Anything the Archbishop of Canterbury is for, is invariably a bad thing. A more politicised AoC you will never find.
So it was reassuring to hear him on Radio 4’s Today this morning espousing environmentalist socialism.
And then Margaret Beckett dropped the bomb-shell: There are things more important than the environment — like the economy for example. Airports should be expanded to ensure we don’t damage the economy.
Some obvious questions come out of this:
- Where is the line between being environmentally responsible and styming society’s prosperity?
- Should India and China use this same justification for destroying the short-term environment?
- If airports are important to foreign investment, is it not fair to say that corporate car-use is also important? If so, why would we allow the obstruction of car-use but not the obstruction of flyers?
Maybe someone will say that there is no alternative to aeroplanes? What about trains? The Channel Tunnel is wasted if people continue to use the air to visit Paris (which you would — it’s cheaper and faster).
The Government should decide. Either it is an irresponsible green party; socialist and using the environment as an excuse; or it is centrist. I’ll assume it’s the second of these.
Update: I forgot to mention that the environment will only be damaged in the very short term by our actions now. There’s no reason to assume it will ever reach a Venus-type situation. In the long-term (in geological time) the Earth will recover.
Comments