Getting climate change priorities right

A big setback to the anti-Heathrow expansion alliance of Tories and Labour left-wingers comes today from Jim Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, according to today's Observer. Aside from those opposing the extra runway for fear of residents' objections, there has been an unfortunate whiff of self-righteous sanctimony from those who want to limit flying to those who can afford business class to get to awards ceremonies but don't want ordinary people flying off on holiday.

Now, Hansen, a strong critic of George Bush's disinterest in the climate change issue, has rejected efforts from Heathrow campaigners to sign him up to the anti-runway cause. According to the Observer, he said:

"The number of runways you need for your airports depends on their traffic. You don't want to be so restrictive that you end up burning more fuel because planes are having to circle and wait to land because of lack of runway space. Coal is 80% of the planet's problem. You have to keep your eye on the ball and not waste your efforts. The number one enemy is coal and we should never forget that."

The right decision on Heathrow

The government has taken a brave and correct decision on the expansion of Heathrow. On a personal level, the experience of the effect of a bit of fog on the schedule or spending an hour circling because of a backlog is a pretty poor advertisement for our most important hub airport. And hardly a great contributor to the environment. I do try to use the train or fly from Bristol when I can, but for international flights outside Europe Heathrow has to be endured.

The idea that the most important airport in Britain should be allowed to continue operating in its current manner is extraordinary. The notion that someone charged with representing the interests of all Londoners should oppose the new runway is bizarre. And, as Iain suggests, the moans from the likes of Emma Thompson would have a little more credibility if she gave up her international flights to attend luvvie parties in the States. Perhaps similar self-denying ordinances could be followed by all opponents of the new runway.

No other country in the world would spend so long agonising over whether to build an extra runway in an airport as important as Heathrow. Indeed, it is preposterous that it will still take the best part of a decade for the runway to be built. Of course, we need to ensure that modern low carbon aircraft are used and environmental concerns dealt with. And we need to get on with building better rail links (perhaps Greenpeace could use its efforts to help the government cut through the planning inquiries to get those built since it is telling us to use the train not the plane).

But not building a third runway at Heathrow will not stop people flying; it will just cost Britain business.

And having heard the promises of Tory transport spokeswoman Theresa Villiers that a Tory government would tear up any contracts for a new runway, I can see why Iain is so worried about the sanity of his party. Next time you are plagued by delays in the air or on the ground at Heathrow, just remember that the Tory policy is that you should continue to endure such misery. It is for your own good, after all.