Working people are being asked to change their habits to combat the climate crisis, while the government is targeting hundreds of thousands of new flights a year with Gatwick and Heathrow expansions, Zack Polanski has said.
The new leader of the Green Party dubbed the decision to approve a second runway at Gatwick Airport “deeply irresponsible”, telling The Independent that Labour is “pretending to care about reducing emissions”.
“In places like London, we’re rightly asking people to change their habits around the way they drive, but we’re still subsidising aviation fuel. And I think people will see the contradictions”, he said.
“I think also, it’s always important to point out that it’s only 15 per cent of people who take 70 per cent of the flights.
“So the whole argument about economic growth, when actually the people leaving the country outnumber the people coming in three to one, so actually you can make a legitimate argument that’s actually taking wealth out of the country.”
It comes after the chancellor said Gatwick airport’s £2.2bn second runway plan could create thousands of jobs and help “kickstart the economy”.
In the privately financed project, the West Sussex airport will move its emergency runway 12 metres north, enabling it to be used for departures of narrow-bodied planes such as Airbus A320s and Boeing 737s. This will enable it to be used for about 100,000 more flights a year.
It comes just months after the government’s backing of a third runway at Heathrow airport in its bid to grow the economy drew criticism from environmental groups and opposition politicians.
On Monday, Ms Reeves said: “This government promised to kickstart the economy – and we are.
“A second runway at Gatwick means thousands more jobs and billions more in investment for the economy.”
The chancellor said she is satisfied with the adjustments made, covering issues such as noise mitigation and the proportion of passengers who would travel to and from the airport by public transport.
It comes after the Planning Inspectorate initially rejected the airport’s application and earlier this year recommended transport secretary Heidi Alexander should approve the project if the changes were made.
New commitments include a legally binding target for the proportion of passengers who travel to Gatwick by public transport, rather than the airport’s management setting its own targets.
Residents affected by more noise will be able to ask Gatwick to cover the costs for triple-glazed windows.
Mr Polanski, who was elected as the new leader of the Greens last month, called for a “frequent flyer levy”, which would see people who are “racking up air miles” paying more than those who are taking one flight a year.
“If someone is taking one flight a year to go on a family holiday that’s still absolutely supported, and if anything, could be cheaper under a frequent flyer system.
“But people who are just flying constantly and racking up those air miles that are polluting the planet should be paying a lot more”, he said.
Mr Polanski added: “The aviation industry is… getting bigger and bigger, and so at some point, politicians need to be honest and talk about the fact that we do need to reduce the amount that we’re flying.
“I’m meeting people constantly who have said that they’re sick of the fact that Labour haven’t stuck to any of their promises, and this is not what they voted for,” he added.
A government source said the Gatwick expansion must be delivered in line with climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements.
Local campaigners opposed to expansion are concerned about the impact on surface transport, noise, housing provision and wastewater treatment, but the airport insists it has conducted “full and thorough assessments” of those issues.
Meanwhile, Cagne, an umbrella aviation community and environment group for Sussex, Surrey and Kent, said it stands ready to serve a judicial review funded by residents and environmental bodies.
The group said: “We know this government cares little for the environmental impact aviation is having on our planet and Gatwick’s neighbours, but not to demand that Gatwick pays for the infrastructure, the on-site wastewater treatment plant, and noise impact is unlawful in our book.”
