Why does Mickey Mouse want to destroy civilization? This is how a few days ago the American economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman began his usual column in The New York Times. The statement made it inevitable to keep reading the article. He immediately clarified, however, that it was a way of saying that the Walt Disney group was part of the corporate lobby that pressures President Joe Biden not to carry out his $3.5 trillion plan to curb climate change, among other reasons because it foresees a significant increase in taxes —also fines and subsidies— on large companies to offset public spending for the decarbonization of the economy.
Krugman warns that climate change is no longer a hypothesis and that what we do this decade will be key to avoiding the worst. The good thing about all this is that a large part of public opinion and world politics is already aware of where we are heading the planet if we do not prevent it. But there is another part of politics and large corporations with enormous economic interests that still promote active denial of the consequences of global warming. The fact is that, at the other extreme, there is another type of denial that, protected under global awareness against the destruction of the environment, rejects, for example, the expansion of basic infrastructure for the economy due to its polluting effect and because it attacks certain ecosystems.
In the midst of this debate and with opposing positions, the future of Barcelona Airport has been decided. Two blocs have been formed, those in favor of the expansion and those who flatly reject it. It is a déjà vu that we already experienced in the 90s, when the construction of a third runway was debated virulently. For years there was discussion about whether the airport needed the third runway and where to locate it. When it seemed that an agreement was impossible, a solution was finally agreed upon between the Government of Spain, the Generalitat, the Barcelona City Council and the El Prat City Council. Today, the same actors, but with the aggravating factor that the state, regional and municipal governments are formed by coalitions with different positions, which has made it impossible to reach a new agreement.
One considers that the expansion of the airport to turn it into a real hub is necessary to compete in a geostrategic framework in which global cities and metropolitan regions are becoming increasingly relevant, becoming economic engines of their respective countries. That this expansion cannot be a wholesale pollution factory that goes against the fight against climate change must also be a requirement. What should not have been allowed is for denialism in the will to agree to lead to economic degrowth. For this reason, I fully reject that there is no talent, intelligence, and technical resources in our country to carry out an expansion that minimizes the impact on the territory and on the controversial artificial lagoon of La Ricarda.
I fully reject that there is no talent, intelligence, and technical resources in our country to carry out an expansion that minimizes the impact on the territory and on the controversial artificial lagoon of La RicardaAll airports in the world occupy spaces that impact their surroundings, because they have been built in rural areas at a certain distance from cities. In Barcelona, more than a century ago, it was decided to develop what were then called airfields in the Llobregat Delta. At that time, there was not the environmental sensitivity there is now. Over time, airfields became large airports that consume many hectares of land, cause inconvenience to nearby population centers, and the hundreds of planes that take off and land every day pollute the air because they fly thanks to solid fuels. However, they also generate economy and jobs.
I am surprised that in this bitter debate no one—or almost no one, starting with Aena—puts on the table the development of hydrogen as a zero-emission alternative fuel, which some important airlines are already experimenting with and implementing. This means that a day will come when planes do not pollute, so part of the problem would be solved. The point is to accelerate this process through legislation and planning that favors it, just like the electric car and the decarbonization of energy generation. Only then will we curb climate change.
A day will come when planes do not pollute, so part of the problem would be solvedThe path towards the collapse of fossil fuels and their replacement by alternative energies has no return.Because, either we go in that direction or there is no other place to go than our own self-destruction. Even Krugman's Mickey Mouse will one day have no choice but to subordinate the planet's survival to his economic interests, however astronomical they may be.Being the richest in a dead world is not a future for anyone.
It is evident that our airport negatively impacts the natural space of the delta, but we are not going to change that anymore. Its relocation to another place is not viable, but neither should it be to renounce its strategic role in the economic development of the country. It was about finding a solution. I intellectually refuse to accept that it does not exist, even if it is the least bad.