select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
before the headlines
Fiona fox's blog
The UK Court of Appeal has ruled the planed Heathrow 3rd runway expansion as illegal.
Dr Joanna Cox, Head of Strategic Engagement and Partnerships at the IET, said:
“The future strategy for the development of aviation must work hand-in-glove with the UK legislation on climate change. In order to achieve growth in aviation tackling carbon emissions must be the primary priority for innovation. UK companies and universities are at the forefront of this research and we support them in the efforts.”
Prof Corinne Le Quéré CBE FRS, Royal Society Research Professor of Climate Change Science at the University of East Anglia, said:
“Government needs to put climate targets at the heart all big decisions, or risk missing their own Net Zero objectives with devastating consequences for climate and stability. I am relieved that this is finally recognised and backed by the Court of law. Let this be the beginning of the proportionate response that is needed to tackle climate change.”
Prof Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at the University of Oxford, said:
“The airline industry has brought this on itself, by failing to produce credible plans to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. There are ways they could do this: either through synthetic fuels, or recapture of their emissions from the atmosphere. Both would increase the cost of air travel, but simply avoiding the issue or suggesting they can dodge it by planting trees is equivalent to the nuclear industry storing its waste in swimming pools and hoping the problem will go away. Let’s hope this decision will force some more realistic net zero thinking from the airlines rather than just another round of chest-thumping about Global Britain.”
Dr James Dyke, Senior Lecturer in Global Systems at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, said:
“Today’s ruling should make the UK Government’s job easier. It has a legal requirement to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. That is a huge undertaking, and one that is made even more difficult with ever increasing number of commercial flights. The Government now has the opportunity to draw a line under not just Heathrow expansion, but the plans to extend the capacity of Gatwick and regional airports.”
Prof Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester, said:
“During dark times on climate change, this is a small but important shaft of light. Heathrow, and aviation more generally, is a major and growing source of emissions. But it is also emblematic of our privileging a relatively few frequent fliers at the expense of impacts imposed on climate vulnerable communities today, the long-term prosperity of our own children and the future wellbeing of other species. If the UK is to make its fair contribution to the Paris Agreement, we need to escape the dangerous ruse of ‘net zero’ by 2050 and focus on delivering ‘real-zero’ by 2035. So let’s celebrate this brief moment where sense prevailed over selfishness – but then tomorrow let’s use it to help kick-start a zero-carbon revolution of our energy system.”
Dr Guy Gratton, Associate Professor in Aviation and the Environment at Cranfield University, said:
“We’ve known for some time that Heathrow’s third runway is a very difficult case – the environmental impact case for it has been extremely difficult and was heavily criticised by the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee under MP Mary Creagh three years ago, amongst many others. At the same time the economic case for construction of the third runway has been exceptionally strong, given Heathrow’s position as a national transport hub and its massive importance to particularly the English economy. Those contradictions made this inevitably a very political issue. But the new introduction of a court ruling over international treaty obligations has reduced the power of politicians to decide this, and forced a difficult environmental re-assessment. We can’t know yet whether this problem of meeting Britain’s commitments under the Paris Agreement can be solved, but even if it can, a third runway will still be controversial given the arriving and departing aircraft’s noise footprints (which aren’t covered by the Paris agreement, but matter a lot to local communities), surface pollutants, and everything on the ground that’s needed to support Heathrow, including all of the road and rail links.
“This precedent of international greenhouse gas emissions treaty limits constraining political decisions is also a unique one, that’ll doubtless be quoted for many years to come around any other major infrastructure decisions.”
Dr Phillip Williamson, Honorary Reader in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, said:
“This judgement could be the tipping point for government action on the climate emergency. It shows that the Paris Agreement is legally binding, not an aspiration, and will require many other policy re-thinks. Net zero by 2050 (or sooner) doesn’t mean no flying at all, but continued growth of aviation can no longer be assumed”.
Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Chair Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, said:
“The court ruling on Heathrow expansion makes it clear that flying has to be looked at through the same climate change lens as all the rest of our activities if we are serious about fulfilling the Paris Accord on climate change and meeting the UK target of a reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.”
Prof Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics at the University of Oxford, said:
“In my view, the court of appeal made the wrong decision about the third runway at Heathrow. Aviation is vital to the economic prosperity of the country, and economic prosperity is vital if we are to fund climate adaptation infrastructure, e.g. to improve flood defences in the UK and make the developing world more resilient to the changing extremes of weather and climate (which they have to suffer through no fault of their own). We should not underestimate the costs of climate adaptation.
“Instead, the government should be encouraging efforts to produce synthetic kerosene (jet fuel) from carbon sucked from the air, combined with hydrogen extracted from water. This can be achieved using renewable energy only; the only problem in doing it at scale is cost. If the government were to announce that, by 2030 say, it will penalise though higher taxation, airlines that fly into and out of UK airports using fossil-carbon kerosene, and if this move were replicated in the EU and elsewhere, this would provide the stimulus to grow the global synthetic kerosene manufacturing sector today, and we could take advantage of the economic benefits of a third runway without damaging our climate.”
Dr Lisa Schipper, Environmental Social Science Research Fellow at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, said:
“This should be seen as not just a victory for environmental campaigners, but for everyone. The emissions that will be avoided as a result of not having more flights will benefit us all.
“The decision sends a signal that things have to change, including crucially our travel behaviour for both work and leisure. We will not solve the climate crisis without behavioural change.”
Declared interests
Prof Le Quéré is a member of the UK Committee on Climate Change
Dr Williamson: no conflicts
Prof Hoskins: no relevant interests
Dr Dyke: no relevant interests to declare
No others received.