Sir, It may be a nice dream, but there is no such thing as a “green” airport (“Heathrow gets third runway in £9bn deal”, Jan 15). The best possible practice in energy-efficient airport operations is utterly overwhelmed by the extra road traffic generated by an airport expansion, even before we consider the aircraft emissions themselves. Nor is it good enough to say that future aircraft will have less dirty engines. Of course that’s an imperative, but we cannot afford to allow the growth of the industry to wipe out the benefits of technological progress. It’s simply laughable to say that “the jobs outweigh the climate danger”.

First, climate change will wreak havoc on the world’s economy. Second, the greening of our economy will require us to create huge numbers of jobs across many sectors, not least transport. Hence the need for a Green New Deal. It really is time to ditch the false ideology of environment versus economics.

Specifically, there are powerful economic arguments against expanding the aviation sector when you take into account its swingeing external costs, the massive tax-breaks given to the industry, and its negative effect on our balance of payments. And generally, if we don’t make our economy sustainable within ecological constraints, the cost to our economy from things like climate change will be truly horrendous.

Caroline Lucas, MEP

Leader, The Green Party

Sir, In electing to purchase land and thereafter dispose of it in tiny plots to a few thousand supporters in order to disrupt the Heathrow third runway debate, Greenpeace has resolved to flout the democratic process in favour of a form of financial terrorism (“Opponents buy land earmarked for third runway to prevent Heathrow expansion”, Jan 13).

This should not and cannot be tolerated if the democratic process is to survive. If the ploy were allowed to become successful Greenpeace would thereafter doubtless feel free to make mischief within the law to distress the public at large, regardless of the consequences.

Colin Bentley

Newark, Notts

Sir, The argument that Heathrow expansion must go ahead for the sake of British jobs and businesses is flawed. The proposed additional runway is a patch over the real problem that Heathrow is in the wrong place to be an international airport hub. Heathrow is too close to urban settlements, has poor or non-existent rail links to Europe and the rest of the UK beyond London and generates massive amounts of pollution in the most densely populated part of the UK.

That an unelected Prime Minister should ignore the wide consensus against expansion and force this expansion on us is a disgrace.

Bill Aldridge

London WC2

Explore Letters

• Feedback