Protestors blockade an airport entrance to protest over plans to double private jet flights.
Residents and climate activists have blocked access to Farnborough Airport this morning (February 2) to protest against the proposed expansion of the airport which will almost double the number of private jet flights to 70,000 a year.
Scores of campaigners from Extinction Rebellion, Farnborough Noise campaign group, Blackwater Valley Friends of the Earth and Alton Climate Action Network joined local councillors and residents, to voice their opposition to the plans, which they say blatantly ignore the climate crisis.
The protest follows a consultation period on Farnborough Airport’s expansion plans which ended in October 2024 drawing fierce opposition from local residents and environmental campaigners.
The proposals include doubling the airport’s annual weekend flight limit from 8,900 to 18,900 flights and upping its annual flight limit from 50,000 to 70,000 flights.
The chancellor is under fire after a study cited as evidence for expanding the terminal to boost the UK’s economic growth was ordered by Heathrow itself
Rachel Reeves was facing criticism on Saturday night as it was confirmed that a report she cited as evidence that a third runway at Heathrow would boost the UK economy was commissioned by the airport itself.
Experts and green groups also challenged Reeves’s view that advances in the production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) had been a “gamechanger” that would substantially limit the environmental damage of flying, saying the claims were overblown and did not stand up to scrutiny.
…
Alex Chapman, senior economist at the NEF, said: “It is very concerning that the chancellor appears to be basing her support for Heathrow expansion on a figure from a report commissioned by Heathrow airport.
“Even more worrying is the fact that the methodology they have applied is one that the Department for Transport has previously decided is not fit for purpose, and that the report uses forecast data supplied by the airport itself.
“Heathrow expansion represents a major threat to the UK’s climate goals and flies in the face of scientific advice. To ensure that the claimed economic benefits are concrete, assessments should be carried out by independent government economists following best-practice methodology.
“NEF’s analysis has identified a wide range of weaknesses in the economic case, which have emerged since it was last fully appraised in 2015. Not least, the decline of business air travel, the surge in outbound leisure travel and the negative impacts on wider regions of the UK – all of which erode the potential growth benefit.”
Analysis by climate crisis website Carbon Brief suggests that, using the government’s own figures, SAF will barely cut emissions by 2040, and any reduction will be wiped out by rising flight numbers.
By the government’s own analysis, expansion will not improve outcomes for communities across the UK
…
Source: Civil Aviation Authority and ONS Travelpac
Of the 70-odd million additional passengers the proposed expansions of Heathrow, Gatwick, and Luton would put in the air at their peak, we can expect between two-thirds and three-quarters (or 45 – 50 million) to be UK residents on their way out of the country. Making air travel cheaper while the cost of domestic leisure, hospitality, and overland travel remains prohibitively high leaves many squeezed households with little choice. Between 25 – 50% of travellers report ‘cost’ as a key factor in their decision whether to stay in the UK or travel abroad.
…
From a high point in 2022, the UK’s domestic tourism industry has now seen two years of decline, contributing to the very stagnation that troubles the Chancellor. At the same time UK residents have poured overseas in record numbers, taking their hard-earned cash with them. New NEF analysis suggests trips to Mediterranean resort destinations and the Canary Islands hit a new record in 2024. Our top 20 direct routes saw passenger numbers rise from their 2019 peak of 52 million to 56 million last year.
The last line of economic defence of the proposed expansion of Heathrow is perhaps the weakest of them all. Many desire to increase Heathrow’s standing as a hub airport, this means capturing ”international to international” passengers changing flights in the UK. As these passengers stop in the UK for a matter of a few hours at most they leave little economic value behind. They also pay no air passenger duty so the benefit to the Treasury is minimal. Their flights do, however, come under the UK’s climate responsibilities. Transfer passengers are a boon for the airports and airlines, and the predominantly foreign-domiciled entities which own them, but of little value to the rest of us.
Today’s airport decisions hint of desperation from a government seemingly more interested in optics for a select group of wealthy international investors than actual improvements in economic outcomes for communities all across the UK.
[Guardian] Exclusive: MPs and ministers say they would oppose Starmer if he tries to approve Rosebank development
Senior Labour figures are warning of a serious fight if Keir Starmer tries to give the go-ahead to a giant new oilfield off Shetland later this year.
MPs and ministers have told the Guardian they are prepared to oppose the UK prime minister should he try and give final consent to the Rosebank development, which is Britain’s biggest untapped oilfield.
Many in the party see the battle over Rosebank as the next front in the struggle between its environmental wing and those around Rachel Reeves who want to push for economic growth above all else. The chancellor signalled her support for a third runway at Heathrow this week as part of the government’s latest push to stimulate the economy.
One ally of the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, who is leading the government’s climate agenda, said the former Labour leader would have a “punchy” response for any attempt to give consent to Rosebank. The ally said: “Ed will come to that fight armed with a lot of evidence about what Rosebank will do to our carbon emissions.”
Over a thousand people took part in a peaceful demonstration blocking the road outside the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday. Inside, the appeal against the draconian sentences given to 16 Just Stop Oil supporters last year is continuing. The mass appeal concerns 16 supporters with combined sentences of 41 years handed down between July and September 2024.
All 16 Just Stop Oil supporters were jailed in the months following the publication of a report to the government written by ‘Lord Walney’, a paid lobbyist for the oil and arms industry that called for groups such as Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action to be banned in a similar way to terrorist organisations.
Police arrested at least one before the demonstration. Another was arrested after the protest ended. Celebrities such as Chris Packham, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jonathan Pie could be seen peacefully blocking the road in defiance of swarms of police. Meanwhile, solidarity demonstrations have occurred in countries around the world, including Canada, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand.
A Just Stop Oil spokesperson said:
We are deeply grateful to the 1,000 peaceful protestors who turned up at the Royal Courts of Justice to show solidarity with Just Stop Oil supporters appealing their sentences. They know that our broken political system is on trial today. This case is not about whether peaceful climate defenders deserve to be punished with long prison sentences. It is about whether it is acceptable in a democracy to allow wealthy fossil fuel executives and paid lobbyists, presented as ‘independent’ government advisors, to dictate our laws, pervert our criminal justice system and silence all opposition to destructive business practices.
Just Stop Oil supporters in prison are political prisoners. They are not there because they disrupted or harmed everyday people – if that were the case, the water company bosses, Post Office execs and those responsible for the Grenfell disaster would be behind bars. Our supporters are in prison because Just Stop Oil threatens the profits of the fossil fuel industry.
We say to the government you can lock us up but more people will take our place as the extreme consequences of climate breakdown become more apparent. These 16 were jailed after demanding an end to new oil and gas, something which is now government policy. Just today, a Scottish court has found the development of the largest untapped oil and gas reserves in the UK is unlawful. In other words, Just Stop Oil is right. This is something that will continue to be abundantly clear as this crisis unfolds. We must ensure our leaders are held to account and do the right thing. That is why it is important to step-up and join us outside parliament this April.
Yesterday in the Court of Appeal, Danny Friedman KC and Brenda Campbell KC acting for the appellants argued that the sentences passed down on the 16 Just Stop Oil supporters were unlawful. In particular the sentences did not take account of relevant case law, the conscientious motivations of the Just Stop Oil supporters, their rights under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UK’s obligations under the Aarhus convention. The appeal is being heard by Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Mr Justice Lavender and Mr Justice Griffiths.
The barristers acting for the appellants said that if these sentences were upheld it would represent a “paradigm shift on criminal law sentencing”. Those involved in the miners strike, the anti-fascist protests in the 1930s and even Swampy in the 1990s, did not face the kind of sentences that the nonviolent protesters today face.
Many of the 16 are in prison under the Public Order Act, legislation that was drafted with the aid of the Policy Exchange. This organisation has received funding from Exxon Mobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies, which has a long history of science denialism and funding disinformation, bribing politicians and manipulating media discourse. This legislation did not receive parliamentary assent, and was forced into law using special powers from the time of Henry VIII. This was subsequently found to be unlawful.
