In their recent article in Kathimerini (28/2), T. Giannitsis and S. Tomadakis denounced parties for not standing up for what determines our future by focusing on the ephemeral. What they did not emphasize is that governments, through their specific actions and inactions, determine our evolution as a state and as a society.

Greece is at a crossroads. The return of tourism, the increase in the mobility of international groups of wealthy categories such as retirees, and the growth of remote work, which makes digital nomads a privileged springboard for growth, provides us with a unique opportunity. Greece should (for now – but for how long?) give an authentic experience to those who want to know a country that has not been fully commercialized. Perhaps because licensing was too complicated in the past, we struck a kind of balance between our past and development. Recent regulations are changing the landscape. Now the question inexorably arises: what kind of Greece do we need? If, for example. if ETAD (Public Property Corporation) continues to rent out all the beaches indiscriminately, how will this affect our appeal to digital nomads and how will this affect the experience of those who either do not want or cannot afford to use sun loungers? More generally, how will we host events so that we can not only ensure balanced and equitable growth, but also promote sustainability? Given the coming ecological crisis, how will we conserve the environment that we have inherited and must pass on to our children?

All this should be at the center of the discussion. The big problem is how we weigh the environmental protection that fuels the engine of our economy – tourism and foreigners living in Greece. Unfortunately, both the government and the opposition are indifferent to this issue. Sometimes decisions are made without awareness of the consequences, and our future is determined by those who benevolently or reluctantly promote their ideas or interests. Take, for example, the consultations on Natura, which are very late and only under pressure from the EU, which condemned us for not implementing this plan.

In Kea, where I’ve been watching the process, and where Natura’s territory covers most of the island, scientists are proposing draconian restrictions on local activities, but favoring “150-bed hotels” in places where there is neither infrastructure nor scale. get such tourist hippos that are not even in the most touristic areas of the island. Rather than qualifying only units of up to 20 beds to support agritourism and link to mainstream production, he is urging locals to find a mega hotel, sell their land and leave.

Greece should (for now – but for how long?) give an authentic experience to those who want to know a country that has not been fully commercialized.

Is this the future we want? And if not, why don’t we take a closer look at what we really desire and how we will achieve it? The studies of local spatial and urban plans, which should establish the boundaries of what is permissible and what is not, have been carefully relegated to the background for decades, and only the Council of Europe is left to protect the rights of citizens and the environment.

Worse, the government is trying to pass a massive environmental law without real debate. Instead of being the product of broad consultations about the future we want, lightning-fast processes are being used. The specific plan, which Cathimerini vehemently condemned on Tuesday March 14 with a request to withdraw it, opens windows and doors, allows anyone with the financial surface to call investments “strategic” to fragment the countryside, open roads, empower every minister. The environment will change the boundaries of settlements and fundamentally change the protection of Natura territories. What if the Council of Europe, in several recent decisions, has shown that it will not hesitate to cancel “windows” that will ultimately destroy the environment and not follow the prescribed procedure? The legal uncertainty that such a law would entail would allow those who know how to exploit the “windows” while they are open to operate. It rewards the worst form of entrepreneurship that undermines the environment, according to a joint statement by major environmental organizations. Given the credibility deficit caused by the Tempe tragedy, this is an inexplicable political (other than strategic) upheaval, as it confirms that politicians are interested in service, not in methodical and impartial management.

Our future deserves more attention. A government that allows environmental degradation is damaging the country. If the prime minister does not back down even at the last minute by withdrawing the bill, he should not be surprised if, with all the progress in other areas, he loses the support of some of the centrist reformers who brought him to power.

Mr. Michael J. Jacobides (www.jacobides.com) chairs the Sir Donald Gordon Chair in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the London Business School, where he is Professor of Strategy. He is a strategy consultant for the Hellenic Society for the Environment and Culture.