Third runway at Heathrow could add extra 4.4m tonnes of CO2 a year

DfT says sustainable aviation fuel will help UK hit net zero by 2050 but AEF says this “is a dangerous fantasy” which produces “as many CO₂ emissions as kerosene…”

A third runway at Heathrow would have significant economic benefits for the UK and create 100,000 jobs, but environmentalists and residents are worried about the effect of increased emissions and noise pollution on wildlife, and environmental and public health.

Plans to extend the UK’s busiest airport, first put forward in 2003, have received government backing, with the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, stating expansion “would unlock further growth, boost investment, increase exports, and make the UK more open and more connected.”

But analysis from the Independent found flights from Heathrow could increase from the current annual cap of 480,000 to around 720,000, with a third runway contributing an extra 4.4m tonnes of CO₂ a year, equivalent to the yearly energy usage of 5,371,878 homes, according to the Airport Commission.

The Department for Transport says sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is key to helping the UK reach net zero by 2050, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70% compared to kerosene and offsetting the environmental impact of airport expansions.

However, the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) said SAF “is a dangerous fantasy” and produces “as many CO₂ emissions as kerosene when it’s burnt in a plane’s engine.”

Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, agreed: “Not all investments in infrastructure are compatible with the UK’s efforts to reach net zero emissions.”

He said airport expansion “could lead to an increase in aviation emissions,” and “should not proceed until the government shows exactly how it will be compatible with the UK’s carbon budgets and net zero target.”

This is reinforced by a New Economics Foundation study which found expansions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton could quash any reductions gained by Labour’s Clean Power Plan within five years.

The AEF estimates a third runway could put 300,000 more people under a new flight path. Heathrow’s own assessment says over 500,000 people would be newly affected by aircraft noise from the expansion alone, while the government estimates two million people could experience significant noise increases.

“Concerted efforts from government and industry are needed to reduce our exposure to aircraft noise and mitigate its impact on the health of millions…”

Recent UCL research found that those living under flight paths had a 2-4 times higher risk of a major cardiac event, possibly linked to the increase in stress from lack of sleep and noise pollution.

Senior author Dr Gaby Captur, UCL Institute of Cardiovascular Science and Consultant Cardiologist at the Royal Free Hospital, London said: “Concerted efforts from government and industry are needed to reduce our exposure to aircraft noise and mitigate its impact on the health of millions of people who live close to airports or under flight paths.”

A third runway would have a significant impact on the local environment: five rivers would need to be diverted, hundreds of homes demolished, and a tunnel built under the M25. New flight paths could stretch over Richmond Park in West London, which would affect sensitive wildlife such as tawny owls and bats protected by law, and the tranquillity of the area, campaigners argue.

Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s Chief Scientist said, “The third runway at Heathrow is bad economics” as there is little evidence that airport expansion will boost the economy: “the only things that will grow for sure are noise, air pollution and climate emissions. The last thing our economy needs is more billions in damage from storms and floods.”