Did You Vote for Environmental Destruction? George Monbiot on Labour’s Vandalism

It’s hard to fathom, but after 14 years of neglecting the environment, the current Labour government seems to be worse than the Tories on green issues.

Remember Liz Truss? She insisted that economic growth was more important than anything else. She labeled anyone concerned for the environment as part of an “anti-growth coalition” or “enemies of enterprise.” Now, Keir Starmer is following her lead, dismissing critics of policies that harm our planet as “time-wasting nimbys” and “zealots.” It’s disappointing to see the leader prioritize growth over environmental concerns.

Just a few years ago, Starmer himself championed blocking unnecessary airport expansions, arguing that “the climate emergency” is our biggest challenge. Fast forward to now, and his government is pushing for the expansion of multiple airports, ignoring the urgent threats of climate change.

Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has made it clear that economic growth is the priority, even over the government’s environmental promises. While improving rail links and investing in renewable energy sources like offshore wind farms is essential, airport expansions, which negatively impact our climate, cannot be justified. The so-called “sustainable aviation fuels” they want to rely on simply don’t exist on a scalable level.

Reeves even ridicules concerns about increased carbon emissions from these projects. But it’s not just about potential future emissions; it’s about immediate consequences we’re already facing. The reality is that expanding airports won’t deliver growth for many years, if at all. Some studies suggest that these expansions might not contribute to economic growth whatsoever.

Instead of pouring resources into airport projects, why not focus on building hospitals? Hospitals are crucial employers that can help local economies thrive. However, it appears that their construction pales in comparison to the urgency of expanding airports, which seems to cater more to industry lobbyists than to actual public needs.

If the government insists on treating economic growth as the ultimate goal, they should heed the warnings from credible sources about the future. A recent report indicated that without serious action on climate issues, our economy could shrink dramatically by the end of the century.

In simple terms, if we proceed with harmful projects like Heathrow’s third runway, we might see a minimal GDP boost in the short term, but it could lead to catastrophic losses later on. Starmer claims that opposing such schemes hinders national progress, but perhaps what’s needed is a slowdown—a pause to reconsider our priorities.

Rather than sacrificing our environment at the altar of GDP, we should be thoughtful about growth and its real impacts. Planning permissions for harmful developments, like intensive chicken factories that damage our rivers, are being pushed by officials despite their proven negative effects on the environment and local economies. These short-sighted decisions show a troubling disregard for the health of our planet and its people.

Recently, Labour even sabotaged the climate and environment bill designed to align government actions with global commitments. This raises serious concerns about their commitment to genuine environmental progress.

Their approach to regulation is alarming; instead of safeguarding our environment and health, the focus seems to be solely on economic growth, regardless of the damage it causes. This is not a recipe for a sustainable future.

While they may seem more competent than Truss, the current leaders exhibit a frightening intolerance for dissenting voices. The question remains: is this what you supported?