The Grumbler – the open opinion column in The BV. It’s a space for anyone to share their thoughts freely. While the editor will need to know the identity of contributors, all pieces will be published anonymously. With just a few basic guidelines to ensure legality, safety and respect, this is an open forum for honest and unfiltered views. Got something you need to get off your chest? Send it to editor@bvmagazine.co.uk. The Grumbler column is here for you: go on, say it. We dare you.

As a retired farmer (if that’s not an oxymoron… do we ever retire?), I’ve seen plenty of daft ideas in my time, but the latest government plans really take the biscuit. On one hand, they’re pushing ahead with a third runway at Heathrow – spewing more emissions into the atmosphere – while on the other, they’re proposing to take ten per cent of England’s farmland out of food production to plant trees and call it ‘carbon offsetting.’
If that’s not greenwashing of the highest order, I really don’t know what is.
Sense or nonsense?
Chancellor Rachel Reeves reckons we ‘badly need’ a third runway to boost investment and global trade. More flights, more business, more money in the economy – it all sounds great on paper. But what they fail to mention is that this expansion will ramp up carbon emissions, displace 700 families, and make a mockery of our so-called environmental commitments. Heathrow is already one of the busiest airports in the world.
Do we really need to be increasing air traffic at a time when we’re supposed to be cutting emissions?
The government insists that aviation will ‘go green’ through technological advances, but let’s be real. Sustainable aviation fuel is nowhere near mass production, and electric planes? DECADES away, if it ever happens.
In the meantime, Heathrow’s expansion will pour more pollution into the skies while the government pats itself on the back for its net-zero pledges.
The great greenwashing con
As if Heathrow wasn’t bad enough, the government also wants to take ten per cent of England’s farmland out of production to ‘offset’ emissions. That’s 1.2 million hectares – land that should be growing food for the British people. Instead, they want to plant trees and call it carbon neutral.
It’s a ludicrous idea.
We should be focusing on producing more homegrown food, not cutting back. Imports make us reliant on volatile global markets. Have we learned nothing from the food shortages of recent years? The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) has already set out a plan for British agriculture to reach carbon neutrality by 2040 – without cutting food production. Yet instead of backing our farmers, the government seems determined to sacrifice our fields for an easy PR win.
This isn’t about cutting emissions – it’s about shifting the problem somewhere else and pretending it’s solved. Carbon offsetting doesn’t cancel out pollution: it just moves it around. The government is gambling with our food security for the sake of meeting arbitrary net-zero targets – and it’s rural communities that will pay the price.
A smarter way forward
If we’re serious about cutting emissions, let’s start with real solutions. Instead of throwing money at another Heathrow runway, invest in better rail networks to reduce short-haul flights. Instead of rewilding productive farmland, support regenerative agriculture to store carbon in soils, while still feeding the nation.
Britain’s farmers know how to work with the land – better than any politician or city planner ever will. It’s time we were listened to, before more irreversible damage is done in the name of ‘progress.’