The FT has an article this morning which asks:
I have not read the piece in full. I did not need to do so to form my opinion. My answer is, of course, that Heathrow should not get a third runway. Instead, we should begin to discuss what we do with redundant airports as the number of flights we take reduces, as it must if we are to meet net-zero targets.
In that case, why is the FT so confused? And why does it even think that this is a question worth asking?
Could it be that it, like the whole neoliberal establishment, views current world decision-making through the lens of neoclassical economics profit and loss, which calculation refuses to take externalities, like pollution, into account? I think it is.
As with the Rosebank oilfield, the real decision criteria to be used for this issue are not being disclosed. But let me summarise them in one word, which is growth.
The belief is that a third Heathrow runway will fuel growth. And Tories and Labour alike think that we need growth to afford net zero, the NHS and anything else of value. And in that perverted way of thinking, that means that those activities that undermine and destroy everything of value that we have are seen as the prerequisites of doing good.
This is, of course, nonsense. We can do good without depending on growth.
Modern monetary theory helps us understand that.
But so too does the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 because it shows that we really are not short of options for funding without ever putting growth on the list.
When will politicians take note?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
On his blog Surplus Energy Economics, Dr Tim Morgan (Built a very nice model Whitby Class Frigate BTW) made the point that in the late 1930’s Goerings prediction of a 20000 plane Luftwaffe was unrealistic because at the time there wasnt the capacity to produce enough oil to make the aviation petrol such a fleet would require, indeed even by the end of WW2 the US Air Force had only just managed to reach that sort of size.
Similarly the current projected growth in air travel seems likley to exceed the ability of the oil industry to be able to extract the amount of oil available required to make the Jet fuel that the projected increase in air traffic would demand.
So expanded airports and plane fleets could end up empty and unused because of fuel supply constraints and thats before climate issues kick in.
Here’s a truly shocking example of how “the whole neoliberal establishment, views current world decision-making through the lens of neoclassical economics profit and loss, which calculation refuses to take externalities, like pollution, into account”
One of Greece’s last great natural habitats, the River Raphina, is set to be concreted over in the name of “efficiency”!!!
https://megalorema.gr/en/rafinas-great-river/
You know what I’d like to see?
Airships developed with modern technology which use hydrogen for lift. Given that it is becoming ever-cheaper to produce hydrogen through electrolysis and other techniques which aren’t reliant on fossil fuels, it seems a win-win to me. Everybody thinks back to the Hindenberg and other disasters back over a century ago, but they happily fly in modern aircraft carrying tons of aviation fuel which is also known to be somewhat flammable. Leaks of hydrogen would do just that – leak. No reason for them to explode or burn if the aircraft is designed carefully. Let’s not forget that electric planes are likely to use hydrogen fuel cells in some case as well!
There’s a link attached to this post which is to a company aiming to develop hydrogen dirigibles to carry cargo (and liquified hydrogen, initially). Develop such aircraft, see how they work out and then think about passenger aircraft of a similar type. OK, they would be a lot slower than jet-engined planes, but quite similar in speed to prop-based aircraft. Much faster for cargo than ships as well, of course, though obviously with less capacity.
What could be greener than using hydrogen for both lift and fuel?
Why do we need such airships?
Why airships? Because air travel/air freight is going to remain important in the future, however green we try/manage to make the economy and I think airships are the best option.
I tend towards the view that improvements in technology are required to save the planet – just being more ‘green’ won’t cut it. I’m not a doomer who thinks everyone will have to accept they need to live a poorer and less interesting life because, well, most people won’t accept that, especially those in the developing countries who are (hopefully) lifting themselves out of poverty. Many westerners have had decades of cheap flights, holidays abroad and luxuries and, if we start telling the next generation to stay at home and eat their turnips because we’ve used everything up, they won’t accept it. I think angling towards utopia isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Planetary resources are limited, but we still have a heck of a lot of them and can hopefully develop the knowledge and techniques to recycle and reuse whilst still remediating damage to the environment. And reduce the amount of damage we’re doing along the way.
That’s a rather long-winded way of making my point, but I think aiming for the most effective use of resources is a good thing. Heavier-than-air aircraft can never be as efficient a use of resources as lighter-than-air aircraft and they open up many opportunities. If the Hindenburg could fly for several days without landing and cross the Atlantic in the process, using technology from a century ago, why not produce something modern, flying on fuel produced from water and with few of the drawbacks of modern jet aircraft (though admittedly also lacking the advantage of speed)?
There are also hard-bodied dirigibles using helium which have been in development for years, but they don’t seem to be going anywhere. The advantages of hydrogen (easy to produce, much more lift, the most abundant element in the Universe) over helium make it a no-brainer in my view.
As a P.S. to my original post, you wouldn’t need more runways at Heathrow for these sorts of dirigibles. A number of small airfields dotted around the country would work more effectively for most cases and you wouldn’t need to have a lengthy runway or have much to worry about in the way of noise or air pollution for surrounding areas.
One guy who seems very convinced about growth is Andy Haldane whom I saw interviewed on Channel 4 news last night.
He thinks we could get an extra £100billion each year by ‘unlocking the potential of our cities’ and that stands comparison with the one off cost of HS2.
He didn’t actually say which industries would be so stimulated but he was very sure.
see esp. 1.08 -1.33
https://www.channel4.com/news/investment-outside-london-could-bring-100bn-boost-to-economy-says-bank-of-englands-former-chief-economist
Haldane is ex Bank of England and one of the reasons I am no longer a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
That’s no surprise.
An earlier Haldane re-organised the Army pre-Great War, I am the Chair of our county Western Front Association, so the name stuck with me when he popped up at the Bank.
Very persuasive sort of guy.
If airlines fuel growth, how can it contribute to growth if it is effectively not paying any tax on its fuel?
Again, another bullshit lie comes undone.
The airline process is all extractive – airports are just shopping malls with added extras getting you from one mall to another.
Flying is just one big con to me.
The calculation will be: allows more tourists (Chinese?) in and caters to the mostly middle & upper middle class people in the UK that are the main users of Heathrow. Main of these live in the South East – thus catering for their needs by vile-tory/vile-liebore alike is key. Heathrow has mostly holiday traffic these days (+70%) business travel having been in decline pre-Covid and much more so, now.
Wierd, pathetic, disfunctional. I live in hope that I will never have to pass through the place ever again. Still, I did once walk through with carry-on that included half a dead deer (roadkill) & once stopped the destruction of an aeroplane (I spotted a passenger buying the totality of a shop’s boxes of matches – perhaps 500 boxes – the imbeciles in the shop sold them – & I called security ) – ah Heathrow I will not miss you – the mad the bad & the wierd.
Notice how nobody i.e. UK serfs, has any say in the matter?
I loathe the place
If I never fly again I will be happy
I wish someone would tell me what they mean by levelling up. Building HS2 will do little if anything for most people and it certainly won’t reduce NHS waiting lists, reduce crime etc. I wouldn’t be suprised if tickets end up being ridiculously expensive.It is destroying countryside that tourists come to see so may negatively affect income from tourism.
So what if other countries have high speed rail.How and why would we want to ‘keep up’ with China a country so much larger?
Who will come to this country to swim in unsafe polluted seas anyway and the money wasted on a train set could have been used to clean our environment up, build new schools etc.[Did I hear the EU is thinking of suing the UK over the pollution of the sea?]
GDP is absurd as it includes bad and good things.If HS2 crashes on it’s maiden trip the cost of treating the injured. coffins for any fatalities,a new train etc would add to GP which is pretty sick really.Crashes are therefore good for GDP.
Levelling up to me means helping less well off people directly and HS2 won’t do this.
Still people will be able to get to London quicker to do their Xmas shoplifting.Sorry I mean shopping.
Politicians can’t think outside the box and seem to have little imagination.
Endlessly they promise that things will be better if growth [GDP]increases and this or that project goes ahead but wealth never seems to get shared around. Just profits for a few greedy people and with HS2 many peoples lives ruined.
Just a few thoughts
As a small child my father took me to see the airship hangers at Cardington, he saw the British & German airships flying over London.
But having studied them what is clear is that you cannot make an airship that is strong enough and powerful enough to deal with what the weather can throw at it.
While the Hindenberg burnt most of the rest fell victim to the weather.
Having said that what a way to travel!
Watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKVxiqa3Xzc
Don’t forget that the Hindenburg (and R101 and all the others which crashed/burned!) were designed a century ago, using technology from the early 19th century. We’ve advanced a bit since then, technologically-speaking!
I’m not a fan of the idea of using hydrogen fuel cells in cars (much less efficient use of electricity than batteries), but there’s something particularly elegant about the idea of having a hydrogen airship propelled by motors powered by hydrogen…