‘Global
Britain’ plans forced to take a back seat over climate
Ruling on
Heathrow airport expansion is a setback for the UK’s global trade ambitions.
By CRISTINA
GALLARDO AND SAIM SAEED 2/27/20, 5:32 PM CET Updated 2/27/20, 7:57 PM CET
Heathrow
saw 80 million passengers pass through the airport last year, and can’t carry
many more | Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images
LONDON —
Looks like it will still be Little England for now.
A court’s
decision Thursday that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow airport didn’t
properly take into account the U.K.’s climate targets puts into jeopardy the
country’s ambition to become a freewheeling, free-trading nation that
transcends its immediate neighborhood.
The ruling,
met predictably with dismay from industry and celebration among climate
activists, leaves the government in a bind. U.K. policymakers have been some of
the most ambitious in Europe on climate goals. But they face a treacherous
post-Brexit economy for which a third runway at the Continent’s biggest airport
was an insurance policy.
No one
better encapsulates that dilemma than Boris Johnson. He was one of the most
vocal critics of a third runway before becoming prime minister, when he served
a constituency in West London battered by the noise and pollution of flights
every 45 seconds.
Now he is
entrusted with the responsibility of navigating an uncertain economic future
for the U.K. beyond this year, and has been tacit about the project.
“The third runway was approved solely because of
Brexit” — Industry official
Heathrow
said Thursday it will appeal. But it won’t get the government’s backing, which
said it will not challenge the court’s decision.
“Expanding
Heathrow, Britain’s biggest port and only hub, is essential to achieving the
prime minister’s vision of Global Britain. We will get it done the right way,
without jeopardizing the planet’s future,” an airport spokesperson said
Thursday.
“We take seriously our commitments on the
environment, clean air and reducing carbon emissions. We will carefully
consider this complex judgment and set out our next steps in due course,” said
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps.
Flights vs.
climate
Heathrow
saw 80 million passengers pass through the airport last year, and can’t carry
many more — it’s operating at 98 percent capacity. The hope of the last British
government was that another runway would allow an additional 260,000 flights,
many of which would allow access for faraway countries, whose trading potential
would be unlocked.
The U.K.’s
own study says a new runway would add £1 billion to the U.K. economy every year
for the next 60 years. Based on those estimates, the British parliament in 2018
voted strongly in favor of the project. (Johnson, then foreign secretary, was
in Afghanistan at the time and missed the vote.)
“The third
runway was approved solely because of Brexit,” said one industry official,
speaking on condition of anonymity.
But climate
policy — buoyed by protests and more frequent bouts of extreme weather — has
shot up as a political priority in tandem.
The
government in 2019 was proud to present itself as the “first major economy in
the world” to legally require itself to reach climate neutrality by 2050.
Despite wrangling over deregulation in the Brexit negotiations, the U.K. has
promised that plan will not be affected by its departure from the EU.
Thursday’s
ruling — which set a legal precedent that all major infrastructure projects
need to be evaluated for their potential to harm or bolster the U.K.’s climate
goals — has in effect prioritized the country’s climate targets over its
economic concerns.
Fallout
The
judgment — which the government has effectively accepted in announcing it will
not appeal — requires the government to undertake a review to figure out how to
make expansion compatible with its climate goals.
There is
likely to be economic fallout in the meantime, as investors mull pulling out of
the Heathrow runway project altogether.
“There’s no
global Britain without Heathrow expansion. It’s as simple as that” — Heathrow
CEO John Holland-Kaye
“It doesn’t
make sense to us for the government or any private entity to be putting large
amounts of money into infrastructure that is predicated on missing those
climate goals, because in the end it can become massively stranded and that is
not something we want to see,” said Natasha Landell-Mills from assets manager
firm Sarasin and Partners, which invests on behalf of others in the Heathrow
expansion.
“This case
is a wake-up call for investors as well as the government and everybody that
these promises made under the Paris climate agreement are real ... by
definition we need to move capital away from activities and infrastructure that
is harming the planet,” she said.
Heathrow,
which last week committed itself to becoming a carbon-neutral airport facility
(minus the flights), said it is confident the expansion can be made compatible
with climate goals, and will go ahead.
It warned
the government that without the extra runway, the U.K. risks that “trade and
tourism volumes are being handed on a plate to European competitors.” Speaking
to the BBC before the ruling, Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye framed the debate
in stark terms: “There’s no global Britain without Heathrow expansion. It’s as
simple as that.”
CORRECTION:
An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed a comment from Heathrow
airport to the government.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário