Venice is sinking. No news there. But the threat to that indescribably beautiful, unique and fragile city is being exacerbated by, of all things, excessive cruise ship traffic. Ever-larger ships, arriving in ever-larger numbers to the congested, enclosed lagoon in which Venice sits are displacing ever-larger volumes of water. The effect on Venice is simple to illustrate: sit in a bathtub. Have a friend join you. What happens to the water level? Exactly. Also known as the Archimedes Principle. Venice already faces enough flooding issues from natural, seasonal conditions; it is insane to add unnatural causes as well.
This is not a polemic against cruise ships in general (a topic for another time) nor the situation in Venice in particular (recent reports suggest that – possibly chastened by the Costa Concordia experience – Italian authorities are taking steps to curb cruise ship traffic in environmentally sensitive areas) but rather a questioning of the deeply flawed logic that accepts, encourages and justifies such activity. For even as the evidence of incalculable damage to their city mounted, many Venetians defended the cruise industry, because it brought ‘economic benefits’ to the city.
Behold the poisoned panacea of our times: all ills will be accepted, if only there is economic benefit to be won.
We hear this sad argument all over the world: wherever mines want to pollute pristine lakes, wherever oil wells threaten ecosystems, wherever landfills promise to destroy precious habitats, the same trump card is always readily played: economic benefit will accrue; all will be well.
This strain of thinking is currently amping up to an alarming level in my backyard of British Columbia, Canada. There is a vigorous campaign underway to embroider our province with a dazzling array of oil pipelines, gas processing plants, off-loading terminals and increased ocean going tanker traffic. Any and all of these activities threaten our precious environment in any number of ways, but all are being staunchly defended because they will bring … yes, economic benefits.
But at what price?
How did we get to a place where a handful of short term dead end jobs is worth the risk of destroying irreplaceable and priceless natural or – in Venice’s case, man-made -wonders?
One municipal politician in a directly affected coastal community woke up and smelled the coffee when she realised that the net accrued benefit to her town was a measly 50 jobs. Too small a dividend for such a steep price, she decided.
This is not the forum to debate these issues in detail – the energy is better expended locally, where it can be heard and felt. I just think it’s instructive that these conversations are being held all over the developed world. At what point does economic benefit for a few completely overrule the common good? That shouldn’t be a stupid question, but it all too often is.