Speaking on The Responsible Edge, Charlie’s view is nuanced but clear:

“It is a bit of a shame that the government is considering airport expansion in the face of growth,” he said, cautiously.

He’s quick to acknowledge the economic rationale but even quicker to flag the climate cost: an additional 2.4 million tonnes of CO₂ annually by 2050 — and that’s with optimistic assumptions about cleaner fuels.

]The SAF Mirage: Betting on Technology That Isn’t There

Central to the government’s climate mitigation argument is the promise of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). It’s a drop-in replacement that relies on waste oils and bio-feedstocks. But there’s a problem: “In the UK, we don’t have any of these projects in the ground,” Charlie warns.

“We’re relying on imported feedstock, creating a huge risk.”

The UK’s SAF mandate may be a step forward, but it’s more of a policy scaffold than a solution. For Charlie, it’s not enough.

“If the government wants to consider expanding Heathrow and Gatwick, we need to do more than just SAF.”

Crossing the Valley of Death

The real bottleneck, Charlie argues, lies in the “valley of death” — the treacherous chasm between innovation and scale. Early-stage clean aviation firms struggle to attract funding just when it matters most. It’s a familiar tale: venture capital dries up, institutional investors won’t take the risk, and the UK loses homegrown technologies to more supportive climates.

“We think the National Wealth Fund should co-invest at this stage,” he says, citing the UK Infrastructure Bank’s potential to bridge this critical gap. It’s not about blank cheques — it’s about risk-sharing to unlock scale.

Vision vs Delivery: A Nation Adrift

Charlie’s criticism isn’t just of a single policy decision but of the systemic inconsistency in Britain’s clean tech trajectory.

“You can’t keep changing the strategy every four years and expect stakeholders to trust you,” he notes.

His example? The indecision over energy grid pricing models, which stalled investor confidence and delayed renewable projects.

For a nation that once imagined itself a climate leader, Britain has yet to articulate a coherent green industrial strategy — let alone deliver on it.

The Case for a National Mission

“What are we trying to be?”

Charlie asks, echoing a deeper concern. Could the UK rebrand itself as a global clean tech hub? Could green growth be our export advantage?

“There’s not one sector the UK doesn’t have an opportunity to succeed in,” he says — provided the government stops gambling on future tech and starts investing in the present.

It’s not a romantic vision of degrowth or techno-utopia. It’s something more grounded: building a policy infrastructure that enables cooperation, coherence, and continuity across government cycles.

Lobbying Without Tribes

In his most passionate moment, Charlie turns his attention to the corporate world.

“We need to remove the tribal nature of lobbying at the expense of climate progress,” he argues.

In his view, competitive sectoral lobbying undermines unified climate policy — and with it, public trust in politics itself.

To fix it? “We need a new model of climate lobbying. One that values long-term thinking and shared outcomes.”

The Takeaway

Charlie’s magic wand wish isn’t flashy. It’s not a moonshot. It’s a call for better coordination, pragmatic realism, and long-haul investment. For those looking to lead responsibly in today’s messy world, that might just be the most radical thing of all.