The vote cast by the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) approving the uprooting of over 500 mature trees and the demolition of just under 50,000 square metres of arable land for the Central Link Project leaves me perplexed.

As a common citizen, I believed that ERA was set up to safeguard the environment, particularly since the mission statement on its website reads: “To safeguard the environment for a sustainable quality of life.”

ERA’s vote in favour of such an anti-environment project is a betrayal of its mission statement. 

Although it was a supposedly painful decision, the ERA chair justified it by saying it followed the reasoning of ERA’s board to avoid a forecasted 2028 gridlock and because it was in the national interest.

However, I am not convinced by the blanket statement “in the national interest” as it is a political one and in no way scientific. In typical political fashion, ERA reasoned that the socio-economic benefits of the project surpassed the environmental costs.

I am of the impression that most politicians have only a vague understanding of what it means to “safeguard the environment for a sustainable quality of life”, especially when those politicians use these words to justify development.

Balance between economic growth and the environment can only exist if the economy does not disrupt nature. Nature includes not only the land and the sea, along with every creature and every star in the sky, but, more so, it is the set of laws that have governed the universe since time immemorial.

Whether we like it or not, all our activities are bound by the laws of nature. The freedom to seemingly do whatever we like with our planet is contingent upon nature, which will respond in its own way according to its laws. The checks and balances of our world are set by nature, not by us. 

Only by not stretching nature beyond its limit can we achieve sustainability. Otherwise, nature may find a different solution that may not be to our liking. This is a humbling yet profound truth.

Unfortunately for us, and all other living creatures, we have been arrogantly and ignorantly following a policy of denying the facts of nature.

We have recklessly dumped into our oceans, land and atmosphere more waste than nature can digest. The results are hideous. There are great ocean rubbish dumps more than half the size of Europe; rivers are drying up; the seas are disappearing; and our atmosphere is unhealthy. We now stand facing possibly the greatest catastrophe that we could ever create – climate change.

Our past careless, selfish actions have undeniably improved the level of comfort of our lives, blessing us with advantages gained with seemingly no sacrifice at all. But most scientists today agree that all this has led to the present state of climate change that ERA’s experts are perfectly aware of.

If ERA fails to deliver a strong, intelligent environmental message, and if it fails to protect the environment, then who needs ERA?

One by-product of our lifestyle is the increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) – a greenhouse gas that absorbs outgoing longwave radiation from the earth. This gas retains heat and prevents the earth from cooling, resulting in a gradual warming of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide emissions soared out of proportion in the last 40 years or so. 

In the early 90s, the IPCC started warning governments that something had to be done to cut down emissions. Yet governments paid only lip service to these unrelenting warnings and, after 29 years, emissions are still on the rise.

The gravest local sin is that ERA knows all this, yet it gives its blessing to remove over 500 mature trees and 50,000 square metres of arable land.

We are not fools. We know that planting 200 tree saplings instead of the trees to be uprooted equates to the loss of an estimated annual 21 tonnes of CO2 net direct sequestration. Saplings take many years to grow and become as effective as mature trees. This number of trees can suck up the amount of CO2 emitted by the electricity consumption of only five small households.

We shall not be spared from the repercussions of global warming. Hopefully ERA is aware of the dire emergency the planet is in and the difficult commitment we have made to meet the 2015 Paris agreement to keep global temperature-rise well under two degrees, and preferably under 1.5 degrees.

With the current state of things, the carbon budget will be consumed within less than a decade. Yet ERA, instead of abiding by global scientific advice, decides to make a move in the opposite direction and remove the trees that suck up this CO2.

Didn’t it occur to ERA that there are no national boundaries where nature is concerned? We cannot act in such a parochial fashion because the environment is a global issue. If ERA fails to deliver a strong, intelligent environmental message, and if it fails to protect the environment, then who needs the authority? The scientific warnings are sharp. We are already getting a taste of the effects to come and we should not act like the proverbial ostrich and make it worse.

Climate change will cause a decrease in agriculture produce. Local farmers are already facing weather-related difficulties. In a scenario where we shall need more land for crops, ERA turns a blind eye and callously approves the demolition of about 12 acres of arable land.

This is our land and we have a right to get our nourishment from it, paying rightful dues to the farmers who so dedicatedly work to provide our food. With ERA’s blessing, we shall now be forced to import the crops we won’t have the land to produce.

It is a mistake of self-conceit to slam down “emotional” arguments, especially those coming from a farmer. These arguments may not be academic, but this does not mean they do not carry wisdom. Emotional arguments are difficult to quantify but they may have more value than money.

In the words of Nobel Prize laureate Prof. Richard P. Feynman, “nature cannot be fooled”. Emissions and the uprooting of trees will invariably cause increasing global temperatures, health problems, population migration northwards, melting glaciers, sea level rise, severe weather, and so on.

We are part of nature and we cannot escape it. In some ancient indigenous wisdom, nature is called The Law. Nature has no regard for man’s economic paradigms or fancy lifestyles, whether rich or poor.

We should not blame nature for any climate change disaster because it is all our own doing.

If our local climate turns to a semi-desert, what will become of our ever-increasing economic growth?

What about the tourist industry? What about food supply, or the spiralling energy demand? We are building our future on a flimsy economy disregarding the limits of nature. 

I think the real challenge that we and the world must face is to comply with the Paris agreement. Prof. Kevin Anderson of Manchester University had very cleverly compared the present politics on environment with the story The Emperor’s New Clothes – as the Emperor paraded about believing he wore new clothes, the crowd was amazed at how lovely these were, except for one child who realised that the emperor wore no clothes at all.

In my miserable opinion, ERA should only be concerned with environmental protection. ERA should only be nature’s lawyer and loyal defender, example-setter, public educator and the government’s honest adviser.

This is needed for us to meet the Paris agreement limits because there is still a chance to save our planet, our only home.

Let us not forget that the environmental resources we squander today will be deprived from our children and grandchildren tomorrow.

We owe it to them.

John Darmanin is a retired applied meteorologist with a diploma in Environmental Science.