Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

London’s East End might not be the first place you would think of to connect with nature. However, once past Mile End’s bus depot and beyond the diesel-belching Texaco garage and its chewing gum-pocked pavements, you will be pulled up short by an unexpected vision: its grass-roofed Art Pavilion.

This cocooning gallery hunkers into the ground and, inside, curves cosily behind and above you drawing your gaze, not only to the mirror-calm water reflecting light through the glass wall, but also to its excellent new exhibition, Force of Nature. It showcases the work of 28 established and emerging international contemporary artists and has been curated by James Putnam, founder and former curator of the British Museum’s contemporary arts and cultures’ programme.

Putnam explains “From the beginning of human history, and in every culture, nature has played a vital role in creative expression.” He should know, he was also a curator of the BM’s Egyptian galleries where nature is so evident in many ancient artworks.

This new exhibition, which runs until April 9th, aims to counter the depressing assertion that nature is an autonomous entity existing independently from the human race. It argues that the planet’s people are very much a product of their environment. “Contemporary artists have been inspired not only by nature but also its processes – evolution, birth, growth, ageing, decay, change.” Putnam continues: “The artists are taking inspiration from nature’s inherent forces, their acute observations and individual approaches result in works that are monumental and ephemeral.”

David Nash’s extraordinary Cyprus tree sculpture Rough Sphere hits you with its solidity and the overwhelming urge to touch it to experience its texture and feel the warmth that seems to exude from it. Its organic quality magnified by its position between the steel columns of the white gallery space.

Other exhibitors blurring the perceived lines between humanity and nature are artists such as Koen Vanmechelen, the Belgium trans-disciplinary regular of the Venice Biennale. Vanmechelen’s piece is part of his ongoing intriguingly-titled Cosmopolitan Chicken Project. This art practice involves interbreeding national chicken species and results in installations such as Coming World: delicate transparent glass eggs nestled in a giant wooden nest structure that float on the Art Pavilion’s lake, scrambling our notions of the natural world.

Birdlife also features in the work of Kate McGwire, whose ties to nature and fascination with ornithology was instilled from an early age growing up in the Norfolk Broads. Her sculpture Scuffle re-frames the exquisite beauty of plumage onto writhing coils. The conflict of the attraction to the feathers and uncertainty of the alien shapes makes a compelling statement. Putnam says, “Although it may seem that we’re growing ever distant from nature, we instinctively retain a penchant for its forms and materials that are destined to co-exist with humanity.”

An artist using a more mechanical approach to the subject is the Australian Cameron Robbins. His ongoing project is creating ink drawings on paper using his invention, a Wind Drawing Machine installed in different locations that transcribe wind patterns. They respond to wind-speed and direction, allowing rain and sun to also have an effect. Wed 29 Jan 2014 Sth 10-15 knots is an almost balletic fluid pattern that elegantly evokes shifting winds.

Another exhibitor using meterological conditions and their consequences is Susan Derges. Her powerful camera-less photographic prints of water from the River Taw in Devon aim to capture invisible scientific and natural processes, exploring the relationship between the imagined and the ‘real’.

Throughout, Putnam presents us with the balance of fragility and strength in nature. A perfect example is Jurassic I by Richard WM Hudson, who lives and works in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. His charred and polished poplar tree artwork is inspired by rock formations and forest fire remains and so resembles an eroded cliff edge.

Putnam sums up the show by saying: “It must be significant that there is a congruency between the appearance of tree roots, branches and river networks and the configuration of our human arteries and lung passages. Despite mankind’s ongoing advances in technology we can never cease to marvel at nature’s own inherent creativeness.”

Go and marvel at creative nature that is alive and well and even thriving in the east end of London.

Force of Nature is open until April 9th at The Art Pavilion, Mile End Park Clinton Road, London E3 4QY

This Author

Gary Cook is a conservation artist and the Arts Editor of the Ecologist

More on him here:

Latest coverage: zoomorphic.net

Online: cookthepainter.com

Twitter: twitter.com/cookthepainter

Instagram: instagram.com/cookthepainter

Society of Graphic Fine Art: sgfa.org.uk/members/gary-cook/

Blog: cookthepainter.com/blog