Kelly’s No Hero

So damned often in politics we, the observers, the eternal optimists, believe that some evidence will come from environmental speeches. We want to believe that there will be substance to the rhetoric. And yet it seems eternal that our misguided hopes are dashed against the walls of greed and nonsensical corporate expansion.

This comes mere weeks after Gordon Brown, the UK’s new prime minister, gave his first speech on the environment. Whilst not being exactly radical, it did at least entertain some hope that we finally had a leader with green credentials.

Until London Heathrow that is.

Airport bosses must be dancing a jig at the moment because the government has decided to give the green light to a third runway. And yes, I use the word “green” witheringly.

• » See also: #4 Copenhagen, Denmark: Great Bicycle City Photo Tour
• » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.

We have this prime minister promising a green future, as alluded to above, yet his Minister for Transport, Ruth Kelly has just seen the colour of British Airways’ money – which certainly isn’t green - and given the go-ahead.

Yet again, it begs the question: who’s really in power? Mr Brown, Ms Kelly or BA? This time – and not for the first time - a large corporation has wielded more might than a government.

Well, a quick aside here. As far as Ms Kelly is concerned, the one in power is the Roman Catholic God. She’s never one to deny her alliance to Opus Dei. I wouldn’t bring it up, except she always does.

I don’t lambaste any person’s religious beliefs. I have no right to. But she really ought to leave these beliefs out of the public eye, if she finds it an easy decision to further choke a beautiful planet with CO2 and leave people without a roof over their head.

Because the go-ahead to Heathrow’s expansion, despite the huge strain it will put on the planet from additional carbon emissions will also mean the demolition of homes. In effect, she thinks it fine to increase CO2 emissions, whilst at the same time wiping away swathes of countryside and forcing innocent families to be rendered homeless.

So what convinced her that this was a good decision? A report running in The Times gives her reason thus:

“[The decision was] of key importance to the local and national economy and to our international competitiveness”.

(I’m intrigued as to how this will embellish a local community’s economy once they’re homeless…)

But as Simon Jenkins – the author of The Times piece purports, this really is a vapid statement from a government minister.

You really want to see who fills British airport lounges? Corporate representatives on a trip to mainland Europe?

Rubbish. We’re a nation that constantly moans about the weather and at the slightest chance, books a cheap flight over to Spain.

That’s why people are flying out of London – not to clinch business deals imperative to the UK economy. We want nothing so irrelevant as a tan. And yet 2000m of tarmac will be laid out on the premise that it’s for business rather than pleasure.

If this minister really is under the impression that it will make London more important within the business sector, why didn’t she have the guts to stand firm against BA bosses? Why not state that we would have more clout as a nation if we went in for telecommuting in a big way? Imagine how cutting edge as a business nation we’d have appeared then …

Behavioural change is of the essence - not further change to the landscape.

She’s shown herself to be weak. I hope her god helps those souls who will be made homeless.

Tweet This Post