UNIT 7. 7F, page 63
2 give permission for something to start
Speaker 1 On the whole, I’m in agreement with the principle of allowing development projects such as Donald Trump’s golf course in Scotland to go ahead. In the current economic climate, broadly speaking, very few private investors are prepared to
spend substantial amounts of money on developing land for tourism. For this reason we should welcome such investments as they lead to the creation of more jobs in the area, first during the construction phase, and later to support the tourism and leisure industries. The increase in tourism will of course result in a growth in the local economy. This is of particular importance in remoter parts of the country where the local economy must rely to a great extent on the revenue generated from tourism. I can’t deny that there is some merit in the arguments of those who are against developments that pose a threat to the
environment, such as the sand dunes in Aberdeenshire and the wildlife that they support. However, I would still maintain that in times of recession, the economic benefits significantly outweigh the environmental damage.
Speaker 2 I am of the opinion that tourist developments that have a detrimental effect on the environment should be discouraged at all costs. In my view it is wrong to sacrifice rare species which bring great pleasure to many people for the sake of extra revenue from tourism. Furthermore, I don’t go along with the argument that development will mean a huge improvement in the local economy. Take the case of the golf course in Scotland, for example. Granted, it will bring more jobs, which is very important, but other than that, I don’t see how the local population will benefit from it if the income from tourism goes to Donald Trump. Another thing to consider is the example that it sets. If one development project is allowed to go ahead then this will probably give the green light to tear up other protected sites in the future. All in all, I strongly feel that this is too
high a price to pay for the supposed benefits of tourism.
Speaker 1 Such developments lead to more jobs; growth in the local economy where tourism provides revenue
Speaker 2 It’s wrong to sacrifice wildlife for the sake of revenue; the main income won’t go to local people; it will allow other projects to go ahead on other sensitive sites.