Is the environment being sacrificed for the economy?

The British Government has given the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow Airport in the fear that without this expansion, Britain would be less competitive at a time when it is facing many economic challenges. Geoff Goon, the transportation secretary, has said that without the third runway, Heathrow would lose business to airports with more runways such as Paris, Madrid and Amsterdam (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/world/europe/16heathrow.html?_r=1&hp).

Therefore, in order to struggle against its economic situation, the British Government has sacrificed whatever it must in an attempt to savage its economy. In this case its sacrifice is the environment.

Whilst the expansion to Heathrow Airport may bring some advantages to the economy, it will considerably disadvantage many citizens living within the area of which will be subject to increased noise pollution. The foreseen 125,000 more flights per year guarantee the existence of more noise caused by the raised number of planes as well as the noise caused by workers and builders during the years of development of this controversial project.

Additional air traffic will inevitably cause more problems in relation to air pollution. This will then worsen the situation with regards the Greenhouse effect, increasing the risk of global warming and dangering the climate.

In this sense, the British Government has sacrificed the environment for the economy as the project on Heathrow Airport will only result in more and more problems concerning the environment. The government has chosen to favour the economy.

Although the expansion of the third runway at Heathrow may cause some environmental difficulties, it will considerably help the economy by bringing in some $10.2 billion per year. The plan is set to create an estimated 65,000 jobs which at a time such as the present, will significantly aid many British residents. What is more, the development will improve business for many airlines (90 airlines have made Heathrow their base) who may also be struggling due to the financial crisis and thus this may help prevent bankruptcy. Serving over 180 destinations in more than 90 countries and some 67 million passengers per year this project is bound to drastically help the economy. Consequently, the British Government has chosen to sacrifice the environment in order to improve the economy.

Even the transport secretary Geoff Hoon himself has admitted that “this gives us the toughest climate change regime of aviation of any country in the world”. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_JsY45seGLULqfvYyu-b-7e3dCgD95NT1F00).

Subsequently, it is likely the government is still sacrificing the environment for the economy as by giving the go-ahead to the development at Heathrow, it is giving itself a major and unlikely challenge with regards the climate change.

Whilst the government is sticking to the regulations it does not mean that the project will not do more harm than good to the environment in the extra noise and carbon-emissions that it will cause.

Despite the government showing effort in trying to improve the environment in some way, it does not necessarily mean that these improvements to the environment are on the same wave-length as the damage that will be caused to the environment. It is just a weak excuse that the government is trying to use to convince the public that the environment is equally as important to them as the economy.