Anti-Heathrow protesters stage hunger strike against Heathrow 3rd runway plans, asking people to lobby their MPs to vote against it

Date added: 10 June, 2018

On Saturday 9th, campaigners from the Vote NO Heathrow campaign started a hunger strike, to draw attention to the huge risk that MPs might vote in favour of a 3rd Heathrow runway. The vote is likely in the next two weeks. Over 30 campaigners gathered outside the London HQ of the Labour Party in Victoria Street, for the start of the hunger strike by 5 of them. They intend to continue not to eat for as long as their health permits, and if possible until the vote in Parliament. Earlier in the week, 8 campaigners were arrested outside the building for using chalk spray on the pavement and the glass windows, to highlight their message. The vote of the Labour party is crucial, and it is hoped that MPs will appreciate that the runway fails the 4 tests Labour has set for it, and impose a 3-line whip. The Tories may impose a 3-line whip in favour of the runway. The Vote NO Heathrow campaign wants as many people as possible to write to their MP – of whichever party – to ask them to vote against the runway. There are many important arguments, why the runway should be opposed (more details below) but these could be summarised as economic problems, UK region problems, noise, air pollution and increased carbon emissions.
.
Tweet

A three-line whip is the strongest indication a party can give to its MPs on how to vote in Parliament. If a Labour MP “defies” the three-line whip there can be consequences such as being removed from posts. The Conservative government is expected to impose a three-line whip in favour of the airport’s expansion, which may cause problems for Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson .

The Vote No Heathrow campaign says:

The Heathrow expansion will be a disaster. It has failed all of Labour’s impacts tests on climate change and air and noise pollution. The party must uphold its values of ‘social and economic equality’ by firmly voting against the expansion. More than 30 campaigners will be outside the Labour HQ on Saturday and we would love you to join us in our fast, either in person or in solidarity.

Information for people on the hunger strike at https://goo.gl/forms/SLBJiSkxTv7fxvav2

The Vote No Heathrow campaign are calling on everyone to write and speak to their local MP and urge them to vote against the expansion. Even with strong signals from party leaders, many MPs are considering rebelling on the issue based on their constituents views. We must make sure your voice in his heard in this debate.

There is some information at the bottom of this webpage, with reasons why MPs should vote against the runway, to help people with their letter or email to their MP.

Write to your MP at https://www.writetothem.com/

Follow the campaign on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/votenoheathro/

and Twitter https://twitter.com/VoteNoHeathrow

Anti-Heathrow protesters stage dramatic hunger strike against third runway outside Labour Party office

Many have pledged to go on with the strike until their demands are met

By Qasim Peracha (Get West London)

10 JUN 2018

A group of anti- Heathrow expansion protesters, from the Vote NO Heathrow campaign, staged a hunger strike outside the offices of the Labour Party .

The desperate protesters are asking for the party to instruct its MPs to vote against the expansion of the airport when the Commons gets the final say in the coming weeks.

At least 5 of the protesters hope to continue their hunger strike and civil disobedience protest indefinitely, until the Labour party impose a three-line whip against expansion.

The protesters gathered outside the Victoria Street headquarters of the Labour party to make their demands on Saturday (June 9).

Some of the hunger strikers were wearing T-shirts reading “Love Labour: Hate Heathrow”, and placards reading “Vote No Heathrow” and “Hunger Strike”.

The “civil disobedience” has come after the government’s long-awaited National Policy Statement on Airports was published on Tuesday (June 5), and the cabinet voted to go ahead with the construction of a third runway , north-west of Heathrow’s current airfield.

The protesters had also been at the Labour office a day before the announcement, and some were even arrested as police descended on the offices.

Robin, a 26-year-old Londoner who is on the hunger strike, said: “We are taking this drastic action because this month there is a ‘make or break’ vote on Heathrow in Parliament.

Some protesters were even arrested after an earlier demonstration (Image: Vote No Heathrow)

“Everyone needs to tell their MP to vote against this disastrous project. The new runway will accelerate global warming as climate breakdown gets catastrophic and bulldoze hundreds of homes during a UK housing crisis.”

The runway would stretch over the M25, but would still require several homes to be destroyed and is likely to cause an increase in noise to some residents currently not affected by aircraft noise, opponents say.

The protesters are concerned about the likely impact of expansion to air pollution in London, as well as the need for enhanced infrastructure so additional traffic does not impact their ability to get about the city.

The protesters also sat outside the Unite union buildings; TUC, Community and BALPA have all expressed support for the 3rd runway, hoping there will be jobs.

The Conservative government is expected to impose a three-line whip in favour of the airport’s expansion, which may cause problems for Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson .

Video https://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/anti-heathrow-protesters-stage-dramatic-14766255

BORIS VOICES DOUBTS OVER WHETHER THIRD RUNWAY WILL BE BUILT AT HEATHROW

The Uxbridge and South Ruislip MP famously promised to “lie down with you in front of those bulldozers and stop the building, stop the construction of that third runway”, speaking to protesters.

As a vocal opponent of the third runway, he could face having to resign his senior cabinet post over the issue, as convention dictates any cabinet minister must resign before voting against the government on a three-line whip.

Alex Thompson, a spokesperson for Vote No Heathrow, said: “A new runway will accelerate catastrophic climate breakdown killing millions around the world.

The group say they share Labour values and urge them to reject the Heathrow proposal (Image: Vote No Heathrow)

“Those who stand to gain from the new runway are limited to a wealthy minority of frequent flyers; the rest will suffer a devastated climate, bulldozed local homes and even more toxic air. All progressive MPs must oppose expansion of Heathrow.

“We are calling on MPs and influential unions like Unite to look at the bigger picture: climate breakdown is being driven by wealthy people, who fly, and the impacts are hitting poorer people first and worst, who do not fly.

“We want a stable planet with stable work, not a broken planet with insecure work; that starts with opposing Heathrow expansion.”

If your MP is Labour, you can ask your MP to reject the Heathrow runway, as it does not pass Labour’s 4 tests:

Test 1: Robust and convincing evidence is provided that the required increased aviation capacity will be delivered.

Test 2. The recommended expansion in capacity can go hand-in-hand with efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation and allow us to meet our legal climate change obligations. [In reality the NPS has no solutions to cutting aviation carbon emissions – it gets the barest mentions only].

Test 3. Local noise and environmental impacts have been adequately considered and will be managed and minimised. [They have not been – air pollution and noise cannot realistically be reduced with a 50% larger airport, located in a very crowded part of the south east, with flight paths inevitably over-flying densely populated areas, for miles and miles].

Test 4. Benefits of expansion will be felt in every corner of the country, not just the South East of England, and that regional airports will be supported too. [There is good reason to expect regional airports will be harmed by the expansion, with lucrative long haul routes largely being from Heathrow. Domestic flight links to Heathrow would only be maintained if the airlines flying them are subsidised, as these routes are loss-making].

Also, if your MP is not Labour:

Heathrow expansion fails the health test

Air pollution fail: the area around Heathrow expansion already breaches legal limits for air pollution. Heathrow claim there won’t be a single extra car journey having a 50 per cent bigger airport. No plausible explanations have been given for how this could be achieved, or how air pollution could be kept under control. Air pollution has serious health impacts, from the immediately obvious, such as eye irritation and asthma, to heart problems, lowered birth weight and stunting of children’s lung growth.

Noise fail:

According to government documents revealed only after a Freedom of Information request, the increased noise from the additional aircraft and traffic are expected to affect up to 2.2 million people. Airport noise is already a problem over larger areas than just West London – some areas are overflown by both Heathrow and London City planes. However MPs will not be given information about flight paths – these are being decided later in a completely different process.

Aircraft noise is not ‘just’ irritation – it can impact mental health, and increase risk of increased blood pressure, and higher risk of heart attack, heart disease and stroke. Health is also detrimentally affected through sleep disturbance. Aircraft noise impedes the memory and learning ability of school children.

Heathrow expansion fails to help the UK as a whole

It will exacerbate the gap between the South East and poorer regions. The Airports Commission’s own modelling suggests that traffic at regional airports would fall on average if a new runway was built at Heathrow.

Suppose Heathrow could be expanded with no extra car journeys… how much would the infrastructure for that cost? Even Heathrow accept it will cost £5bn, but TfL have estimated an extra £10-15bn on top of that for transport links. Ironically, as Heathrow plans were laid before Parliament, newspapers across the North of England united in anger over recent rail chaos – and more systematic neglect of public transport outside London and the South East. This is where public funding should go to help our economy.

What if something goes wrong financially? Heathrow Airport Ltd already has significant debt and is borrowing even more to build a third runway. It’s “overbid” with it’s third runway proposal. Someone has to pay for that. With the government stepping in to bail out nuclear power stations, would taxpayers have to do the same with a ‘too big to fail’ third runway.

The economic benefits as a whole are significantly overstated. A reassessment of the data found that according to the DfT’s own value for money criteria for transport infrastructure projects, Heathrow third runway would now be rated as either poor or low value. At best, in net present value terms, building the North West Runway at Heathrow will yield an economic benefit of £3.3 billion. At worst, in net terms there would not only be no economic benefit whatsoever, but a significant financial cost of up to £2.2 billion, to be borne either by the airport, its investors, airlines, passengers or perhaps even government.

MPs can’t rely on the ‘official’ figures in support of Heathrow expansion being accurate. One example (that this reassessment did not consider, but which came up in the Transport Select Committee’s recent report) – the carbon emissions from additional air travel from a third runway (costed at £18.5 billion) have been excluded from cost benefit analysis. The relatively small figure of £624 million relating to airport operations and passenger access was used instead – taking 96% of emissions off the balance sheet.

Airport capacity – is another runway really needed in the South East?

This has been the great unmentionable in the ‘Heathrow/Gatwick’ debate – the idea that additional runway capacity may not be needed in the south east of England.

AEF’s report from 2016 points out that the London airports system is larger than that of any city in the world, with Luton and Stansted half empty. They state, ‘If there was demand for ten times as many daily flights to China, airports in the South East could handle that tomorrow, without any additional runway capacity.’ Numbers of business flights have in fact been falling.

The government is putting the cart before the horse in trying to force through Heathrow approval at least 18 months before publishing an aviation strategy. Is this because the strategy would show that Heathrow expansion is a costly white elephant, incompatible with many more important objectives such as tackling climate change?

Most importantly: Heathrow expansion fails the climate test

A new runway cannot be built and aviation emissions kept within the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended cap on aviation emissions of 37.5Mt CO2. There is no way to get around this. Since none of the proposed solutions listed below are plausible, the only real alternatives on climate change are either:

1. To reduce flights from regional airports to allow expansion at Heathrow, further exacerbating regional disparities;

2. To openly backtrack on both the UK Climate Change Act and the Paris climate agreement, admitting that emissions cuts made by all other sectors of the economy will be partially cancelled out by growth in UK aviation emissions, leaving us unable to meet our commitments.

Carbon trading/offsetting is not a solution: It has a poor record for actually delivering promised emissions reductions elsewhere. And as the chair of the Committee on Climate Change, Lord Deben, has pointed out, emissions cuts will increasingly be used to deliver countries’ own demanding commitments under the Paris climate agreement – where will these additional cuts come from? The obvious answer is double-counting – ‘fake’ emissions reductions.

On the same day the Heathrow runway was approved by Cabinet, six European countries threatened to walk away from the international carbon offsetting scheme for aircraft emissions – because it was being weakened to the point it was just a greenwashing exercise.

Biofuels are not the solution: The idea that sustainable biofuels would be available in sufficient quantity is very doubtful. For example, a report by Biofuelwatch argues that the only biofuel which currently appears feasible for use at scale is palm oil – and the expansion of palm oil cultivation would be far from good news for the climate.

Other technical fixes are not the solution: In the most recent figures produced by the Department for Transport, the expected future carbon emissions from aviation have been reduced, compared to those produced four years previously. There is no real explanation for this increased optimism – or what to do if it appears unfounded.

Fact. Aviation emissions can be around twice as damaging as CO2 from other sources: Aviation’s climate change impact is around double what it would appear from measuring CO2 alone (from other gases emitted at altitude and the formation of contrails). To have any chance at all of offsetting its impact would therefore require doubling the CO2 removed from the atmosphere elsewhere. This is being quietly ignored by the international aviation industry and by the UK government.

Myth: the Airports Commission found that Heathrow expansion was compatible with our climate targets: In fact all the committee claimed was that this was theoretically possible – IF additional policies were implemented such as an extremely high carbon price (which the government has no intention of implementing). Thereby giving a fig leaf which has no basis in fact.

References

Health
https://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/guide/HealthEffects.aspx
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/09/heathrow-third-runwa…
https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/01/aef-report-finds-uks-out-of-date-…
Economics
http://neweconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/NEF-Flying-Low.pdf
Capacity
https://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/Runway-Myth.pdf
Climate
Transport Select Committee Report https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtrans/548/548.pdf (Annex I, p147)
Problems with offsetting and why an international agreement won’t solve Heathrow’s emissions problem: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-05/WWF_Grounded_report_F…
https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/six-european-countries-threat…
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Aviation-biofuels-repo…
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidence… (carbon trading, and non-CO2 impacts of aviation – p3)
https://www.campaigncc.org/aviation_elephant

Anti-Heathrow protesters stage hunger strike against Heathrow 3rd runway plans, asking people to lobby their MPs to vote against it

The Vote No Heathrow campaign says:

Anti-Heathrow protesters stage dramatic hunger strike against third runway outside Labour Party office

Share this: