As the Guardian reports this morning:
With the privately financed project, the West Sussex hub is aiming to increase its capacity by 100,000 flights a year.
Gatwick will move its emergency runway 12 metres north, enabling it to be used for departures of narrow-bodied planes such as Airbus A320s and Boeing 737s.
The new runway is expected to add 14,000 jobs and as much as £1bn in extra economic activity.
In a sane world, this would not happen.
Every plane going down the runway at Gatwick brings us closer to a climate catastrophe.
Ninety-two per cent of the flights from the UK are for tourism: this destruction of the planet is all about the relentless promotion of the idea that some must have a right to travel, largely as a form of conspicuous consumption of the sort John Christensen discussed here last week.
A quick Google search revealed this:
- 10–15% of the population take the most flights:
- In 2019, the 10% most frequent flyers in England took more than half of all international flights.
- A 2021 study showed that in the UK, 15% of the population took 70% of all flights.
- In 2014, a Department for Transport survey found that 15% of adults in Great Britain accounted for 71% of flights.
- Smallest group of frequent flyers still dominates: A June 2025 analysis noted that "ultra-frequent flyers," who make up less than 3% of the UK population, are responsible for 30% of all air journeys taken by UK residents.
- About half the population does not fly in a given year:
- In the 12 months before 2019, nearly half (48%) of England's population did not take a single flight abroad.
- A 2021 study noted that approximately 50% of the UK population does not participate in air travel annually.
- High income is a major factor: Frequent air travel is strongly correlated with higher household income and educational attainment. This means that taxes on aviation would disproportionately affect wealthier individuals.
- Higher earners travel more frequently: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 42% of the highest income households (£75,000+) flew more often than once or twice a year, while over half of low-income households (£25,000 and under) flew less than once or twice a year or never.
In other words, the wealthiest in a wealthy country are reserving their right to destroy the planet for everyone else.
And, meanwhile, Gatwick Airport has liked to style itself as a carbon-neutral airport by ignoring the emissions it enables.
If only we had sustainable cost accounting of the type I described here, it would be glaringly obvious that this expansion will not add £1 billion to the economy, but will in fact make it very much worse off, increasing the overall carbon insolvency of the economy we live in. And that, of course, is precisely why we need sustainable cost accounting.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“The new runway is expected to add 14,000 jobs and as much as £1bn in extra economic activity”
A bunker under Downing Street, McSwine (for it is he): “think of a number you dolts, any number, but make sure it has 3 zeros after it”
“hey boss, it’s my kids 14th today”
McSwine “right 14,000 jobs – that should push the headlines in the right direction……….now what is the chief dolt doing today – anybody got his agenda?”
The above an extract from the Ladybird book: “The UK in the 21st Century – a guide for young people”.
Many of these extra journeys will be short haul that could be undertaken by train. Put the money into improving rail.
Is there anything that this utterly abhorrent Government is doing that is right ?
I haven’t liked public transport for over fifty years. I grew up that way but I agree regardless of my feelings, public transport is the logical way ahead. Invest in public transport, make it work for us all. I won’t like it but I know it’s the right thing to do.
I love it.
Of course, improving rail, such as electrifying routes down to the South-West and elsewhere, would provide tourism and economic boosts to multiple regions rather than almost exclusively the South-East.
Labour has talked (occasionally) about supporting other regions, but in supporting Heathrow and Gatwick vanity expansions while ignoring less polluting, more beneficial and more effective projects in public transport shows it’s really still pandering to the wealthiest decile or 2.
If they were asking for how best to make the ‘Champagne Socialist’ label get firmly re-attached to their brand, airport expansion is pretty high up there.
Why is it that the mainstream media, not least the B. B. C, use so many words and pictures to get nowhere near the quality of analysis and word-economy of your articles?
I can’t answer that.
So, looking at the post and whats been discussed over the last few days……..
There is fairly obviously a Demographic and Economic question about the likley number of passengers as we end up with the older generation who might well be more inclined to holiday well, getting older or dying. Then there is the ‘cost of living’ crisis so its not likley that the ‘non flyers’ or ‘infrequent flyers’ will fly or fly more than they do at the moment
Then of course to what extent can you actually ‘expand’ the market? Are there a significant number of people who might fly more than they actually do? I suspect not.
So it looks as though the ‘Economics of Walking About’ hasnt been looked at.
(Post 1 of 2)
Post 2 of 2
Now and I cant find the post, Dr Tim Morgan who publishes the ‘Surplus Energy Economics’ Blog pointed out that Goerings pre WW2 plan for a 20000 plane Luftwaffe was bonkers because there simply wasnt enough aviation fuel that Germany could get hold of to run it.
He also pointed out that if as seems likley global oil production has plateaued OR it will do so in the future – Peak Oil. We wont ‘run out’ BUT there will be a limit to the amount that can be produced, where will all the extra Aviation Fuel come from?
Roll Up, Roll Up, put your money into a project thats a sure fire winner, just like the South Sea Bubble
Peak oil is a real issue
In the last 2 EU elections, many parties from the left to the centre (and even slightly right) are championing major investment into an WU-wide, fully-incorporated High-Speed rail connection.
France, Spain, Germany and even Italy’s intercity networks are the model the rest of the EU want to exoand tbroughout the 27 members.
No HS2 rubbish but a real alternative to short-haul flights.
I can akready get from central Amsterdam to central London quicker by train than flying, imagine how that can be expanded without needing to tunnel under a body of water.
I see Reeves is “Backing the builders and not the blockers” and yet the biggest blocker to investment and redistributive growth, namely her fiscal rules remains firmly in place.
So,
lifting the two child benefit cap – BLOCKED
Taxing Wealth – BLOCKED
Capital spending – BLOCKED – capped to avoid spooking the gilt markets!
Departmental spending increases, enabling public service expansion to meet peoples needs – BLOCKED
£28bn per year “Green Prosperity Plan” – BLOCKED
Ambitious infrastructure pipeline – BLOCKED and scaled back
Energy efficiency and home insulation – BLOCKED and scaled back significantly.
Public transport electrification projects – BLOCKED and deferred (probably indefinitely).
International climate finance – BLOCKED and reduced to stay within fiscal envelope.
Onshore wind and solar expansion – BLOCKED by fiscal caution and planning compromises; the sort of which she has dismissed at Gatwick!
Hopefully she will be gone by Christmas after another unimaginative budget lacking any innovation.
Although, I don’t hold out much hope for a competent replacement after appointing that bastion of human rights and dignity, Shabana Mahmood as Home Secretary!
Very good
I’ve only been out of UK once, when my parents forced me to go to Switzerland with the school when I was15. It was an unmitigated disaster for me as the girl who had bullied me for the previous 2 years was staying in the room we had to go through to get to our bedroom. Two brilliant visits though – to the top of a mountain (sorry, forget which one!) where we were able to walk INSIDE a glacier. Guess that’s probably gone now due to climate change. I saw photos comparing a glacier from 20 years ago and now on BlueSky yesterday. Didn’t look good. Other great thing, as a Sherlock Holmes fan, we drove past the Reichenbach Falls. 🙂
John and I sometimes joke about where we’ll visit “when” I win on the National Lottery. I have to say I would love to visit Japan, but not sure if you could get there only by train and water? Who knows – it’s unlikely I’ll ever have to find out! Rolls eyes! Though given the state of my health (mainly housebound) flying would prob be the best way for me. And it’d only be one return flight/flights in a lifetime.
So, now we know your bucket list.
Is it really economically viable to expand Gatwick? Surely by the time the work has taken place the cost of flying due to peak oil will exclude the market Gatwick is aimed at? Heathrow will always be top for long haul and business and Gatwick has been more aimed at the holiday market between the really budget flights and the upper end. There is a growing group like yourself, who choose not to fly for environmental and ethical reasons, and the rising cost will soon exclude those who will no longer be able to afford such luxury.
Agreed
This Labour government is inordinately keen to get rid of its green credentials…..who would have predicted that?
I agree with principle of ULEZ and better air quality – but surely you can’t be taxing ordinary citizens under the guise of air quality and then approving two new major runways for both London’s largest airports?
Apparently Labour can do that.
Hypocrisiy in action.