AMBITIONS to make Scotland a global business hub and a centre for investment around the world are to be welcomed.
However the proposals by Scottish Natural Heritage to downgrade sand dunes on the land of Donald Trump’s Menie golf estate raises a question for debate – where should the balance lie between business development and protecting our environment?
Last year scientists announced that damaging nature is as bad for humanity and the planet as climate change, following a UN study.
Authors said that human destruction and exploitation of the natural world not only threatens food supplies but also water security for billions of people.
With climate change now at the forefront of global consciousness, it may be time to examine the real cost of development if natural habitats are threatened as a result.
If scientists are correct, jeopardising the environment for the benefit of industry is not just creating some unsightly landscape or forcing wild animals further into towns and cities – it is doing damage that stretches far into the future and beyond our generation.
That said, with current concerns over job security, employment levels and the uncertainty of Brexit on the cards, can we afford to be picky about the developments we permit? If the answer is no, are there ways to offset environmental damage or minimise it?
Whatever the answer, it is clear any proposals which have the potential to impact Scotland’s treasured natural heritage should be given extra scrutiny before a decision is made.
It may be too late to reverse what has happened in Aberdeenshire, however taking a step back may help protect the rest of our outstanding countryside from destruction.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel