Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Lib Dem Report Slams UK Govt. Figures For 3rd Heathrow Runway As "Sham" - Guardian

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:59 PM
Original message
Lib Dem Report Slams UK Govt. Figures For 3rd Heathrow Runway As "Sham" - Guardian
The economic benefits of a third runway ay Heathrow will be almost wiped out by the increased costs to the environment, analysis by the Liberal Democrats shows.

The government's own figures suggest that ministers have underestimated by several billion pounds the financial impact of the extra greenhouse gases produced by a third runway at the airport. Critics say the new figures show the government's support for the new runway is a "sham" and have demanded that plans to expand the airport are scrapped.

Simon Hughes, energy and climate change spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, which carried out the analysis, said: "It is time for the government to come clean on Heathrow. Ministers know the economic rationale for a third runway is a sham because their own figures prove it. By giving the green light to a third runway, the government has allowed hundreds of thousands more flights, creating a climate change disaster."

Ministers announced the Heathrow expansion plan in January, which could add another 220,000 flights a year at the west London site. The government said the climate change costs associated with the project would be 4.8bn through to 2080, which it said would leave an overall benefit to the UK economy of 4.4bn to 5.2bn. But the Liberal Democrats say this calculation was based on out-of-date figures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 03:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wonder why people un-rec an article like this?
Wouldn't expect a knee-jerk response to the poster (some others maybe, not Hatrack).

Wouldn't expect anyone to be defending the government line on this.

Wouldn't expect anyone interested in the environment to be in favour of
adding "another 220,000 flights a year".

Maybe just a troll?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 23rd 2017, 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC