Heathrow\u2019s third runway has been ruled illegal by the court of appeal, because the government did not properly consider its own climate change pledges in line with the Paris Agreement when drawing up its plans.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe court is actually on the same street as our offices here at\u00a0Mulberry\u00a0Media and a throng of protestors was outside the gates this morning chanting and waving banners while TV cameras observed the ruckus. It is a major blow for a project that has been bedevilled for years by an ongoing row about the carbon emissions that an extra runway would cause.\r\n\r\nThe problem boils down to the government\u2019s target of reducing the UK to \u2018net zero\u2019 carbon by 2050, which has been enshrined in law. Fairly obviously, another 700 flights per day and tens of millions of extra passengers per year is not intuitively conducive to lower emissions. The government reportedly does not want to appeal the verdict, and Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, said: \u201cOur manifesto makes clear any Heathrow expansion will be industry led.\u201d\r\n\r\nWhatever that means. He goes on: \u201cAirport expansion is core to boosting global connectivity. We also take seriously our commitment to the environment.\u201d Which is a roundabout way of saying\u2026nothing much at all.\r\n\r\nThe prime minister,\u00a0Boris Johnson, has long been a vocal opponent of siting the runway at Heathrow, and among his many notorious hare-brain schemes was a new airport in the Thames Estuary, dubbed \u2018Boris Island\u2019. It never came to fruition, but he caused chagrin among his critics by claiming he would personally lie down in front of the bulldozers, but disappearing on Foreign\u00a0Office\u00a0business when the vote in parliament to approve the third runway was staged during\u00a0Theresa May\u2019s government.\r\n\r\nAnyhow, the presiding judge in today\u2019s decision, Lord Justic Lindblom, said: \u201cThe Paris Agreement ought to have been taken into account by the Secretary of State. The National Planning Statement was not produced as the law requires.\u201d It is possible that the decision will set an international precedent for legal challenges to carbon-heavy infrastructure schemes, as the world\u2019s collective effort to arrest global warming grows in scale and ambition.\r\n\r\nWalmart\u00a0wants to try and offload\u00a0Asda, presumably not at a cut-price in the wake of its failed proposed merger with\u00a0Sainsbury\u2019s, which was gazumped by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) last April. Apparently America\u2019s largest grocer wants to hold onto a small stake in the business, but it said it is talking to a handful of \u201cinterested parties\u201d to sound them out about taking the British footprint off its hands.\r\n\r\nIf the merger had been successful, it would have created by far the largest grocery business in the UK, outstripping\u00a0Tesco\u00a0by a significant margin with revenues of \u00a351bn. It is for precisely this reason \u2013 the lack of choice consumers would be left with \u2013 that the CMA eventually put its foot down.\r\n\r\nIn a statement, Walmart said: \u201cFollowing inbound interest Walmart and Asda can confirm that we are currently considering whether there is an opportunity for a third party to invest in Asda, alongside Walmart, in order to support and accelerate the delivery of Asda\u2019s strategy and position Asda for long-term success.\u201d It\u2019s great how these corporate press releases always make it sound like the seller just wants what\u2019s best for the thing they\u2019re selling, rather than what\u2019s best for their own P&L.\r\n\r\nThere is also talk of a flotation on the stock market instead of a sale, but inevitably this would mean Walmart could gradually offload its shares having cashed in on a bit more value than a small number of investors might be willing to offer. No doubt the mooted premium on the existing equity in \u2018initial talks\u2019 will determine which course the American giant chooses to chart.