Labour MP Fleur Anderson has renewed her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow after the Climate Change Committee warned that expansion is not compatible with the UK’s current climate policies unless the aviation industry is required to fully address its emissions.
The Putney MP said the latest advice strengthened the case against expansion and warned that passengers could ultimately face higher flight costs as the sector pays for decarbonisation.
Anderson said:
“Heathrow’s expansion plans don’t add up – it’s official.”
She added:
“The CCC new report warns that expanding Heathrow will lead to higher flight costs and emissions that exceed those from any other sector.”
The Climate Change Committee, the Government’s independent statutory climate adviser, said there is currently “no credible pathway” for Heathrow expansion to proceed consistently with Britain’s carbon budgets and net zero target under existing aviation policies.
Climate advisers demand tougher conditions
The CCC said expansion could only be considered compatible with the UK’s climate commitments if government introduces policies requiring aviation to deal fully with its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, either by cutting them directly or paying for permanent engineered carbon removals.
Its report says aviation emissions have more than doubled since 1990 while emissions across the wider economy have roughly halved.
Even without a third Heathrow runway, the Committee said current policies would not deliver meaningful reductions in aviation emissions by 2050.
Heathrow itself is currently responsible for around half of UK aviation emissions, while the CCC estimates the full impact of expansion could account for 6.9% of the UK’s remaining carbon emissions in 2050.
Passengers could face higher fares
The Committee also said the aviation sector should bear the cost of getting to net zero rather than taxpayers generally.
That could feed through into ticket prices.
Its modelling suggests the cost of decarbonising aviation could add as much as around £150 to a return flight to Alicante and £400 to a return flight to New York by 2050, although the precise way costs are passed on would be a matter for government.
The CCC also pointed out that a relatively small group of frequent flyers account for a disproportionately large share of international flights, raising the possibility of policies designed to place more of the burden on those who fly most often.
Anderson has long opposed third runway
Anderson has consistently opposed Heathrow expansion because of concerns about climate change, noise and air pollution affecting communities under the flight path in south-west London.
She has previously warned that an additional runway would expose Putney residents to greater aircraft noise and pollution while undermining climate targets.
Her latest intervention puts her at odds with the Government’s stated support for expanding Heathrow, although ministers have repeatedly said any scheme must meet strict tests on climate change, air quality, noise and economic growth.
Government has not yet granted planning permission
The Government is currently reviewing the policy framework governing Heathrow expansion.
A draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement was published in June and subjected to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. The Government stresses that the document is not itself planning permission for a third runway. Any developer would still have to submit a formal development consent application and satisfy the relevant environmental and planning tests.
The draft framework identifies climate change, noise, air quality and nationwide economic growth as the four tests against which expansion should be judged.
Economic case remains contested
Supporters of expansion argue that a third runway could strengthen Britain’s international connectivity, freight capacity and economic growth. The Government has said an expanded Heathrow could support more than 60,000 additional local jobs.
Opponents, including Anderson, argue that those claimed benefits have to be weighed against the environmental costs and the additional burden on communities around the airport.
The CCC’s intervention sharpens that debate by making clear that, under current policies, expansion and the UK’s legal climate targets do not presently fit together.
For Anderson, the report strengthens her argument that ministers should reconsider the third runway unless they can demonstrate both a credible climate pathway and that the costs imposed on passengers and local communities are justified.
