Heathrow third runway
Call to resist the lobby for a third runway at Heathrow
While Jackie Ashley's growing impatience with government prevarication over its airport policy is perfectly reasonable, her unquestioning acceptance that business must be right in demanding more airport capacity is not (Comment, 28 August). Aviation already accounts for about 13% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. If allowed to continue unchecked, aviation growth will mean it is impossible for the UK to meet its (already inadequate) target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050.
Moreover, recent research by the Aviation Environment Federation suggests that the UK already has sufficient airport infrastructure to meet the maximum levels of future demand that would be consistent with the limits on aviation growth recommended by the Climate Change Committee. Indeed, the government's own forecasts of air-traffic demand indicate that even if no constraints on airport growth were imposed for environmental reasons, passenger demand in the south-east could be entirely met with existing infrastructure until nearly 2030. Those forecasts are themselves likely to overestimate demand, since they're based on very generous assumptions , including a resumption of economic growth at around 2% per annuma year or above, no increase in oil prices, and a continuation of aviation's tax exemptions. Instead of acceding to demands for ever-increasing aviation growth, the government should learn from WWF's One in Five Challenge, a successful scheme to help companies cut 20% of flights in five years.
Some of the UK's leading businesses, including Lloyds TSB and Marks & Spencer, have reduced their business flights by 41% over two years, saving £2.4m and reducing emissions by 3,600 tonnes of CO2. Members say that lower-carbon ways of staying connected, like advanced video-conferencing, are actually helping them to increase their efficiency, with less time spent out of the office, faster decision-making and increased collaboration.Caroline Lucas MPGreen, Brighton Pavilion
• When the three main political parties united after the last election to rule out a third runway at Heathrow, it was the first time in the history of flight in this country that any government had said no to the aviation industry's demands for unfettered growth at any environmental cost. Since then the aviation industry has mounted the most expensive US-style lobby ever witnessed in the UK. Never before have we seen this scale of wining and dining of journalists, so-called opinion formers, policy advisers, MPs and ministers.
It is not just 700 homes in Sipson that would be destroyed by a third runway, but at least 10,000 people having their homes demolished or rendered unlivable by air pollution. It is not thousands of Londoners that would suffer increased noise pollution but at least 2 million. There is no independent evidence to demonstrate that the UK is missing out on trade with China or any other Bric country. The reverse is true, as London is served by its network of five airports that make us the best connected city in the world.
The future for aviation is to replace domestic flights with high-speed rail, to maximise the efficiency of our existing London airports and the advantages of our regional airports. Haven't we learnt sufficiently from the experience of the banks and Murdoch about allowing corporate interests to determine our policies?John McDonnell MPLab, Hayes and Harlington More letters Topics