heathrow third runway

Permitting Heathrow expansion - hot on the heels of giving the green light to fracking - positions May and her government as climate wreckers. But it also puts them firmly on the side of greedy, dirty businesses and against millions of ordinary people when they could be helping us all from political and tax-payer investment in infrastructure.
Heathrow is facing air quality issues that simply cannot be overcome. If the best they can offer is a ham-fisted proposal that would severely impact small businesses and drivers across London then today should be the day that the idea of a Heathrow expansion is knocked on the head for good.
We need more people to take a stand against the bullying might of the industries that are trashing our only planet, and we need more voices to be heard in defence of our only home. Sending the Heathrow 13 to prison? That's just plain stupid. And it won't stop them either - as they said after the verdict, they're 'in it for the long haul.' In terms of the planet, so are we all.
As we enter 2016, it is clear that the centre of gravity of the airport expansion debate has changed. The momentum is now with Gatwick as people increasingly recognise it is the only deliverable option for the country. The choice is clear. Groundhog Day with illegal expansion at Heathrow and Britain losing out again or guaranteed growth at Gatwick as we choose to be the builders and see Britain reaping the benefits. The answer is obvious.
A Tory MP lambasted the government on Thursday following the announcement of a delay to the decision on how to expand airport
The final decision on whether to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport has been delayed until at least next summer, the
Heathrow's third runway has been a political football for a number of successive governments. But after the Airports Commission's recommendations this summer, it is about to be kicked out of the long grass.
So today's announcement may change the views of some people on Heathrow expansion, but in no way have the environmental challenges been addressed. Now it is over to the Government.
The Airports Commission, as an independent but taxpayer funded organisation, has a duty to the public not to recommend a project that would significantly damage people's health. It would also be a poor use of taxpayer's money to make recommendations that invite a legal challenge. That is why it is possible to imagine a concerned Airports Commission member of staff hurriedly typing away on his or her phone at the back of the courtroom this week.
Do any of the new proposals deliver on environmental issues? Many of the new ideas, such as noise compensation schemes and a congestion charge, aim to tackle these impacts but much of what has been proposed either misses the key questions or makes impressive promises on issues that are outside the control of airports.