Climate & Environment

Government Climate Advisers Say Heathrow Expansion Must Be Funded by Airlines, Not Taxpayers

By Matt McGrath

The UK government's climate advisers have said a third runway at Heathrow Airport cannot be approved under current climate policies unless significant changes are made to how the aviation industry funds emissions reduction efforts.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) said expansion could proceed, but only if airlines pay for cleaner fuels and for technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This could raise the cost of flying, with a return trip to Alicante potentially costing around £150 more by 2050, and a return flight to New York up to £400 more in today's prices.

Once built, the expanded airport would produce more carbon dioxide than any other single sector of the economy by 2050, according to the committee.

Heathrow said expansion and climate goals were "not a choice" and that it would deliver both.

Nigel Topping, chair of the CCC, said: "Our advice today is clear - Heathrow expansion is not currently compatible with the UK's Net Zero target. Government needs to ensure that the aviation industry takes responsibility for the emissions it creates and bears the costs of decarbonisation. Those conditions do not exist today."

While the CCC report cannot block a new runway, it is calling on the government to introduce legislation that shifts responsibility for the long-term environmental clean-up of aviation onto the industry itself. The Department for Transport (DfT) said it would "carefully consider" the advice as part of its ongoing consultation, which evaluates any expansion against four criteria: economy, climate, air quality and noise. A final decision on the runway will come via a House of Commons vote expected later this year.

The £33bn expansion project would increase Heathrow's passenger capacity from 85 million to 150 million a year. A DfT spokesperson said any expansion must align with the UK's climate targets, but noted it could contribute around £40bn to the economy and support up to 60,000 local jobs.

The CCC stated that carbon-removal technology would need to account for more than a third of emissions cuts by 2050, though almost none of this technology currently exists at scale. The committee noted that credible plans exist for only 1% of the engineered carbon removals needed by the late 2030s.

The committee argued that placing the financial burden on the industry, rather than the government, was the fairest approach to cutting emissions. It said that if costs were spread over 25 years, the price increase for a flight to Alicante would amount to just a few pounds annually - what Topping described as "less than a cup of coffee each way."

However, the airline industry pushed back against the CCC's recommendations. Tim Alderslade, chief executive of Airlines UK, said carriers supported the government's 2050 net zero target but stressed that the transition "has to be affordable." He warned that the CCC's plan could make holidays "out of reach for millions" and return air travel to being "the preserve of the rich."

Alderslade instead pointed to airspace reform and the expansion of sustainable fuels - such as those derived from waste oil and plant matter - as solutions. Regarding carbon removal technology, he said it was more difficult to scale and that the aviation sector "cannot and should not shoulder the burden of scaling up this industry alone," calling for government support instead.

Some researchers say the CCC's recommendations do not go far enough to prevent Heathrow's expansion or to achieve necessary reductions in greenhouse gases. Dr Lois Pennington of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research told the BBC that since cleaner fuels and carbon removal technology are unlikely to reach the necessary scale, the only reliable way to stay within UK carbon limits would be to halt - or even reduce - the growth of flights. "We need to make sure that we are not flying more than we are now," she said.

Despite saying it would weigh the CCC's advice, the government has signaled it intends to move forward with the expansion. Responding to questions in Parliament last week, Chancellor John Healey said: "After years of delay, years of indecision, years of often vexatious challenge, we have given the go-ahead to this project quite simply because the economic case stacks up and will help bring growth."

A formal House of Commons vote will still be required to approve the planning framework for the expansion, expected later this year.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham had opposed the third runway before taking office, arguing it would divert investment away from northern England and "trap it in London and the South East." London Mayor Sadiq Khan has also expressed concerns about the project's impact on climate and noise levels.

The expansion faces strong opposition from residents and councils near the airport's flight path. Around 750 homes would need to be demolished to make way for the new runway, amid long-standing concerns over noise and air pollution.