Fallacy of the case for a third runway

Your recent article speculating about a possible Conservative party policy shift on Heathrow ( Tories may be on the final approach to a U-turn , 26 March) suggested that the Committee on Climate Change , the government's official independent adviser, "inadvertently made the case for a new runway" by allowing for 140 million more passengers by 2050. First, this figure is for allowable growth nationwide. So permitting this amount of growth in the south-east alone would rule out any growth in the rest of the country. Second, research by WWF and the Aviation Environment Federation shows that under the CO 2 constraint used by the CCC – namely a reduction in aviation CO 2 levels to 2005 levels by 2050 – there is sufficient available airport capacity in the south-east, both now and in the future, to allow for new routes to emerging markets without having to build any additional runways. Building a costly, unnecessary airport or runway in the south-east would create the largest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and would be unlikely, miraculously, to stimulate growth. Rather than repeating the self-interested arguments of the aviation industry and certain sectors of business, the Guardian might also question the incompatibility of such a policy with the 80% emissions reduction target for 2050 set in the 2008 Climate Change Act . The government might have changed since the act was passed – with the support of the Conservative party – but the need to address climate change has certainly not. Decisions made, or delayed, today affect all future generations. We should be careful what we choose. David Nussbaum Chief executive, WWF-UK