Indeed, even as far back as 2012, a study predicted that a third runway at the airport could triple the amount of deaths from pollution in the capital. Clearly, exacerbating the problem by constructing another major contributor of CO2 and other harmful gases is not the most prudent course of action.

“Just a Smokescreen”

Surprisingly, the Airport Commission – a branch of the UK government – found that a new runway would be advisable and that air quality standards could be achievable, even with its construction. However, the report relied rather heavily on some liberal interpretation of the facts, including a wildly optimistic upsurge in aircraft efficiency, a 6,600% hike in carbon taxes and a basic misunderstanding of the climactic impact of biofuels.

The chief scientist in the UK for Greenpeace, Doug Parr, claimed that the report was disingenuous, to say the least. “This is just a smokescreen to hide the obvious fact that a new runway will almost certainly derail our legally-binding climate targets,” he told the Guardian newspaper. “In the year the world is coming together to tackle climate change, we should be talking about how to manage demand, not where to store up a new carbon bomb.”

Even without building a new runway, Heathrow officials have already come under attack for proposed expansion plans. A protest group headed up by Surrey councillor Robert Evans and concerned local resident Andrew McLuskey addressed the chiefs at Heathrow last September about their concerns. Plans to build an incinerator, car park and flood pit ran afoul of the local community, who are adamant that such expansion will wreak further havoc on their already fragile environment.

Only Benefitting the Elite

Ironically, the number of people who would actually benefit from a third runway is very few. With business travel on the decrease as commuters turn to rail and video conferencing, only a wealthy minority would theoretically get use from its construction. As such, proceeding with the plans to build a third runway which would benefit only an elite minority – while affecting everyone else detrimentally – are surely unjustifiable.