Experts point out that Reeves’ airport expansion plans don’t add up

The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced, in a heavily trailed speech, that the government would be supporting a third runway at Heathrow. Her message: in pursuit of growth, concerns about the impacts on climate and nature would be sidelined (developers could ‘stop worrying about bats and newts’). In fact, ‘without growth, we cannot meet our climate goals’.

It was clear that not all in the cabinet shared her enthusiasm for increasing emissions in a climate emergency, nor the other impacts of an expanded Heathrow airport (by implication, alongside expansion at Gatwick and Luton airports). Ed Miliband was reported to be privately ‘livid’, in public saying “Aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets and, if it can’t, won’t go ahead.” London Mayor Sadiq Khan has already said he ‘won’t hesitate’ to launch a legal challenge.

Analysts from Carbon Brief calculated that to absorb the emissions – equivalent to 92m tonnes of CO2 by 2050 – from the expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports would need a forest twice the size of Greater London to be planted in the UK.

The New Economics Foundation compared the emissions saved if the government is successful in achieving a zero-carbon electricity system in 2030 instead of the 2035 date targeted by the previous government. They found the emissions from an expanded Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton would wipe out these savings in just five years of operation at expanded capacity.

‘Sustainable’ aviation fuels: a game changer?

In an interview, Rachel Reeves described ‘sustainable’ aviation fuel (SAF) as a ‘game changer’, and in her speech, she claimed that these fuels could reduce emissions by 70%. This figures implies that emissions from UK aviation can be reduced (so keeping in line with the UK’s legally-binding climate targets) at the same time as airports expand. This, as experts have repeatedly explained, is not the case.

Firstly, for the foreseeable future, SAF cannot reduce emissions significantly since they will only be a very small percentage of fuel used. Secondly, it is not necessarily the case that all SAF actually do reduce emissions given that they emit the same amount of CO2 as conventional fuel at the tailpipe – it all depends on the supply chain.

In 2023 less than 1% of jet fuel used in the UK was ‘sustainable’. Of this, 95% was made from imported used cooking oil, almost all from China. Not all of this will actually be genuine used cooking oil, some will be virgin palm oil, fraudulently labelled. Just 2 per cent was sourced from the UK, mostly from used cooking oil, however most of the UK’s waste cooking oil supplies are currently used to make biofuels for trucks and other road transport. The challenge of sourcing enough alternative fuel to actually make a dent in UK aviation emissions, while guaranteeing that it is actually sustainable (and with other countries competing for the same resources) is staggering.

There is a government mandate for 2% ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ in 2025, which will increase annually to reach 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040. So if that volume was achieved, and if the fuels *did* represent 70% emissions reduction, that would be a 7% reduction by 2030 and 15% by 2040 – but of course counteracted by the much greater increase in emissions from aviation expansion.

The mandate excludes fuel from energy crops, but includes those made from forestry residues and from ‘unrecyclable plastics’, such as those in household waste. One UK project is for conversion of used tyres. Plastics made from fossil fuels are of course themselves a fossil fuel if burnt, and not sustainable in any way.

Economic benefits – or costs?

Rachel Reeves says it’s all about growth. However, aside from the economic costs of climate breakdown, there are other reasons why expanding airports in the South East may not benefit either the local or the wider UK economy. Much of this analysis has been done by the New Economics Foundation. They point out that airport expansion could benefit the economy through increasing either business travel, or a net increase in visiting tourists (i.e. an increase in tourism that more than compensates for any increase in outbound tourism).

But neither of these apply. Despite significant growth in overall passenger numbers in recent years, business use of air travel hasn’t seen net growth in almost two decades. And the UK already has a significant ‘tourism trade deficit’ – £30.5 billion in 2019. The vast majority of leisure travellers tend to be UK residents heading off to spend money abroad, rather than at the UK coast and national parks, while the smaller number of tourists coming to the UK are concentrated in London and a few other locations.

The local benefits of job creation are also exaggerated by lobbyists. And of course there are other local impacts of airport expansion, less beneficial for residents. Relating to Heathrow expansion, the No 3rd Runway Coalition has set out why none of Labour’s ‘Four Tests’, on growth, noise, air quality or climate, have been met.

Take action

Find out how you can help fight airport expansion.

Photo above of protesters at Rachel Reeves’ office, credit Neil Terry Photography