It seems to me that a good government combines the two without making too much of a fuss of what label to put on their policies, so if you build infrastructure that lasts, that is resilient, that could withstand the risks associated with a natural disaster or that can cope with the sea level rising in coastal cities, you don't need to call that environmental policy. That's just an intelligent way to build infrastructure, knowing the evidence you have about the risks associated with elevated climate change.
Other natural resource issues are associated with access to water. For example, if you build infrastructure that allows you to get good access to water, you can call that an environmental investment or you can call it a sound economic investment. It doesn't really matter. We spend far too much time trading off these two imperatives. Good government always combines the two. It's hard and it takes a particular quality of leadership to cope with complex problems that can't be resolved very quickly.
One of the other things I'm sure about is that if you can build good investments around future infrastructure, you will encourage innovation around the kind of problem-solving that produces value-added businesses in your economy. That makes sense for a resource-rich economy as well as one that's resource poor. Making more from less is a good strategy for any economy, and it requires significant investment and new ways of doing business. That's largely where value is created. I really think a clear combination of the two defines the quality of leadership in business and government.