Tourism after El Prat

On Monday I participated in the program In the mornings from TV3 to justify the expansion of El Prat Airport. A friend with an exceptionally well-arranged mind sent me a message saying he was surprised by my intervention and concluding that he feared that "this will end as always, with Aena and the elites doing the only thing they know how to do: attracting tourists."

The expansion of El Prat has many detractors, but I think the only serious argument is the one that worries my friend. But before addressing that, I must address the others.

Let's start with the impact on the ecosystem of the Llobregat Delta. I think that citizens who lack technical knowledge on the subject should rest assured for two reasons: because the person in charge –Jordi Sargatal– is a person with a very solid track record, and because, in all likelihood, the European Commission—which has a chip on its shoulder due to the non-compliance with the previous enlargement—will strictly monitor what is done. Nor do I think it's serious to criticize the fact that compensation is being used on land that is at least partially agricultural today, since this land used to be wetlands. If we attach so much importance to marshes, what harm is there in returning to that status?

We continue with the climate change argument. It's true that approximately 4% of greenhouse gases (GHG) are produced by aviation, and it's undeniable that an airport with more flights generates more emissions. However, the worst thing we can do with climate change—which is an existential challenge for civilization—is to treat it childishly. Captain Lettuce's phrase "Small changes are powerful" was good for raising awareness, but not as a guide for action. If El Prat Airport doesn't offer specific flights, those same flights will be offered by Reus or Girona if they're short-haul (as was the case before the last expansion) or by Barajas Airport if they're long-haul. Our harm will be real, while the improvement in planetary well-being will be illusory. How to eliminate 4% of GHG emissions is perfectly defined, whether it hurts the airlines or the tourists. low cost: the replacement of very cheap kerosene distilled from petroleum with very expensive kerosene that does not emit greenhouse gases, a decision the EU has already made and from which we cannot deviate by using substitutes.

The territorial balance argument is also unconvincing. Limiting capacity at El Prat will undoubtedly bring more passengers to Reus and Girona (it has already happened), but they will be tourist passengers (the runways at these airports are short and the terminals are not equipped for large aircraft) who will be able to comfortably access Barcelona via an AVE (high-speed train) that will take them from the terminal to La Sagrera.

Even less solid is the technological argument that aircraft operating transcontinental flights will be able to take off from a short runway under all circumstances. The future is undetermined, but if Aena—which has one of the most important concentrations of aeronautical experts on the planet—is willing to undertake the extremely expensive lengthening of a runway, it's because the probability of this happening is negligible; and when I say that lengthening is extremely expensive, I'm not referring to the cost of the construction, but to the environmental compensation.

So there remains the argument of tourism.

Undoubtedly, if El Prat falls from 55 million passengers to 70, the vast majority of the 15 million difference will be tourists who will do us no good and much harm. The economic statistics on what has happened in Catalonia in general and Barcelona in particular in the last quarter of a century are overwhelming. Some have gained a lot, but most have lost a lot. Not only in quality of life, but also in economic capacity. The number of tourists visiting us must be reduced if we want the second quarter of a century not to be a repeat of the first, which has been characterized by phenomenal economic growth and a very significant deterioration in collective well-being.

Now, trying to manage tourism by strangling the airport would be equivalent to trying to fight an infection by not feeding the sick. "Don't let your savings eat the tablecloth," says popular wisdom. The number and impact of tourism are managed in two ways: with taxes and by controlling overnight capacity. Since it's in our hands to raise the tourist "tax" and since it's in our hands to bring tourists back to where they would never have had to leave—the hotels—we have no excuse or need to hurt ourselves by clipping our wings at El Prat Airport, which is an important piece of the equation for consolidating a healthier economy than the one we have now.