Is the prevention of Heathrow expansion really a victory?

There was a new chapter in the ongoing story of Heathrow’s third runway when, after a court battle, the expansion was declared illegal. Judges ruled that the expansion was incompatible with legislation committing the government to zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the broader objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement – as well as Heathrow, this ruling will essentially doom any other proposed airport expansions around the country. Climate activists have celebrated the judgement, but does it truly represent a step forward for the climate movement?

78 million people pass through the airport each year, and is responsible for roughly 16 million tons of carbon emissions each year. There hasn’t been a full-length runway built in London since the end of the Second World War and, in the middle of a climate emergency, constructing a third runway at Heathrow has always been a contentious move. The expansion would have increased passenger traffic by two-thirds, and could have led to an increase of aviation C02 emissions by 7.3 million tons by 2030, according to the government’s own figures. The court case was decided solely on these emission prospects, with the court mandating that the government abide by its climate commitments.

The Heathrow climate ruling is a short-term victory

Although this may be a victory for the environment, it can’t be ignored that the government wasn’t overly keen on pushing the Heathrow project. The proposed expansion left Boris Johnson in an awkward position – a third runway has been a Conservative manifesto promise since 2010 but, as a constituency MP, Johnson rallied against the proposal. He famously declared that he would rather lie down in front of the bulldozers if the expansion got the go-ahead so, for Johnson, a court defeat is actually an easy out. Johnson can’t face accusations of hypocrisy because the decision was taken out of his hands and, as the government has said that only Heathrow will appeal if it wants to, it can put the issue to bed.

Of course, a victory today does not mean that an appeal by the airport is going to fail – an appeal has already been lodged in the Supreme Court to ‘put Heathrow expansion back on track’, arguing that environmental issues highlighted by the courts are entirely fixable and mitigable. Supporters have argued that any flights will still happen, but they’ll simply move to possible expansions in Paris or Amsterdam – we’re not cutting down on the number of global flights, so any impact is really negligible. There’s no net benefit at all if the flights still happen. A number of Heathrow backers also argue that the expansion would have led to new technologies, like more effective fuels or carbon offsets, and these just won’t happen now.

There’s no net benefit at all if the flights still happen

And then, there’s the wider question of court interference – if legal challenges are bought against the government that would result in net carbon emission increases, and the challenges win, a precedent has been created. What happens if the court blocks climate initiatives that the government backed, just as it did this expansion? Could climate activists really appeal? Future rulings may not favour the environment and, if we cast the court as the ultimate arbiter now, we may come to regret it if things turn against the climate movement.

The Heathrow climate ruling is a short-term victory (and it may possibly develop into a long-term one too), but it raises all sorts of questions about how we approach climate issues in the future. Should climate questions remain a governmental prerogative and, if we give the judiciary the final say, should their climate credentials be more important? How will the government react when it is genuinely invested in a project? As a similar lawsuit will shortly be brought against HS2, we may see these questions posed once more, and the response will really indicate whether our institutions are fully onboard with the climate movement.