GARRET FitzGerald is not alone in thinking the Celtic Tiger threatens to damage, if not devour. Ireland's much hyped pristine environment. Most environmentalists would agree. Indeed, the pressures are already obvious in the growth of road traffic and the sprawl of new housing, particularly in Dublin.
As the Government's strategy on sustainable development conceded, the symptoms of environmental stress are everywhere: increasing water pollution, depletion of natural resources, rising levels of waste production, damage to natural habitats and erosion of landscapes. Modern society, in other words, is altering the ecological balance.
Theoretically, our environmental legislation provides a framework to deal with the various threats. However, a recent survey by the Green Party has shown that environmental activists have little confidence in the capacity of regulatory bodies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, to protect the environment now or in the future.
Though most of the parties say they are in favour of sustainable development - defined as "development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" there is not much evidence that politicians are prepared to take the tough actions needed to achieve it.
The Government's decision to abolish water charges, right across the hoard, is a case in point. Politically motivated to stave off challenges from independents - such as Joe Higgins in Dublin West, or a raft of group water scheme candidates in rural areas - it defied the principle that people should pay for their consumption of valuable resources.
Only the Progressive Democrats and the Greens are prepared to say that water should be metered to discourage over consumption. which is common practice in Europe. The EU Commission, aghast at the Government's profligacy, retaliated by cutting the level of grant aid for water supply schemes from 85 to 80 per cent as a mark of its displeasure.
The national strategy for sustainable development promises a shift towards green taxation, to reflect the polluter pays principle, and this has been reinforced by the ESRI, which calculates that a broadly based energy tax could raise £700 million. But is there any chance that this will happen when the Government couldn't even sustain water charges?
What progress has been made on the environmental front in Ireland is largely due to "top down" regulation from Brussels and "bottom up" pressure from non governmental organisations. Few politicians - other than Mary Harney, perhaps - can claim much credit for taking bold initiatives to deal with environmental pollution.
Waste management features in all of the manifestos, with predictable commitments to recycling, yet some of the same politicians ensured that Ireland got away with adopting the lowest recycling rates in Europe. Apart from the Greens, there is also agreement on the need to switch from landfill to waste to energy, even if this is not always spelled out.
Traffic congestion in Dublin, fuelled by booming car sales and the absence of a reliable public transport system, is one of the more obvious, and costly, consequences of our current prosperity. The city has already breached EU limits on nitrogen dioxide pollution and has become an increasingly unfriendly place for pedestrians.
Yet, apart from the Greens, none of the political parties is prepared even to query the tax benefits associated with company cars - an increasingly important factor in the traffic equation - or to suggest, as the ESRI has proposed, that those who use public transport should he able to write off the cost of commuter tickets against their tax liability.
On the most crucial transportation issue in the capital, the £220 million Luas light rail project, there is a clear division between the alternative coalitions. Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left favour the on street system planned by CIE, while Fianna Fail and the PDs would prefer to see it put underground, at least in the city centre.
There is also a huge gulf between what mainstream politicians say or do at national level and the activities of their counterparts on local authorities, particularly in Dublin. Haphazard landrezoning is the most glaring example, involving - as it usually does - a seemingly unshakable alliance of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and PD councillors.
Whatever the Construction Industry Federation may say, planning in Ireland is developer led. Councillors respond to representations from landowners, agreeing to zone this or that piece of land for residential or industrial development, whether or not it makes any sense in planning terms. Usually, it doesn't, at least not according to the planners.
The pressure for new housing in greater Dublin has become intense, and the key question is where it should be located. Urban renewal has led to an explosion of mostly small apartments in the inner city, but there is an equivalent explosion of low density suburban housing, mostly in areas with access to newly improved major roads.
Skyrocketing house prices - another consequence of the economic boom - are being used to justify more landrezoning, as if this alone would make houses affordable. The Government has also proposed that higher residential densities be considered and underused State owned land released for house building.
Never was a regional plan more urgently required. However, it will be at least 12 months before a consultancy study on this vital issue - announced recently by the Minister for the Environment, Brendan Howlin - is completed. In the meantime, the current free for all is likely to continue unless a moratorium is imposed on "maverick" landrezoning.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that, when the chips are down, we are still prepared to settle for development at any price. Look at what is happening in the tax designated "traditional seaside resorts", with riproaring schemes of holiday homes being shovelled into these areas without so much as a nod in the direction of sustainable tourism.
All the parties solemnly pledge to work for the closure of Sellafield, but then they would, wouldn't they? Sellafield is an easy target, though even they must know that there isn't a hope in hell of having it closed down. We would be better off if they concentrated on the environmental problems that are within their power to solve, here at home.
