Quality of life v the push for fracking and airport expansion
|
Version 0 of 1. It is easy sometimes to wonder whether our governments care about anything except money; yet they refuse to put a monetary value on those aspects of life that lend enchantment (Mary Dejevsky, Quality of life has a price. The frackers should pay it, 17 October). A beautiful view is one of these; so is peace and quiet. So is the ability to keep one’s windows open at night. These blessings are disappearing at great speed, as the skies fill up, and as lorries, cars and machines are added to our beloved landscapes. We are told that “those affected by fracking” might be compensated, but I do not believe that many people would rather have £10,000 than the peace and quiet, and the grassy view that will vanish, with their clean drinking water, as the frackers appear. It is generally noise that provides the majority of council complaints. For example, between January and September 2014, councils in the UK received 200,220 noise complaints, almost half the total number (Report, 18 March 2014). Theresa May’s predecessor trumpeted the arrival of real localisation, with people having a say in what happened in their immediate locality. I think it would be surprising if the opinions of locals played any real part in the major decisions we are awaiting – on a runway and on fracking – even if these activities could utterly ruin their lives.Juliet SolomonFrome, Somerset • The very promise of payment for householders threatened by fracking, where the arguments against are so strong and the social and environmental impacts so negative, constitutes a bribe, which is both wrong in principle and an exploitable precedent for future antisocial actions. Michael Sandel, in his little book What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, deals forensically with such situations, which have become central to the neoliberal approach. From copious evidence he concludes that relying solely on cash payments to induce citizens to acquiesce in an unwanted, antisocial event “is not only expensive, it is also corrupting. It bypasses persuasion and the kind of consent that arises from deliberating about the risks the activity poses and the larger community’s need for it.” It also lets weak governments off the hook. The intrusion of what Sandel calls “market norms” tends to crowd out the moral and social issues, which is a bad precedent for future action. Or have we already reached the point where money buys everything and anything?Ralph WindleWitney, Oxfordshire • The 50 MPs and representatives from main parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Irish assemblies who support Heathrow expansion should spend some serious time in Hounslow – or Isleworth, Brentford, Chiswick, Richmond, Twickenham, East Sheen, Barnes, Putney, Wandsworth, and Clapham, Hillingdon, Windsor, Staines/Spelthorne for that matter – before they can make objective judgments on the third runway issue (Heathrow confident of official backing for expansion, 18 October). That’s more than 1.25 million people, and a third runway will bring Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, Kingston-upon-Thames, Merton/Wimbledon and more of leafy Berkshire into the equation. The affected population will rise to more than 2 million people. The quality of life for those under the flightpath doesn’t seem to have received much coverage of late – perhaps that’s something for another last-minute study. One of the reasons that life remains bearable under existing flightpath arrangements is because of the respite given by runway alternation. This will all change with a third runway.Brian CoopeLondon • With airport expansion, as with the Brexit referendum, the government is asking the wrong question. The choice should not be between expanding Heathrow or expanding Gatwick but between more airport pollution in London or less, between some London airport expansion or none. If neither airport is expanded, air travel from London will have to become more expensive to cope with apparent rising demand, and anyone who can afford to travel through London will have to pay more. Probably mainly business people and holidaymakers bound for exotic destinations. The hard-working families about whom the government professes to care will still be able to holiday abroad if they wish. They could for instance catch a ferry from Harwich or fly from Birmingham. Or they could holiday at home. The idea that Britain will lose economically by not expanding its role as a air travel hub is fallacious. A transport hub aims to cater for transit passengers, who offer nothing to the local economy apart from paying landing fees to the airport and buying food and drink at airport-franchised shops. Like the proverbial seagulls, they fly in, shit over everything, and fly out again. Let the transit passengers do that to the people of Dublin, Paris or Amsterdam, as we aimed to do when we voted for Brexit.Richard CooperChichester, West Sussex • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |