Airport expansion, a step against the planet
The expansion of the airport and its impact on the natural ecosystems of the Llobregat Delta is already beginning to resemble the Guadiana River—now I leave, now I disappear. A committee of experts has decided that the best option is, instead of destroying a piece of Ricarda, to do a two-for-one: now we'll steal a little piece from the Remolar River. And somewhere we'll build a new reservoir to compensate for this destruction.
This is a surprising proposal, to say the least, which, in my opinion, makes no sense. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of what an ecosystem is and what it means to conserve biodiversity. They want to reduce the discussion to the confrontation between a "vital infrastructure" for Catalonia and whether or not to conserve bird ponds. Of course, they'll build us a larger reservoir full of biodiversity (most of which will be invasive species like the coypu). It seems as if they're treating us like creatures exchanging stickers from an album.
This proposal aims to transform the Llobregat Delta into a kind of theme park, a zoo, where children can go birdwatching. All the studies that have been carried out show that Ricarda is a unique ecosystem and that it has been profoundly modified by the airport, which, moreover, has not implemented the compensatory measures that it was supposed to do with the previous expansion. And all this is based on the opinion of a committee of experts who, before starting, already said they wanted the airport expansion. Has the zero option and another airport model ever been on the table?
The airport debate is a debate that goes far beyond whether we compensate The loss of biodiversity is another matter. Framing it this way is a deception. The debate should be about the country's model and how we adapt to global changes. A government that wants to adapt and mitigate the climate crisis can't seriously talk about expanding the airport. What will we do when sea levels rise or when temperatures are so high that people can't stay outside? More airports mean more money for a few and much less health for many others. How can we talk about climate change mitigation and adaptation if what we're doing is the opposite of what we should be doing? Reducing the airport debate to whether I cut back on some natural ecosystems here or there—and I'll make others bigger and more beautiful—is a joke to the citizens. Do they want to conserve the delta's biodiversity? Do they want to adapt to global changes? Don't expand the airport and stop making us dizzy once and for all. The fact that a country's economy depends on whether an airport is expanded or not means we're not talking about economics, but about business, and moreover, for the benefit of a few. Are we in the 21st century?
