A campaign organization supported by Heathrow Airport has come under intense criticism for sending “incredibly misleading” leaflets to west London homes. The Back Heathrow campaign, which supports a third runway, recently distributed newsletters suggesting that airport growth could contribute to making Heathrow “greener.”
The assertions on cleaner planes, green fuels, and lower emissions, however, do not show the environmental impact of the expansion, according to critics. The Heathrow-funded group, headed by ex-Labour MP Parmjit Dhanda, does not reveal its funding on its website or newsletter, continuing to raise transparency concerns. With a planning application deadline of 31 July looming, the Heathrow row is hotting up.
Leaflets Raise Eyebrows Over Green Messaging
Back Heathrow asserts a third runway will permit only “cleanest and quietest” aircraft to take to the skies, less flight stacking, and utilise sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Dhanda’s newsletter reports Heathrow can become “cleaner, greener and smarter” through managing aircraft types and cleaner fuel.
Back Heathrow Campaign pointed to the airport’s “traffic light” performance system for airlines. It quantifies noise and emissions among the 50 largest carriers. Critics, though, say this is not a policy that is binding in any way and that it does not limit older aircraft use at Heathrow.
Finlay Asher, who is a co-founder of Safe Landing and an aerospace engineer, termed the SAF claims “highly debatable.” Asher contended that any savings on emissions would be erased by flight growth forecasts. Asher also dismissed the notion of diminishing stacking with increased flights as “illogical.
Dr Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, also disputed Back Heathrow’s claim that electric or hydrogen flights could sharply reduce emissions soon. He described the messaging as “incredibly misleading,” emphasizing that this technology won’t make commercial aviation a significant difference in the short or even the medium term.
Even if the technology existed, Chapman added, the proposed runway isn’t being constructed with essential fuelling infrastructure such as hydrogen pipelines or electric charging points.
No Policy Guarantees Cleaner Aircraft Use
Critics also pointed out that there’s no UK policy precluding high-emission planes from Heathrow. Although future technologies can aid, Asher and Chapman concur they are still years—if not decades—off. The majority of Heathrow’s flights are long- or medium-haul, making electric planes even less practical in the short term.
Meanwhile, Back Heathrow’s newsletter intimates zero-emission planes might be flying by 2040, citing Norway’s short-haul ambitions. Critics claim Heathrow is deceiving locals by suggesting the same is on the cards for the UK’s busiest airport internationally.
Noise and Emissions From Increased Flights Are the Central Concern
Rob Barnstone of the No Third Runway Coalition stated that the third runway will bring 260,000 extra flights to the airport’s existing 480,000 limit. Albeit marginal savings in airplane efficiency, he stated, extra flights will create “an awful lot of noise and emissions.”
Heathrow has just outlined plans to raise passenger numbers by 10 million a year, ahead even of the runway construction. Although Heathrow has asserted that it is working at “full capacity,” it conceded to Sky News it has been operating at 98% capacity since 2005, because of a government-imposed restriction on flights, rather than infrastructure constraints.
Campaign Group Under Fire Over Transparency
Back Heathrow presents itself as a mass movement of more than 100,000 supporters. Its then-existent website, however, no longer reveals its then-existing financial relationships with Heathrow Airport. Latest available accounts indicate it had five staff members and £243,961 in cash as of June 2024.
MP Dhanda defended the link, saying, “We’re proud of our connection to Heathrow—it’s in our name.” He added that trade unions, local businesses, and residents also support the group. Heathrow echoed this, saying it funds the group to help give a voice to local supporters.
Still, the campaign’s messaging appears to omit significant realities around flight growth, emissions, and timelines for green aviation. As the 31 July deadline approaches, opponents contend that the debate should be fact-based, not green spin.
