The State and its role - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 151

the ability of future generations to meet their needs by exploiting resources for our own
use instead. Achieving an appropriate balance between the two is the basis of what is
now known as 'sustainable development' - a principle to which the UK Government
is committed (Defra et al. 2005).
Unfortunately, as with human rights, it is only possible to define this principle in
very broad terms and it is in its application to particular policy areas and decisions that
a great deal of argument takes place. Plainly we have no way of knowing whether in
fact future generations will wish to inherit our present resource stock and the extent
to which their welfare would be diminished if they did not. (Behaviour and preferences
will obviously change and there is always the possibility of new discoveries, technical
advances etc. as alternatives to present patterns of production and consumption.)
There is also scientific uncertainty about critical factors such as population levels and
about climate change and its effects.
In this situation some argue for the adoption of the 'precautionary principle'
(O'Riordan and Cameron 1995), i.e. for a policy of 'safety first'. The interests of
resource conservation may be served for example by the State imposing a tax on fuel
or on carbon emissions. These may be levied with the aim of acting both as a brake
on present consumption and as an incentive to suppliers and consumers to explore
renewable or low-carbon alternatives.
Other resources within the natural and built environments, although not 'consumed'
in quite the same way, may be damaged or depleted as a result of transport and travel.
The quantity of attractive landscape or of countryside unspoilt by urban development
or transport infrastructure is finite and effectively non-renewable. The qualities of
particular areas may also have 'unique' value in that they have characteristics not
replicated elsewhere, including their accessibility to potential visitors. There is only
one Peak District National Park for example. The same considerations apply to sites of
special scientific interest (SSSIs), listed buildings of historical or architectural interest,
conservation areas etc.
The value to society of such places is plainly more than the price at which the land
or property is currently traded on the open market, though exactly what that value
might be is a moot point. (Depending on the estimated amount remedial works might
be undertaken to overcome the adverse impacts of a development, or possibly a more
expensive option selected at an alternative location.) Currently debate rages over the
future of the A303 trunk road which runs close to Stonehenge, designated a World
Heritage Site. 'Doing nothing' involves continued despoilation of visitors' enjoyment
of this site and serious delays to users of the road. On the other hand undertaking a
road improvement involving anything less than a bored tunnel costing in the region of
£500m would involve permanent physical destruction of archaeological features in the
area and the landscape setting of the monument itself.
The practical consequences of the precautionary principle are to impose additional
costs (or to forgo benefits) for certain today in order to safeguard conditions which
may or may not be valued equally highly tomorrow. Clearly this is a difficult position
to sustain politically since it is the present generation of voters whom politicians
have to satisfy and a proportion of them are likely to opt for enjoying their jam
today instead. The fact that effective action for sustainable development (notably in
relation to global warming) is dependent on international co-operation adds further
uncertainty into national debates and compounds the difficulties faced by those who
advocate it.