It’s almost unbelievable to say this, but the conclusion is unavoidable: after 14 years of environmental damage under the Conservatives, it seemed Labour could only do better. Yet, on environmental issues, this government is proving to be even worse.

The last prime minister to prioritize economic growth above all else while dismissing critics with insults was Liz Truss. She branded those advocating for environmental protection as an “anti-growth coalition,” accusing them of being opposed to aspiration and enterprise.

Now, Keir Starmer has taken up that same rhetoric. Anyone questioning government policies that push GDP growth—no matter how harmful, such as expanding Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, and Doncaster Sheffield airports—is labeled a “time-wasting nimby,” a “zealot,” or a “blocker” guilty of “self-righteous virtue-signaling.”

Ironically, Starmer himself once celebrated climate campaigners who legally halted Heathrow’s third runway, declaring in 2020 that it should be blocked because “there is no more important challenge than the climate emergency.” But that was the old Starmer. The new version sounds eerily like Truss, the most disastrous Tory leader in recent history.

Now, his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, asserts that economic growth “trumps other things,” including environmental commitments—an unfortunate choice of words. The government’s messaging, full of oversimplifications and slogans, bears a troubling resemblance to Donald Trump’s approach.

Some of Reeves’ proposals, like improving east-west rail links and increasing offshore wind farms, make sense. There is also an urgent need for affordable housing. However, in the face of a climate crisis, expanding airports and building new major roads, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, is indefensible. The “sustainable aviation fuels” that the government is counting on are non-existent at scale and unlikely to materialize.

Reeves dismisses environmental concerns in a distinctly Trumpian manner, ridiculing those who object to projects like Heathrow’s third runway for increasing carbon emissions “in 20 years’ time.” But the reality is clear—they will increase emissions. She seems unconcerned with the long-term consequences, even though such projects won’t yield economic returns for decades either—if they ever do.

Rather than prioritizing airport expansion, the government could invest in hospitals, which not only meet urgent public needs but also create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Yet, bizarrely, building hospitals has been sidelined in favor of catering to corporate lobbyists.

Even if we accept the government’s claim that economic growth should be the nation’s top priority, their approach is deeply flawed. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries recently warned that without urgent climate action, global economic output could shrink by 50% between 2070 and 2090. If Heathrow’s third runway is built, it may contribute a small boost to GDP by 2040, but it would also accelerate the environmental destruction that could lead to a far greater economic collapse soon after. Starmer claims environmental objections have “slowed down our progress as a nation,” but when that “progress” is a reckless charge toward disaster, slowing down is exactly what we need.

Yet Labour remains fixated on GDP at all costs. Environment Secretary Steve Reed even wants to make it easier to approve massive chicken farms—despite clear evidence that they are polluting rivers like the Wye with nitrates and phosphates. Once these factories are built, the damage is inevitable, harming local economies that rely on tourism and blocking sustainable developments. In this, as in other areas, Labour is ignoring its own water commission, one of the few signs of environmental progress left after the Tories.

Perhaps the most glaring betrayal came last week when Starmer ensured the demise of the climate and environment bill. Its aim was to align government policies with international environmental commitments, yet Labour MPs were ordered to filibuster it, with threats of disciplinary action against those who dared to support it.

This government’s priorities are now painfully clear: corporate interests over climate, GDP growth over sustainability, and short-term political gains over long-term survival.

The government’s attack on regulators goes even further than Truss’s. As bodies such as the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Health and Safety Executive and the chemicals agency UK Reach crumple through a lethal combination of underbudgeting and political hostility, Reeves insists that the job of regulators is to “drive growth”. But that is not their role. They exist to protect us, regardless of the demands of capital. After 15 years of deregulation through budget cuts and ministerial nudges, the results include the death of our rivers, the degradation of our soil, a catastrophic loss of wildlife, air pollution and noise exceeding safe levels, and a toxic load whose impacts on human health we can only begin to guess at. How does any of this improve our lives?

But never mind, let’s melt human life and the natural world down into money. GDP, a number which incorporates great harms as well as benefits, must trump all else. Then the government will have some numbers to boast about, even if they represent a decline in our wellbeing – our genuine prosperity.

These people may be more competent than Truss, but after just six months in power they have become as terrifying in their cold fanaticism and intolerance of dissent. Did you vote for this?