Apparently, claims by some environmental groups in Britain about the environmental hazards posed by airport expansion have not been influential enough to convince regional governments to veto such plans.

Seemingly, one of the most basic tenets of the economic discipline - the role of specialization - has not influenced Friends of the Earth. Last week, some British news outlets reported on a claim by Friends of the Earth that expansion of airports creates an economic deficit in the UK because it encourages people to spend money outside the UK:

Friends of the Earth said visitors flying in spent £11b in the UK in 2004, while UK residents flying out spent £26bn abroad - a £15bn deficit.

The folks over at The Globalization Institute have explained the lunacy of this idea. An excerpt:

Why Friends of the Earth are happy for money to be spent in the UK but not abroad is curious. We do not worry about the trade balances between Manchester and Sheffield. Why then does it become an issue when one of the parties is foreign?

Moreover, such logic might also lead us to ask why we need competing charities whose purpose is to fend for the environment -- wouldn't it be more efficient to have just one?