A secção de cartas do Economist vale, só por si, o preço da revista.
SIR – Your special report on cities overlooked the environmental benefits they provide (May 5th). For instance, cities are more energy efficient to live in than the countryside. I spent seven years living in London, in which I drove an average of 5,714 miles a year mainly visiting family in Norfolk. Last year, to be closer to that family, I moved to a rural village close to Norwich. Since then, I have driven 10,000 miles in just one year. Villages and rural communities lack economies of scale and are incapable of delivering the same network effects as cities. They are inherently inefficient, evidenced by their under-used post offices, bus services, schools, branch railway lines and "cottage" hospitals.
The state should no longer subsidise the private pursuit of Arcadia through expensive public services for remote and sparsely populated areas. Instead, the countryside should be considered a luxury—reserved for wildlife, unmanned agricultural vehicles and electric coaches full of gawking tourists. We should abolish villages and make everyone live in towns of at least 25,000 people.
Huw Sayer
Norwich
