Here are the climate-related sections of speeches by MPs during the Commons debate Heathrow Airport: Third Runway.
16:16 Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat)
The debate surrounding a third runway at Heathrow has stretched over the past three decades. The Liberal Democrats have long stood by communities who oppose a third runway, arguing that the economic benefits are overstated and the environmental consequences are unavoidable. Although I have always opposed a third runway at Heathrow, the current proposal could not have come at a worse time. The cost of expansion has doubled over the past 10 years, and the addition of nearly 300,000 more flights, which expansion implies, will make our net zero targets almost unachievable.
[Source]
15:03 Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat)
On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding nearly 300,000 extra flights to our skies each year will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. This Government have used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from Heathrow expansion. They are yet to provide any evidence that shows how Heathrow can expand while complying with their legal air pollution limits.
International uncertainty over China’s introduction of their SAF mandate, which accounts for more than 90% of our imported SAF, and challenges to UK-US trade have meant that the UK’s SAF targets, which in themselves would not mitigate pollution from Heathrow expansion, are even more difficult to deliver. The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s report last year, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will use SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s mandated targets and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansion.
Heathrow is already the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of CO 2 every year. The Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero estimates that aviation will contribute 23 megatonnes of CO 2 by 2050. A third runway at Heathrow would increase emissions at the airport alone to 20 megatonnes. Does the Minister still believe that the UK can be compliant with our net zero targets with the expansion of Heathrow airport?
This Government have repeated that they will honour and respect the Labour party’s four tests, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). They are: growth across the country, noise issues to be addressed, air quality to be protected and our climate change objectives to be met. They must be passed before expansion can be approved. As I have just laid out, I do not believe that any of those tests can be passed, let alone all four, but I ask that the Government honour the principle of the tests and do not attempt to circumvent them by using biased data.
[Source]
16:22 Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat)
It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”.
[Source]
16:34 Keir Mather (Labour)
Our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear: it is to enable delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow by 2035. Better connections and a third runway have the potential to boost the UK economy and support thousands of jobs. Businesses, and business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and regional chambers across the country, are clear in their support for Heathrow expansion, as are major trade unions. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution.
As hon. Members will be aware, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the ANPS, which is the Government’s policy framework for additional runway capacity at Heathrow airport, would be reviewed to reflect changes in legislation, policy and data, and to ensure that any proposed scheme meets the Government’s four tests—on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise—for expansion at Heathrow. The ANPS provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations.
[Source]
16:44 Keir Mather (Labour)
On the matter of climate commitments, the Government are clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. That is something that the Government remain absolutely committed to. The increasing carbon emissions associated with Heathrow do not in themselves mean that airport expansion cannot take place; the important point is that the Government remain able to meet their carbon reduction targets in the round. Economy-wide net zero and carbon budgets mean that even if emissions rise in one area, such as aviation, they must be fully balanced by either further carbon savings or high-quality and permanent greenhouse gas removals elsewhere.
[Source]