Debate has started again on the plan to build the third runway of Heathrow Airport in the UK, which has been in dispute for more than two decades. After British finance minister Rachel Reeves recently said that the government has support for the third runway, the debate about it has come to the surface again.

Reeves has approved a third runway. He said that the runway will help the country's long-term economic growth, increase investment and exports and improve connectivity.

Finance Minister Reeves' decision to build an airport will also improve the economy, he says. In an event in Oxfordshire, she said that the expansion of Heathrow is essential. "Britain can be made a business hub by making a third runway at Heathrow," she said.

Environmentalists and some politicians are opposing the expansion of the airport. They say that the expansion of the airport will increase noise and air pollution. Anti-expansion parties claim that the construction of the runway will make it difficult to meet the UK's climate reform goals. However, Reeves claims that construction will proceed in compliance with environmental and climate standards.  

The proposal to expand Heathrow Airport was first brought forward in May 2003 by 'BAA PAC'. Heathrow's operating company BAA PAC's proposal was approved by the UK government in December 2003. It was planned that expansion could be done in 12 years. 

By 2007, the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government officially supported the expansion of Heathrow Airport. But environmentalists, local residents and political leaders strongly opposed it. They said that there is a danger of increasing carbon emissions, causing noise pollution, and displacing the nearby locals. Widespread protests and legal challenges were also seen, but the support of the government remained. 

But in 2010, under David Cameron's government, due to environmental concerns,  Project canceled . Then in 2016, Prime Minister Theresa May brought the scheme forward again. However, there have been constant reviews of this expansion before. Theresa May approved the runway extension, citing mainly economic benefits. 

In 2018, the British Parliament officially voted in favor of a third runway. 415 MPs were in favor of expansion while 119 people voted against it. However, even after parliamentary approval, legal and environmental challenges to airport expansion persisted. 

After the vote, Heathrow expansion plans were moving ahead . But in 2020, a court ruled the expansion illegal, arguing it was at odds with Britain's climate commitments. This decision of the court forced the government to re-review the project.

This decision of the court was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2021, opening the legal way for the expansion of Heathrow's third runway. BAA PAC subsequently submitted a revised proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport in 2023. Which revived an old controversy . 

But after Finance Minister Reeves recently said that the runway has the government's approval, its debate has intensified. Proponents of the expansion claim a third runway would bring significant economic benefits, create thousands of jobs and establish the UK as a major international aviation hub. 

However, opponents have expressed serious concerns about environmental and social impacts. Critics have strongly objected to carbon emissions, noise pollution and the need to destroy hundreds of houses.

The environmental organization WWF has also pointed out the decision to expand the airport as a serious mistake. It is wrong to keep building expensive projects like the expansion of the airport. This would take decades, increase carbon emissions and stifle real economic growth,' WWF said. 

With the latest decision, the British law on carbon emission limits, i.e. 'carbon budget', may also be violated . The carbon budget is the maximum limit that can be emitted into the environment in a certain period of time . The UK has adopted a legally binding carbon budget under the Climate Change Act 2008. Building a third runway at Heathrow would increase carbon emissions, which could make it harder for the UK to meet its legal targets .