Government responds to the Stop Airport Expansion petition
Our petition to Stop Airport Expansion across the UK closed on 24th September with 10,988 signatures. The Government responded on 21st October, stating that:
“The Government supports airport expansion where it promotes economic growth, aligns with climate commitments, and meets strict air quality and noise pollution requirements.”
You can read the longer response here.
We know that airport expansion doesn’t promote economic growth, probably won’t meet air quality and noise pollution requirements, and is far from aligning with climate commitments.
Here’s our riposte to this disappointing but predictable response.
Airport expansion doesn’t boost economic growth
Analysis by New Economics Foundation (NEF) shows that airport expansion will bring little to no economic benefit.
Even though growth in air capacity can drive economic growth in less developed nations, here in the UK, we are already one of the best-connected countries, and there is a strong outbound tourism bias. Growth therefore relies mostly on business travel. But business travel made up just 7% of international flights in 2023, and had been hovering around 9% or 10% in the years before that.
“A strong outbound tourism bias” means that more money goes out than comes in; more people leave the UK as tourists than tourists come to the UK, and people spend more money abroad than they spend here.
The parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) said the Government has not demonstrated that the economic growth from airport expansion provides enough benefit to outweigh the negative climate and environmental impacts it will cause.
So-called ‘sustainable’ aviation fuel (SAF) won’t make aviation sustainable
From the government response: “The Government is actively investing into innovation in making aviation more sustainable. Key initiatives include Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).”
The trouble is, SAF isn’t sustainable.
SAFs create the same emissions when burned as conventional jet fuel. The carbon ‘savings’ are often outweighed by the process:
- biofuels crops can lead to land clearances and deforestation, which is on-balance worse for the climate
- waste-to-oil (e.g. black bin bag waste) requires fossil fuels to create jet-grade fuel
HEFA (hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids) emissions are already in the system (through waste oil) but using it for jet fuel gives no incentive to cut down higher up the chain, which would be a more effective way of reducing emissions. Most of it is used already for the road fleet, so switching this to jet fuel could drive virgin oil being used elsewhere.
E-fuels are only sustainable if they use green energy, but this diverts renewables away from less energy-intensive and arguably more important things e.g. decarbonising the grid, growing food.
Scaling up is the biggest challenge: SAF accounted for just 0.6% of aviation fuel in 2024. The UK has an ambition to be using 10% by 2030, but there’s no guarantee this will be met, especially given that the industry has missed almost all of its targets since 2000.
Even politicians who once opposed airport expansion on the grounds of increased emissions are now in favour, because of so-called ‘sustainable’ aviation fuel. Our research shows this is not a reliable method of reducing emissions.
Wildlife and nature still suffers
Even if climate and noise mitigation measures are effective, these would not prevent harm to wildlife from airport expansion. Harms include:
- nest clearance for up to 16km radius to reduce risk of bird strike
- runway lights disrupting insect and bird circadian rhythms
- plane noise interrupting bird and insect mating calls
- green space damaged and built upon
- waterways polluted with toxic run-off from de-icer and other airport operations
Over 1000 acres of the Colne Valley Regional Park will be lost if a third runway is built at Heathrow. The Local Government Association states that “Urban nature provides over £15 billion of benefits to the economy every year.” The economic growth arguments don’t take this aspect of economic benefit into consideration.
Only the frequent flyers really benefit from airport expansion
Globally, around 90% of people don’t fly. In the UK, around half of us won’t step on a plane this year. A very small proportion of the population – 15% – takes the majority (70%) of the flights. Airport expansion isn’t about enabling the poorer sections of society to access air travel: the people who will benefit most from an increasing number of flights are the very small number who already fly the most.
Yet we all suffer. We suffer through an increase in noise and air pollution, through the degradation of nature, through taxation being spent on airports rather than local services, and the increased effects of climate change.
What can I do?
You can oppose airport expansion by joining a campaign group, signing petitions, and responding to consultations. Every voice counts.
You can write to your MP using our template letter here.
Fundamentally, if we reduce demand for flights, the case for expansion falls apart. Stopping or reducing your own flights is one way to protest airport expansion. You can find out more about this at the Flight Free UK website.