Firstly, apologies for the lack of blogging over the last week. I've just arrived back from 5 days in the wonderful city of Brighton, meaning access to a computer has been limited. Lots of revision, frequently mentioned, has also been taking place, meaning the blog has slipped down my list of priorities. But not for long! 2 weeks of mock exams and then no urgent revision for a few months.
During my stay in Brighton, I heard about the Government giving the go-ahead for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. The roughly 2 mile runway would be to the northwest of current runways, allowing thousands more planes to take off and land every year. As expected, with Heathrow being one of the busiest airports in the world, there are strong views and opinions on the proposals, with one Tory MP resigning his seat and many more London MPs unimpressed by plans. Does Heathrow really need expanding? Could the expansion have been elsewhere? And how will this news affect the country in the long run? There are clear positives, and logic reasons for expansion. Particularly after we leave the EU, portraying Britain as open for trade and business will be helpful, and needed, to ensure the economy remains stable and businesses stay afloat. Expansion allows more trading between nations, putting Britain on the international scale for relationships, opportunities and innovations. The economic growth of the UK would be enhanced, offset by potential economic issues following our EU withdrawal and show UK to be a hub for businesses of all size. Various studies have shown, at peak times, Heathrow runs at 99% of its capacity. There are often disruptions and delays, which is good neither for the passengers or companies. For the long term future, this is clearly unsustainable and needs change. Through expansion, with more space for planes to take off, this capacity could easily be reduced. Planes could take off and land more swiftly, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide they pollute waiting to take off. For passengers, there would be a greater chance of getting to a destination on time, which would really boost moral and 'customer satisfaction'. On the flip side, there are a number of obvious problems with Heathrow expansion; the most obvious being Carbon dioxide emissions increasing, worsening global warming and climate change. If we as a country are to meet the Paris Climate Change Conference targets of not letting Global warming rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius, expansion would not be the way forward. The quality of our air would decline, increasing the roughly 10,000 people a year in London who die from air pollution. Environmentally, the case for Heathrow expansion is lost. The economic cost of Heathrow expansion, to the taxpayers, will be billions of pounds. This is an extortionate sum that nobody can really comprehend. Whether it will be value for the money, whether the cost will be cancelled out by business ventures is unknown, but there will certainly be anger if vast amounts of money are catastrophically wasted. This is a clear risk with Heathrow expansion, with an unclear outcome. If expansion does go ahead, many homes will be demolished and families will be forced to move. While compensation seems to be guaranteed, it will nevertheless be disappointing for people who have made a lively hood in that area. Putting all these arguments together, I still remain undecided about whether a 3rd runway is the best, most effective cause of action. Clearly, I want Britain to be on the world stage when it comes to business and I want Heathrow - the hub UK airport - to be ran effectively. But the arguments against expansion, environmentally, socially and economically, are compelling. To persuade me to support either side, both those for and against will have to raise their arguments, for the sake of the country, and the world.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|