Well, it’s a novel argument. But perhaps not terribly convincing.
The Observer today trails moves from Gordon Brown to bring in more nuclear power, build in areas that conservationists won’t like and expand Britain’s airports. His argument? That opposing such policies for environmental reasons linked to the planet’s long-term future is, er…, short-termist and opportunistic.



One Comment
I don’t know. Environmental politics is as opportunist as all other areas of politics.
Environmental campaigners exaggerate risks and events to make things look bad. Politicians respond because they ‘must do something’. Unfortunately, the something can often come at great cost.
It is arguable that we’d be better off letting future generations deal with it, because they will be the ones who suffer, they will be richer (vastly so in all probability) and they will have better technology to deal with the problems.
In reality, I think its a trade off between acting now and leaving things to the future. It is too damaging to act now if it will impoverish future generations. Acting now in some cases will do more environmental damage too (biofuels for example).
Given the way technology is progressing, and oil prices are rising, it won’t be long until the best ways to generate electricity are green and aeroplanes use less fuel (modern ones already do).