Rachel Reeves is facing a furious backlash over her support for a third runway at Heathrow from Labour MPs, supporters and the party’s mayor of London.
Sadiq Khan warned the move would be “hugely damaging” to the environment, while a major Labour donor warned it was a mistake that would give only the illusion of economic growth.
The chancellor was also accused of “sacrificing nature and the climate” after she unveiled major plans that also included ripping up environmental regulations which hamper construction to protect "the bats and the newts".
Following weeks of negative headlines, the chancellor insisted she was prepared to "fight" for new infrastructure, housing and commercial projects.
Laying out her support for Heathrow expansion, she said the move was "badly needed" and would “make Britain the world's best-connected place to do business".
And in a defiant kick at her critics, she added: "That is what it takes to make decisions in the national interest and that is what I mean by going further and faster to kick-start economic growth."
But Sir Sadiq hit out at the "severe impact" an extra runway at Heathrow would have on noise, air pollution and meeting the UK’s climate change targets.
"Despite the progress that's been made in the aviation sector to make it more sustainable, I'm simply not convinced that you can have hundreds of thousands of additional flights at Heathrow every year without a hugely damaging impact on our environment," he said.
Labour MP Zara Sultana said it was a “complete U-turn at the expense of local communities and the planet”.
And party’s former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, who lost the Labour whip last year after rebelling on a welfare vote, claimed up to 10,000 people would have to be “rehoused” when 4,000 properties are demolished as a result of the decision.
Labour’s energy secretary Ed Miliband, who threatened to resign from Gordon Brown’s cabinet over a third runway, missed Ms Reeves’ speech.
A source close to Mr MIliband said he had been in “meetings”, but would not be drawn on specifics.
He has publicly denied he could quit over the decision and on Monday he suggested Heathrow expansion may not go ahead after all if it breaches net zero targets.
Non-profit organisation Transport & Environment said that Ms Reeves' announcement was “dystopian” and that airports such as Heathrow should reduce their flight numbers as the UK strives to meet its legally binding commitment to reach net zero by 2050.
Rosie Downes, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said the “growth trumps all” approach was “the kind of dangerously short-sighted thinking that has helped cause the climate crisis and left the UK one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world”.
She accused Ms Reeves of a “reckless gamble with our future” that risks the UK missing critical climate reduction targets even if it rapidly expands renewable energy.
"Similarly, allowing developers to bulldoze their way through crucial nature protections and safeguards will further diminish our seriously under-threat wildlife and natural environment,” she said. "Sacrificing nature and our climate isn’t leadership, it’s rash, short-sighted and a sure-fire way to lose the trust of those who believed Labour's election promises on the environment”.
Colin Walker, head of transport at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said: “The government’s hopes that sustainable aviation fuel will offset the extra emissions from Heathrow’s expansion are unrealistic. Our pathway to net zero emissions already relies on the rollout of these fuels and no further expansion in UK airport capacity – a third runway will increase emissions way beyond the capacity of these fuels to offset them.”
Greenpeace UK’s policy director Dr Doug Parr said: “The chancellor is dead right that tackling climate change is the biggest industrial opportunity of the 21st century, but dead wrong to think airport expansion is the way to seize it. A third runway at Heathrow is unlikely to boost the UK economy but will certainly boost noise, air pollution and climate emissions. It’s airlines and airport bosses who will reap the lion’s share of economic benefits, leaving taxpayers and holidaymakers to pay billions for new infrastructure and transport links.
“It’s not a ‘growth at all costs’ approach that will get us to a better economic future. Instead of picking up any old polluting project from the discard pile, the chancellor should focus on industries that can attract investment and bring wider economic and social benefits”.
Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said: “The idea that we have to choose between economic prosperity and safeguarding our children’s future is absolute nonsense – in fact it’s quite the opposite.”
He added: "The idea that expanding Heathrow can happen in line with legal, environmental & climate objectives, while meeting rules on carbon emissions, noise and air quality is just fantasy thinking.”
