The expansion of London City Airport, increasing its passenger capacity from 6.5 million to 9 million each year, has been given the go-ahead by the government amidst furious ill-wishes from climate campaigners and locals.

All these extra flights will depart and arrive on weekends and early mornings, and this has been a big worry for many stakeholders, as it shall increase on air and noise pollution in the area. There are fears by several groups, including Newham Council, that the expanded operation of the airport will worsen health for people in the vicinity because of increased noise and rising pollution.

The decision was announced today by Angela Rayner, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, jointly with Transport Secretary Louise Haigh. They granted approval after acknowledging there were likely to be environmental implications but counterbalanced this by saying the growth will accord with policies set nationally that deal with the climate. Ministers have said that there has to be growth at the airport to cope with rising demand for flights as the aviation sector begins its post-pandemic recovery.

While accepting the support, the government rejected some areas of the airport's plan. This included rejecting the decision to extend the Saturday opening hours from 12:30 pm to 6:30 pm. This is because the airport currently closes early on Saturdays. The need to close early in the day is now also passed on to the airlines.

Concerns against the move by the government have, in particular, attracted criticism of environmental groups. The CCC recommended a net-aeroport expansion in line with the UK achieving net-zero emissions in 2050. Such airport expansions would likely lead to more carbon emissions, derailing the UK's climate ambitions.

Besides concerns over CO2 emissions, a study undertaken by The Guardian last month found that more than half the journeys flown out of London City Airport over the past year could have been completed by train within six hours. It is a finding that has sharpened claims that increased air travel is not the answer when other, cleaner, means of transport are available.

Many airports in England, such as Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, and Stansted, are examining ways to expand capacity through new runways or terminal extensions. The Labour government has taken a relatively hands-off attitude to date, calling itself "open-minded" to airport growth, including the potential for a new runway at Heathrow.

The campaigners are concerned that if London City Airport is granted permission to expand, it could give the green light to other airports struggling to seek capacity growth. They say it would come at the cost of putting profits for the aviation industry above those of local communities and the environment.

Alethea Warrington, senior campaigner at the climate charity Possible, said she was horrified by the news. "This is a retrograde step in tackling the climate crisis," she said. "It's a policy that will benefit very few—if any—private jet users, yet worsen air pollution for Londoners and contribute to climate breakdown.".

Johann Beckford, senior policy adviser at the Green Alliance think tank, said the ruling was likely to "set a dangerous precedent for future planning applications at other airports, not least at Luton and Gatwick". "If this is what approval looks like, then the government is is in danger ofundoing all its good work on net zero and ruining the health of communities," he said.

Alison FitzGerald, chief executive of London City Airport, was reportedly glad to welcome the other side of the debate, describing the approval as a 'vote of confidence'. However, she said she was 'disappointed' about the proposal to extend Saturday afternoon operating hours being turned down. These extended hours would have enabled airlines to introduce cleaner, quieter, next-generation aircraft into the airport, she claimed, so both passengers and the local community would benefit from reduced noise and pollution throughout the week.

The expansion at London City Airport formed part of a wider debate concerning economic growth versus environmental sustainability. In as much as it would improve the capacity of the airport to serve the ever-increasing number of passengers, it also meant stronger measures against air pollution and the long-term health effects this can have on communities near the site of the airport. These types of decisions will go on being made and perhaps remain a point of contention about the best way forward as the UK works to attain its set targets concerning the climate.