Vocal Voices

Heathrow's third runway might never get built.

The Climate Change Act 2008 promised to ensure that the net UK carbon account for all six Kyoto greenhouse gases for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline, that was following amendments.

In 2016 the UK ratified the Paris Agreement, COP25, and in 2017 promised to introduce legislation or and amendment to the 2008 Act, to go further.

In June 2018 the government won a key vote in the Commons by 415 votes to 119 - a majority of 296 to build Heathrow's third runway.

In June 2019 the government introduced a private member's bill (Rachel Reeves), as per the promise made in 2017, to reduce them to zero by 2050, but hopefully by 2030. The Bill failed to complete its passage through Parliament before the end of the session due to May's resignation and the general election, but the pledge was there.

Today the Appeal Court ruled that the government had not followed its own policy and promises when backing the controversial expansion plans. It said that the government had a duty to take into account the Paris agreement, but failed to do so. And that it was "legally fatal" to the government's Heathrow expansion policy that it did not take those climate commitments into account.

Ooops!

Good news for the people living nearby, as I used to be. The aircraft noise is pretty constant already! They were going to have to demolish a nice village for it too, those campaigners will be very pleased! https://news.sky.com/story/village-face ... y-10753691

Yup! The office put three of us up at the soulless Premiere Inn on Bath Rd before us flying out to various places. The staff there directed us to Longford for a decent pint next to a roaring fire. It was like going back in time.

But I digress. The long running argument has always been that a third runway is absolutely necessary, fundamental even, to the "the country's" prosperity and economy. Without it the sky would fall in.

Well it is getting on for 30 years now and the UK has gone from the 7th to the 5th largest economy. I think that a lot of the proponents were telling porkies, and still are.

It would suit the Government's current narrative to build an additional runway at Birmingham rather than Heathrow. Firstly it's in the North (of Watford), and secondly it will have a dedicated HS2 interchange station at Birmingham International / Exchange / Bickenhill (whatever they're calling it these days), which Heathrow will not have. And extra airport capacity is as much about enhancing freight as much as passenger; Birmingham is quite convenient for the motorway network.

Mind you, if you take that climate change argument on further, could we now see a formal challenge to the building HS2?

You make some fine points there...but.

Fly these ever-so-important business people into Brum, then get them 1st class to Lonern on HS2? it will be quicker, cheaper, and more luxurious than Heathrow and the Tube then a taxi to Threadthepleb'sneedlestreet or Westmonster, but it's not London.

Birmingham is not London, so they will go to Paris Berlin, Rome or Madrid instead... because, bless.

TheOstrich wrote:Mind you, if you take that climate change argument on further, could we now see a formal challenge to the building HS2?

Don't think the unintended consequences are over yet. It is quite possible that the Government could say "Yes we made a mistake and are going to rectify it", then ban all fossil fuel vehicle sales from 2028....

Then go with the third runway.

Oh and as for cancelling HS2? Not on environmental grounds. High speed Electric public transport is a cornerstone of the climate mitigation bandwagon.

The most striking things to me here (apart from the virtue signalling of politicians) are the dates and people.
2008, government Blair/Brown.
2016 government Cameron/May
2017 government May
2019 government May.

Not one of whom is actually in government now.
What we are seeing here is politicians making grand promises that they know other people are going to have to try and keep.

Same with the banning of petrol and diesel cars by 2035. You can have a safe bet that by that date there will be nobody left of the present government in power.

In other news Drax power station in Yorkshire is to stop burning coal later this year. At a time when the government is making noises about wood burning stoves, Drax power station will shift to burning - wood. In the form of wood chippings shipped from America and moved from Liverpool docks by diesel train. (We're not supposed to call it "wood" though, it's "biomass" ).

Cromwell, Drax is already burning biomass. There are rules on how the wood is grown, cut and replanted. But, yes, shipped on a ship burning bunker fuel and diesel trains.

You forgot to add net 0 CO2 by 2050 to your list..

Cromwell wrote:What we are seeing here is politicians making grand promises that they know other people are going to have to try and keep.

True, but aren't they caught in a trap? They can't do nothing, that would be bad for their electoral health, so they have to be seen to be doing something.

I do not have a problem with long term plans so long as they are analysed, alternatives debated, pulled to pieces, reassembled and analysed again the the nth. All of that has to be done by people in the know and not civil servants or special political advisers with degrees in origami and classics.

Unfortunately in modern times long term plans look like they are being made on the hoof and to the latest trends on social media; and the answer always seems to be to throw money at something and if that doesn't work to throw more money in.

Suff wrote:Cromwell, Drax is already burning biomass. There are rules on how the wood is grown, cut and replanted. But, yes, shipped on a ship burning bunker fuel and diesel trains.

I know Suff, the trains pass through the village where MrsC's relatives live. And bunker fuel - yes, absolutely filthy stuff. Some kinds they have to pre- heat before they can actually burn it!

Suff wrote:You forgot to add net 0 CO2 by 2050 to your list..

Yes. Passed June 2019 without any costing being done. No long term planning done for that, WM!
Estimates now say the cost of actually meeting May's bill may reach £100 billion per year; so maybe expect some rowing back a few years from now?