It seems that the support or opposition for the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek (BK) is divided by the amount of weight people put to their quality of life and their standard of living - that is money or air/health. In the case of Badgerys Creek, air would also mean noise in the Blue Mountains national park - enough to drive tourists away (something that the department of Infrastructure happily overlooks). So in this case "air" also translates to $$$.

But support and opposition tends to be divided by the question of "how it affects me and what do I have to gain from it?". In this respect, councils make assumptions of how the airport would affect their people. Affected residents do the same. However, the fact is that this is the small money that drives the interests around the airport - change money for the poor if you like.

A much much bigger lump of money resides somewhere else. Hint: preliminary assessment of the flight path to and from the airport suggest that on the long term it is unlikely that these would NOT affect the traffic to Kingsford Smith (KS). The fact is that both KS and BK are Commonwealth owned land so NSW development restrictions and regulations don't apply to them. Moreover, a fraction of the area of the former is worth many times the value of the latter.

The key players in this case would be the federal government and the investors that own majority shares in the operations of KS. The key is that the value of the land in KS plus development is worth many times more the cost of developing BK, plus 10-20 years of the first stage of operation.

This explains the haphazard "neglective" approach to the environment. Decision makers suffer from the same subjective view of asking "how will it affect me and what can I benefit from this". They neglect the environment, and by this I do not mean tree-hugger syle nature, but the effects on local residents.

If one adds the cost of long-term effects of air pollution on population, the losses to the country are staggering, considering that it is likely that a substantial proportion of Sydney residents will be affected. A small "fun" example of that is the study who shows that the long term effects of lead on the population may result in ~100K $$$ loss of income throughout the lifetime of an affected person (see: lead-exposure). This is just one small example, but given that the final approach would go directly over the Warragamba dam and Sydney's water catchment, as well as densely populated areas such as Blacktown and Liverpool (yes, Liverpool and the rest would be affected - time to wake up…), its effects would be vast.

So environment = $$$ but why would "big money" care about the affected residents?