Explain the arguments for and against airport expansion.

One argument that has been deployed by the government in particular, in favour of airport expansion is the boost in employment and of tourism that can be achieved. The Coalition, despite being labelled as the ‘greenest government ever’ by the leader David Cameron in 2010, were the main promoters of airport expansion. Much like many other decisions in the Coalition, the Conservatives led this policy with Boris Johnson a main advocate of building a third runway at Heathrow. Numerous commissions, promoted by the government, said that the expansion of Heathrow would create thousands of extra jobs in the British economy. Likewise with other big construction projects, the immediate impact is beneficial for the economy as jobs are needed to build the runway, and in the long run, businesses and airlines will need to employ more to handle the extra capacity. Furthermore, when Heathrow has been expanded, it will enable more tourism to flow into London, and bring spending, foreign currencies and other GDP boosters into the UK economy. Along with the macroeconomic benefits, businesses are also advocates for the airport expansion, particularly groups such as the CBI. If London’s airports fall behind other international airports, it will fall behind as one of the financial capitals of the world and hence mean businesses in the UK lose business. A second argument for airport expansion is the fact that the big London airports need the capacity. Heathrow and Gatwick in particular runs at around 100% all the time, and during the summer it comes under almost unbearable strain. The expansion of airports in London would allow consumers to have a more pleasurable experience whilst travelling preventing delays, and also allow the London airports to keep up with those in Europe. Again this would help attract tourists, but it would also improve efficiencies for businessmen who will face fewer delays. As demand for air travel rises, it makes perfect economic sense to expand the airports to allow them to manage the extra capacity, and to allow the extra capital enter the UK economy. Hence, this argument sits well in Parliament with the neoliberals of the Tory party, and with many traditionalists who believe the economic argument is compelling enough to expand airports.
However, there is strong opposition on an environmental scale from progressive liberals in the Tory Party, the Lib Dems and Labour. Despite the fact that this opposition is fairly weak and disjointed within Parliament, the case for reducing emissions is compelling. Heathrow already contributes to 3% of total emissions in the UK and building an extra runway would increase this substantially. Furthermore, whilst the Coalition was driving an austerity agenda on the economy, and a ‘vote blue, go green’ agenda on the environment, they were considering the expansion of an airport. For many this was hugely contradictory as the expansion of Heathrow would be a lasting legacy that would cause damage to the environment for decades to come. It would also mean that the UK contributes more to the global emission crisis, suffering potential economic sanctions. Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith actually resigned over the issue, proving how emotionally vulnerable this issue is to many environmentalists. The argument against the expansion is perhaps less convincing in Parliament than it is outside Parliament, with many pressure groups forming around the issue. For example the Reclaim the Power group lay on the floor at Heathrow in opposition to the new runway. Perhaps this has gone some way to preventing the expansion from going ahead as of yet. Secondly, there is a strong movement from groups and MPs from surrounding areas where airport expansion has been discussed. For example, HACAN who claim to represent those under the Heathrow flight path. Indeed, the arguments are legitimate; noise pollution from airport expansion would increase significantly if a third runway were to be built at Heathrow. This would massively affect the lives of those around Heathrow, which the local MPs campaign for in Parliament, however Zac Goldsmith’s failure to get re-elected as an independent candidate perhaps suggest the issue is not as topical as campaigners hope.