Until I was 28, and got my first job in television, neither my family nor I
had any money. One result of this relative penury was that, by my mid-20s I
had only been in an aeroplane four times: twice in infancy aboard internal
flights in the Socialist Republic of Bulgaria, and then by Vickers Vanguard
return to Lyons at the age of 13. That was it. Every other trip abroad or at
home was by train and ferry or Bedford Dormobile. I didn't cross the
Atlantic till I was 27.
It is, then, with something more than jaundice, that I read the words of those
who have, since their youngest days, left microscopic traces of their
privileged DNA in airports on all continents, but who now rail against the
“hypermobility” of others. Hypermobility - the capacity of millions of
people to move around the world - we are told, destroys communities, weakens
social bonds, creates pollution and threatens environments. “The business
plan [for air travel expansion] cannot be faulted,” says George Monbiot.
“The more hellish our lives become, the more we seek to escape from them.”
Who has never been on holiday to, say, a Greek island for any reason other
than a need to flee from Hades? What bloody condescension!
The relatively rich have always travelled - first by coach and boat, then by
car and plane. Hypermobility is the fancy name for when the not-so-rich can
travel as much as the rich used to. Mine has opened the world to me: Cairo,
Colorado, Berlin, Beijing, Dublin, Rio and Bombay. And I have loved being in
all these places. For others it might be Skiathos, Ljubljana and New York
for work. Naturally most - since their time is limited - want to travel by
air, and so we require more and larger airports and a greater number of
flights.
Of course, there are big problems. Most obviously there are the carbon
emissions, with air travel probably making an increased contribution to the
greenhouse effect. But any overall plan to reduce emissions doesn't
necessarily have to impact on the number of flights we take, providing the
slack is picked up somewhere else. In other words, if we think that the
ability of the mass of people to see the world into which they were born is
a good thing, then we may trade it for other reductions. It's our choice.
Still, the desire to limit carbon emissions is the best reason for opposing
the proposed expansion of Heathrow, on which the Government will decide this
summer. I can respect those demonstrators who are prepared to scale high
rooftops - always provided that they themselves renounce any air travel, and
even if their leader, by all accounts, managed to get in two
round-the-world-trips in his gap years, before seeing the light.
But what about all the other objectors? Which, to judge from the comment pages
of the main newspapers, consists of just about everybody. The National Trust
is against the Heathrow expansion, as are all the important London mayoral
candidates. The Lib Dems are opposed, as are it seems - though it is hard to
be sure - the Conservatives. My guess is that the Archbishop will come out
against it soon.
The campaign is largely co-ordinated by a group called Hacan Clearskies,
originating in the Heathrow area. To its credit Hacan is not just against a
Heathrow expansion, but against expansion at Stansted too. In fact there's
an evening event soon featuring Zac Goldsmith (whose family travel
everywhere by camel) and Terry Waite, OBE. “We”, says Hacan, “oppose the
Government's aggressive go-for-growth policy.” But it isn't primarily the
Government's policy, it's the traveller's policy. No one, except civil
servants and soldiers, flies because the Government tells them to. People
fly like I fly and you fly, because they want to see Prague.
It isn't surprising that people who live in the vicinity of Heathrow are
unenthusiastic about expansion. A few will have to move, and many Londoners
may get extra flights overhead, though the noise will still be far less than
in the days of Concorde. In August we were told about a poll being conducted
in West London by Friends of the Earth to see if local people were willing
to take the train instead of flying, if rail travel was made more
affordable. But I can find no trace whatsoever of the result. Was it
possible that many of these Londoners actually wanted the Heathrow expansion
to go ahead? Is this the great secret we are all sharing, that actually we
hope the third runway and sixth terminal get built as quickly as possible,
but we really don't want to be heard to say so?
But wait, says Baldrick, I have a cunning plan. Never mind emissions, the
problem is that Heathrow is in the wrong place. Let's put it somewhere where
it won't offend anybody. An island, say, off the coast of Kent or Essex. The
idea has been suggested here by Kit Malthouse, also by Sir Peter Hall,
president of the Town and Country Planning Association, and by Boris
Johnson. .
Ooooh! It'd be like Singapore moving its airport to Changi on reclaimed
ground, claim excited proponents. It'd be like China opening the new Beijing
airport. It'd be like that island airport in Japan.
Changi airport is seven miles from Singapore city centre: an offshore London
airport would be at least 35 miles from Charing Cross. Let alone how far it
would be from Birmingham or Southampton. That's a lot of new road, while
Heathrow currently has the Express, the Underground, the M4 and the M25. By
the way, the Japanese airport is sinking and the Chinese Government enjoys
certain advantages over ours: it doesn't have to hold inquiries and it
doesn't tolerate objectors.
As Boris may discover. The Essex Echo last week carried comments by local
Conservative MPs and councilors who were “dismayed” at the idea for an
international airport suddenly appearing just offshore. The report ended in
the familiar coda, “Despite repeated attempts by the Echo, Mr Johnson could
not be contacted for further comment on the issue.” In the past year airport
expansion plans have been fought off successfully or abandoned at Luton,
Manchester and Birmingham. It would be, as a correspondent to this paper
wrote yesterday, 2070 before Estuary airport was up and running.
My conclusion? You don't want the Heathrow expansion, fine. But to be
consistent, please don't step on an aircraft yourself.
I have recently decided that the costs and downright ugliness of air travel are going to be foregone by me unless absolutely necessary. Un fortunately, I am old enough to remember when air travel was efficient and pleasurable. It has become the waterboarding equivalent of travel modes today. I am as much against it as I am against waterboarding.
I will find other ways to enjoy life's pleasures.
FRANCIS X HEALY JR, WARRINGTON, PA USA
Some aircraft noise is not really noticed because it is at a tolerable level, other levels are very irritating and cause stress.
Having my sleep disrupted regularly by aircraft noise causes me to feel tired, and therefore anxious about carrying out some of my work tasks, eg, giving intravenous drugs to patients.
I wish I had a job where it that didn't matter whether or not I suffered the consequences of noise pollution caused by the Spanish owned BAA.
Christmas Day was the one day we had freedom from airport noise. However, that has been taken from us too.
Perhaps I should leave the town I was brought up in.
The decision about airport expansion should be made by those who have to suffer the noise and air pollution.
Eileen,Glasgow, Renfrew, Renfrewshire, Scotland
I really can't be bothered any more.
Global warming man made or otherwise is happening. We are probably contributing to an ongoing process. Probably speeding it up.
thee pollution from planes is horrendous (not just CO2 emissions) and needs to be stopped.
I drive. I do not fly. If we holiday more in the UK, we contribute to the economy and keep money in the UK, and reducethe pollution from flying.
but no! the ignorant classes waant to fly off to some godforsaken sweatbox full of flies and diseases to but something made in slave conditions because "you can't garuntee the weather at home".
Lets just concrete over the southeast (the most densley populated place in the western hemisphere) and build airports and roads for the sake of getting more peoplle in.
E R Mann, Warwick, U.K.
I'd prefer a bit a leadership rather than a dismal economic / you-hypocrite school boy argument. Where's the plan for integrated rail/road/airport infrastructure. If there were a high speed rail link from Scotland to Cornwall we could cut hundreds of daily internal flights. If there were a high speed link from Heathrow to Gatwick to Europe many short hall European flights could be cut. Too expensive ? when oil reaches $200 it won’t
Jason White, Paris,
Irrespective of whether I use aircraft or not, I think I have the right to object to a new flightpath over my home, polluting the air and endangering my family. By the same logic, if I was protesting about a new motorway to be built at the end of my garden do I need to stop using cars? This really is not a particularly well thought out article. David Aaronovich also seems to imply it is only English people looking to go on holiday that use Heathrow, I wonder what the real split is between British people leaving and foreigners visiting or simply landing to transfer to somewhere else?
Bob Holmes, London,
With oil deposits rapidly diminishing, we may find that air travel will become self-limiting. The subject of whether we have the right to fly when and where we wish could become a purely academic exercise.
Rikki Tikki-Tavi, Lichfield,
Can we, at least, stop talking about building a monster airport somewhere else? This would really be a case of 'out of sight, out of mind'. An airport far from people could be a recipe for expanding flying without limits. Nobody would notice until the country went bankrupt paying all that subsidy or the country was submerged by rising sea levels.
John Murphy, Feltham, Middlesex
The article comments correctly that a third runway is absolutely needed, however it falls within the reach of the co2 arguement that emissions from air travel are causing the world to end. This is simply unproven political agenda setting in order to scare a general public and increase taxes.
I cannot believe some people are commenting saying they are in favour of "carbon allowance". Everything is made of carbon! The ideology behind the whole arguement is proposturous. You wouldn't have the opportunity to read this website if you knew that the government would punish you because you spent too much time using electrcity to run your computer today.
Grow up and realise what is actually going on here.
Freddie, London,
For David Aaronovich and others who claim we hid the rersults of a poll, here they are. The poll was press released.
Nic - West London Friends of the Earth
Q1: Would you support government action to make rail travel a more affordable, easy, and pleasant alternative to air travel within the UK?
Results: 96% yes (other results pretty much insignificant)
Q2: Do you support the expansion of Heathrow airport?
Results: 24% yes; 62% no; 14% undecided/don't know
Q3: Would you be willing to holiday more in the UK than abroad to protect your local area from airport expansion, and help combat climate change?
Results: 64% yes; 31% no; 5% undecided/don't know
END
Nic Ferriday , London, UK
Forget carbon emissions until there is as much data available on the measured natural and man made emissions as there is on the results of what would be considered unverified computer models if it were in any other field. It is currently on the data available an unsubstantiated theory with little or no proven value and not as we are led to believe a likely scenario.
The only limits on aircraft should be firstly on fuel use where it should have to compete favourably on fuel per mile with any other transport. Secondly any new aircraft shold have a noise threshold lower than any of its lpredecesors. The first wrong step was allowing the Boeing 707 which stopped the previous prerequisite of any aircraft to have an acceptable noise limit.
D Cage, Highworth, Wilts UK
Whilst it is true that "that island airport in Japan" is sinking, it was always expected to. It may sink a little quicker than was predicted, but the technology that went into it has led to no more than 3 more being opened. These airports are connected to their respective cities by high speed train lines. I don't know what train Mr Watt uses, but the bus from Kansai airport to the centre of Osaka only takes 45 minutes, and the trains are quicker. Although there isn't the same level of shopping as you may find in Heathrow, who really cares? It's an airport, not a shopping centre. Airport shopping for anything more than travel essentials is like buying your clothes in a service station on the M4
Steve, Amesbury,
The BAA should be turned into a charity.
Once the expansion imperative is removed along with the need to expand their profits every year - the people running BAA will see sense.
Perry, Neath, Wales
Give everyone a 'Carbon Allowance' which they can use OR sell on to the heavy travellers.
This will stop the whingers and give the underclass a few quid in their pockets, Hopefully NuLabour will not tax it.
Sid Jacques, Durham,
'providing the slack is picked up somewhere else'. A very well-researched, empirical analysis.
also, what has Zac Goldsmith's family got to do with him? Surely there's only a problem if he hasn't travelled everywhere by camel
andrew, manc,
Several pro expansionists posting from the safety of Bath , Gloucester , NY and Australia respectively have proved my point about expansion being fine as long as you don't have to live there ...
Ian Speed, Isleworth, UK
I suspect rising oil prices will sort this problem for us.
neil, waterford, ireland
Could it be that the travellers policy is a little wrong? At 29 I have only stepped onto a plane 4 times, and my family are not particularly underprivileged. I have however travelled frequently and extensively across much of the world - although I haven't been across the Atlantic. I think it is wrong to suggest that flying is a class issue, it is more a travellers choice. Some people frequently take cheap flights to Spain, some people have never left the country. I think it would be wrong to suggest that any 'policy' dictates the frequency of flying - except perhaps the travel agencies. There's more than one way to get to Prague and they tend to be far more interesting.
Stephen Fisher, Amesbury, England
I dont care how many runways they build, or how many new airports are proposed, its the increase in flights - and the environmental damage this brings - that I object to. Bring on carbon allowances - it's the only fair way to sort out the emmisions issue whist retaining freedom of choice.
I haven't been in an aircraft since I was a child and had no choice in the matter - and I intend to keep it that way. However I want to see as much of this island as possible, preferably in a big gas-guzzling jeep. My parents on the other hand would happily give up their cars tommorow if it meant they could keep their jaunts in the sun. It's these choices and trade-offs we should be encouraging.
jen, nottingham,
Bravo, Mr Aaronovitch, for once again stating the obvious truth that so many people refuse to see, let alone say. Everyone wants everything all ways...everyone 'hates' Tesco, but they all shop there...everyone wants clean energy, but no one wants windmills in their views (they don't seem to mind electricity pylons, though)...no one wants a new runway, but they all fly somewhere!
If the demand weren't there, then the folks at the airport wouldn't spend the money on the expansion. I'm afraid the eco-warriors don't understand the true nature or the size of their worldwide enemy, consumerism. They're like Lilliputian fighters throwing toothpick-sized spears at Gulliver. Until they can fell us, tie us down and convince us collectively to stop consuming so much, whether it's cheap mass-produced meat from Tesco (yuck), over-packaged Easter eggs, vegetables from Kenya, Big Macs or air fares, we're doooooooomed.
In the meantime, let's enjoy seeing the world while we can! :)
Kathy C, Peshawar, Pakistan
I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't realise that air travel is a drain on the economy - I'd be grateful if someone could explain to me how and why this is. From a personal point of view I am not against airport expansion provided a) the local infrastructure can support the passenger loads, b) the environmental targets we must hit remain attainable, and c) there is a good business case for doing so. There is a plan to expand Bristol airport - which I use regularly for business travel - which I oppose: the reason for my objection is a) the local infrastructure, which has no hope of supporting the passenger loads, and therefore threatens to turn this whole area into a constant traffic jam (there are problems enough already). This puts me at odds with a number of local business representatives, who seem convinced that Bristol's financial potency relies on air travel. Personally I'd prefer rail travel where possible. if only it wasn't so expensive.
Duncan Hall, East Harptree, Bristol,
If I don't think a nuclear power station, or a wind farm, should be built in Hyde Park, must I stop using electricity?
Alex, Tunbridge Wells,
manston is rather small to take the full expansion envisaged but the employment it could bring would be very welcome in an area currently dependent on agriculture and holiday visitors.
given how long anything takes to happen on public projects i expect we will all be drowned due to rising sea levels or starved because of irreversible climate change before the first plane lands or the first train wheel turns !
of course all this stuff about global warming and its attendent effects could be a big scare - sorry i won't be at the demo as i shall be holidaying in madagasar
david c, purbeck, uk
I simply don't fly through Heathrow anymore. One too many nightmares there, caused by flight delays which are entirely avoidable through runway expansion.
If you moved into a location that's affected by Heathrow jet noise, tough for you. You probably should have checked on the flight path before signing a lease or buy agreement.
Global travel should be kept affordable for as many people as possible. "Principled elitists" who suggest that proletarians' freedom of movement should be restricted -- for their own good, of course -- are merely authoritarians disguised as global do-gooders.
If I had never traveled and seen the world through my own eyes, I'd only have media and the intelligentsia to tell me what the world looks like. God forbid I rely on such skewed vision!
Leadership means nothing, if it is not done by example. Most Britons will probably not grasp this, having never had to lead anyone -- other than leading their "lads" home from another sodden night out.
J Cline, New York,
It doesn't really matter how far Thames Reach airport is - the important points are:
1. It would be only 25 minutes from St Pancras (Heathrow is a good 40 minutes from St Pancras). It would also be on CrossRail.
2. It would be easily accessible from the Eastern side of the M25, probably with Park and Fly stations right on the M25.
3. It could accommodate 4 runways, so no delays due to over crowding
4. The terminals would be built with convenience in mind, rather than being evolved entities in the wrong locations.
5. No one is disturbed by the noise - allowing 24 hour operations.
6. All in all, it would have 4 times the capacity of Heathrow, if that was ever needed. An extras runway at Heathrow is another stop gap solution.
7. Flying from Heathrow is never going to be a good experience. Flying from Thames Reach could be. It could just about be the best airport in the World. Heathrow is not far off the worst.
Alex , Tunbridge Wells,
The majority of people will always justify their decisions with little regard for the wider implications. As it is still only a minority who fly, about 17%, I believe who flew more than three times last year, surely a carbon allowance is the fair way to go. People will then have to make real choices about their lifestyle.
Lily, Truro,
The principle argument here is idiotic. To argue anyone opposing expansion should never fly is nonsense - you could equally argue that you are allowed to be in favour of expansion only if you live under the Heathrow flight path !
People are opposed to Heathrow expansion for a variety of reasons. Some object to air travel on principle, some think further growth should be limited; others just think Heathrow is a crazy place to make the centre of UK aviation.
To argue another way - if future expansion of Heathrow was blocked, the result would be a modest increase in airfares, increased used of regional and secondary London airports, and Heathrow would be "overtaken" as a transfer hub by other European airports such as Paris, Amsterday and Frankfurt (which as better suited to this role). This scenario might not suit much BA or BAA, but is hardly the doomsday "end of British civilisation as we know it" scenario that it is painted as.
Nick, France,
What I dont understand about the Green Lobby is that they seem to have total disregard for choice. Yes by all means raise awareness of the seriousness of climate change, yes even make us feel guilty about getting a taxi home rather than the tube, but why oh why put us in straight jackets living in mudhuts?
We have thousands of years of technical innovation behind us, we can combat climate change with better technologies. If the Government made rail travel easier and less like cattle trains then more people would use it. Better make the cleaner alternatives easier than the 'dirty' options harder.
Chris, London, UK
Most of you seem to misunderstand
If you want to complain about airport expansion, you personaly should give up your right to fly.
If you want to complain about hoodies on street corners, you cant be wearing a hoody and stood on a corner whilst doing it.
ect ect ect.
Its relevent because it shows the hypocrasy of these people, "I can fly twice round the world but you cant fly to spain" or my house uses 10x the national average in power but I am the prophet of environmentalism
Dominic, Manchester, UK
David Aaronovitch thinks that we shouldn’t fly if we don’t want Heathrow expanded. Certainly, we would have the prospect of paying more to fly less if our airports are not expanded. However, if anyone is entitled to fly then surely it is those that are paid nothing to endure daily aircraft nuisance from airports like Heathrow.
I see no reason why people in favour of airport expansion should enjoy a moral entitlement to fly. Surely it should be the reverse.
Paul, London,
This is a simple one: All passengers should be able to contribute to a global mobility fund, those opposing the liberalisation of flying and cheap flights in general can pay an additional charge to ensure that they at least do not benefit from this ecological madness.
With the proceeds the airline concerned might buy a new set of hand-wipes for the washroom
John Wood, Uxbridge, London
Heathrow has 2 runways whils Charle de Gaulle has 4 and Madrid 4 and Schipol 5. Therefore pilots flying into and out of Heathrow always carry tonnes of extra fuel as most days there are delays in being able to land and takeoff. This extra weight and the extra time spend with the engine running burns fossil fuel for absolutely no benefit to balance the enviornmental cost.
The solution known to all pilots that use Heathrow is to build the extra runway but cap the number of permitted movements. Put the cap at a lower level than the extra capacity provides and the whole operation will run more smoothly and produce less pollution per passenger moved.
Arnold Jones, Gloucester, UK
Further expansion of Heathrow is inevitable.
South East England is the financial and travel hub of Europe. Air travel is as important to trade in goods as it is to the carriage of people.
Primarily, those opposed to Heathrow expansion plans
1.Live nearby;
2.Are anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation acolytes;
3.Are the ‘hubristic’ proponents of the theory of man made global warming and that mankind can some how control or even influence the earth’s climate; and
4.Are flat earth types
Thankfully they are small minority, albeit vocal and determined.
C02 Sceptic, Bondi Beach, Australia
If the oil runs out within 50 years what are we going to do with the Airports? Move to Beachy head and have gravity launched gliders?
Expansion solves nothing. There would be no need for that much new road for the airport in the sea, due to the existing links if you plan properly, and while you are at it why not a high speed raillink making the 35 miles into 15 minutes using the old lines into waterloo? Reminds me that Thames water are always threatening to create London Oxford airport in South Oxfordshire if they are not allowed to flood it with a reservoir. How many people actually travel from the counties to fly from Heathrow? By that I mean Those areas well outside the M25. If I have to travel from say, Hereford to Heathrow because I can not fly from Birmingham, Bristol or Cradiff the three nearest toHereford why not?
John, london,
"any overall plan to reduce emissions doesn't necessarily have to impact on the number of flights we take, providing the slack is picked up somewhere else"
The use of the word 'slack' here deserves some sort of prize from the oil lobby. ("we have a problem with all this carbon - who will take up the slack and emit some of it?")
julia, london,
Well done David, you are a lone voice on this matter of Airport expansion, the environmentalists are the new "communists" they blackmail us with threats that we are killing the future generations and they are the salvation of our future and no one can do anything about it.
WHUNTE, London,
The Article and some associated comments here make me worry for the human race!
Much quieter than in the days of concorde!? The writer has swallowed the same nonsense the govt is peddaling: 2 concorde flights a day are NOT equivalent to an extra 400,000 aircraft!!.
Collapse of London as a finance centre!! The success of London is due to it's strategic location not because it houses one of the worst airports in the civlised world!!
And so visionary: Heathrow has been there since he odd twin prop flew in to it - so lets leave it there for ever!! A few weeks ago a very large jet aircraft missed landing on west london via a miracle - the death toll would have been enormous. One day it WILL happen. I wonder if the writer would supporting this if it had happenned - of course not.
Then there is the pollution, effects on health etc...
Flying 800,000 planes over our largest city IS NOT a good idea, work it out...
grant, LONDON,
Two weak arguments are developed here.
First, it is a nonsense to suggest that only those who never fly should be allowed to question airport expansions. Hypocrisy would arise only if those objecting were advocating a cessation of all flying. The argument that the growth of aviation should be curbed - both to take account of the noise and air pollution inevitably imposed on those living near airports and to help us avoid disastrous climate change - can be made perfectly validly without any need for any one individual to stop flying altogether.
Second, the claim that no-one flies 'because the Government tells them to' ignores the very clear role that the Government has in shaping the context in which people make choices. An increase the provision of public transport in London has resulted in an increase in those travelling by bus an tube. Similarly, colluding with BAA to build bigger airports and increase flight numbers is very clearly going to encourage people to fly.
Cait Weston, London, UK
At least my conscience is clear having not flown since the early 80s when I still took package holidays with my parents .
But you don't have to abstain from an activity altogether to criticise its wilder shores - that would mean anyone who listened to Chris Rea in the car on the way to work couldn't have a go at a gang of ' hoodies ' cruisng around playing rap music at 150db .Similarly taking a flight every year or two shouldn't mean that you can't have a go at people flying to Barcelona for the weekend and demanding other people's houses are demolished in the process.
As a west Middlesex resident I might equally well say anyone who advocates the expansion of Heathrow from a safe distance outside West London is just as much of a hypocrite . Let a new airport be built where demand is highest to fly.
Ian Speed, Isleworth Middx, UK
Funny, most of the people I know that have been to Prague have done so in the alcoholic haze of a stag party and not really seen much of it at all. They can get equally drunk in Blackpool rather then having to drone across west London in a plane.
Problem is that flying is simply too cheap, largely due to tax breaks received by the airlines and massive subsidies provided to aircraft manufactures. Rather than predict and provide it would be better to control demand through price mechanisms. The airlines bleat that poor people won't then be able to afford foreign holidays - simple answer, tough.
I've found that people's opinion quickly changes once a flightpath opens up above their heads, which will happen more and more as airports expand all over the country. Then they might understand, unlike David Aaronovitch, that though Concorde might have made a racket it was quick and infrequent, whilst hundreds of 737s passing over your head are just plain depressing.
The Empty Vessel, Brighton, UK
Good point well presented!! No doubt some of the most vociferous anti expansion hypocrites also use 4x4 gas guzzlers for the school run.
If the Stanstead expansion had gone ahead without the government white paper being challenged by judicial review, then the Heathrow expansion may not have been needed quite so urgently. Working on the assumption that Stanstead was first put forward as the 3rd London Airport in 1962, the 'island option' might be ready by 2052 if the planning process runs as smoothly!!!
The fact is, if we dont get our act together, an alternative hub airport will be built in France or Holland , the UK will lose the commercial benefit of this and emissions will have increased anyway. I think the emissions argument has been hi-jacked by the Nimby brigade to broaden its campaign to the wider public at large.
How about asking the working people in the vicinity of Heathrow & Stanstead what they think. Most would welcome the jobs & prosperity expansion would bring.
martin c, bath,
The Society for the Protecton of Ancient Buildings indicate that there are 120 listed buildings at risk including the magnificient great barn of Harmondsworth - follow link for a picture: http://www.mccurdyco.com/harmondsworth.html . In the words of SPAB's press release 'It is wholly wrong to sacrifice buildings that may be 800 years old for the comparatively short term expansion of an activity that is unsustainable in the long term.' Amen to that.
Adriano Sapelli, Chorleywood,
Mr Aaronovitch, your conclusion is correct. Those that say they are against airport expansion should not fly themselves. Yet you say it as though all objectors are hypocrites.
Let me tell you that there are many of us out there whose actions mirror our words.
Unfortunately we are many times outnumbered by individuals who don't care about the impact their flights/lifestyles have on the climate, or the suffering that they may be inflicting on others.
Angela Kurton, Harlow, Essex
Similalrly to you I could not afford air travel until I was 30 and started making money, since when I have travelled the globe. Air travel is profoundly liberating.
Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK
It seems to me that people mix up two different situations. More and more holiday makers are taking advantage of low-cost air travel to visit cities and countries they want to see. But the low-cost airlines do not use Heathrow. That Heathrow is badly situated cannot be denied; that a third runway would make things worse seems obvious. But don't blame easyjet or Ryanair passengers for the extra congestion. The seat occupancy on a low-cost plane is probably greater. It has to be, or there would be no profit. The big national airlines can afford to fly half-empty aircraft, and have even been charged with flying empty planes simply to keep their landing slots.
Jane Berry, France,
Heathrows third runway is already built, it's called Manston in Kent. Just put a high speed rail link in, but joined up thinking is not a strong point in the UK. This could serve notheast France as well. Manston could take a lot more charter traffic reducing the load on Heathrow, so removing the need for a third runway.
France is far better at intergarting their travel infrastructure, we should learn some lessons from them.
My guess is the real reason Labour are pushing for a third runway is, BAA will be making a large cash donations to the party and providing jobs for the boys when they are voted out.
Brian, Old Winsor,
i didn't go on an aeroplane until i was 29 but i don't think that gives me an excuse to burn up the planet now (BTW how did you get across the atalantic when you were 27 then?)
those congratulating the government on its promotion of air travel haven't entirely realised the flip side yet - growth in air emissions is going to be paid for by reductions in all other transport emissions
hypermobility is indeed a fantastic thing - breakfast in london, lunch in new york, etc. it was a fabulous glimpse of our future spun by a media (tv, films, magazines, newspapers)unconstrained then by any thoughts of sustainability, right throughout our formative years, and now deeply embedded in our expectations
unfortunately, when it comes to it, when the technology fathered by these expectations has come on stream, we can't really afford it
i feel sorry for those brought up on the cutting edge of what progress meant - but please, for the planet's sake, get over it
andy p, st albans, uk
Perhaps David Aaronovitch is right: the real problem is not environmental, but the one of hypermobility. But I do not agree that that is inevitable or desirable.
The poor have always been able to travel albeit more slowly and the rich always faster and more comfortably: this will never change, but can you imagine the chaos (not difficult as it has started) of everybody being able to go everywhere as cheaply as it use to be to take the train? Do we really want a world where European identity and cultural differences are lost through sheer weight of numbers.
I too had not taken an aeroplane before the age of twelve, and use to go on holiday with my parents by train. So what? I ask a serious question to David Aaronovitch: Wasn't it really more agreeable when fewer people travelled; when it was more of an effort to go to foreign countries, by train and possibly by boat, and the pace of life was less hectic?
Peter Goddard, Le Rouret, France, EU
I rather suspect that this is going to resolve itself as the end of cheap oil becomes a certainty.
Ubi, Edinburgh, uk
It is always those who've travelled the world the most who now want to deny others the privilege. Those who put their opposition to airport expansion down to emissions are forgetting that one day planes will be built to run greener by necessity, once it's too expensive to fuel them with kerosene.
Being opposed to airport expansion is regressive and luttide, because the idea of flying places in principle is a good one. The greens should campaign instead to the airlines, EADS, Boeing and the governments to put more money into making the planes themselves greener.
Adam, East London, UK
As the article says, it's carbon emissions that are the major problem. But Aaronovitch, and this Government, are in denial if they think that expansion can go ahead if "the slack is taken up elsewhere." The amount of aviation growth that is proposed, on the Government's own figures, mean that the rest of the economy will have to reduce its emissions by 93% by 2050 to reach an overall 80% cut in CO2, Brown's preferred target.
Airport expansion, with a third runway at Heathrow, would end up strangling the rest of the economy. In the end no government will allow aviation to drive the UK economy into the ground, but it would be far better for the Government to stand up to the aviation industry now rather than after Sipson has been bulldozed into history.
Tom Pike, London, UK
Like Mr A I didn't go on a plane until I'd grown up. However now I am grown up I can appreciate the major environmental negatives attached to flying.
I can also see that , economically, flying is one of the biggest drains on the UK economy. Aside from the fact that the UK major airport operator is foreign owned , most airlines are as well. Aircraft are imported , as is fuel. The industry creates a tourist balance of payments black hole of incredible proportions.
That means , as a responsible bloke , I only use planes occasionally. I don't have a holiday home abroad , nor see a need to weekend away in a foreign economy like the comparatively rich.
Perhaps Mr A , if the relatively few people who regularily fly curtailed their addiction we wouldn't need a new airport , third runway or have an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
Rob Green, Braintree, Essex
In principle, the author is absolutely correct. Also, it may well be that the road and rail infrastructure supporting Heathrow is at saturation point. As stated, a coastal airport is unrealistic. Since there is no alternative, the international traffic now passing through Heathrow would have to go to France, Portugal or Spain (who would be only too willing to accept the business), thus reserving Heathrow primarily for domestic flights and short haul flights to the continent. While this would satisfy the holiday market, it would put London off the map commercially. There would be an exodus of head offices, and in the worst case, the collapse of London as a financial centre. The good news would be that house prices would fall to within reach of the average family income, given that salaries would not suffer a corresponding decline. Hence, stagnation might be beneficial, and it will be interesting to see how Britain handles the situation in the coming years.
Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green, Cheshire, UK
Arguably the most crass article on this subject yet.
When the 'airports' at Hounslow and Croydon first opened, passenger aeroplanes were still a much loved novelty, not to fly in, but simply to see/hear - in my 1950's childhood I would race outside to check type of aircraft, in the same way we all collected steam train numbers.
No one had yet recognised the monster growing.
By the late 1960's they had recognised, and the "Baldrick" Thames estuary airport was proposed, then pathetically abandoned in the early 1970's.
HEATHROW IS IN THE WRONG PLACE, AND SET TO GET WORSE.
As for it taking until 2070 to resolve the estuary option, with the potential Crossrail/Chunnel links, someone is joking .
MikeM, St. Albans, England
Nicely put Mr Aaronovitch. Let Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc. walk everywhere, live in darkness and live on garden grown produce carried home in straw baskets and cooked on grass fired stoves. the Earth will outlive all of us, continue evolving and die along with the Sun, the source of all our energy.
Incidentally, the lack of runway capacity at Heathrow results in a large amount of aircraft holding at peak periods, consuming thousands of tonnes of fuel every year. Doh!
Colin Williamson, Edinburgh,
Nicely put Mr Aaronovich. Although you are only stating the
obvious but stating the obvious is often necessary, as it is in this case, as many of the objectors don`t seem to see it.
The Kansai International airport in Japan is also much worse
than you paint. By the ordinary Kansai airport rapid it take 2
hours from my house and the distance is only roughly the same as Victoria to Gatwick. The express costs twice as much
and only saves 20 to 30 minutes. At the airport you have dubious pleasure of buying the world`s most expensive Big
Mac or you can stand around and wait. Outside the very
expensive restaurants, not very many, and the departure lounges seating is scarce. If you want a drink there are no bars
, so you can go to an expensive restaurant or try to find one of
the two convenience stores and buy a tin of beer. One is cheap
as it is mainly not exclusively for airport staff use but it is
difficult to find. The other is a souvenir shop in departures lounge.
Denver Watt, Osaka,