High Speed 2 – the high speed train line that is to connect London with Birmingham via the Chilterns – has long divided the nation, before any ground has even been broken.
Inevitably, a new train line in this crowded country will have significant implications for wildlife, not to mention the many people who live near the proposed route. The RSPB is working hard to make sure these impacts are minimised, and where there are unavoidable impacts we will be holding Government and HS2 to their legal requirement to provide compensatory habitat. Yet, we’re not opposing HS2 outright as many others are. This is principally because high speed rail could be a vital component of a the low carbon, green transport system that this country urgently needs.
This week we’ve published a report by GreenGauge21 consultants for the RSPB, CPRE and the Campaign for Better Transport. You can read more about the report here - but, in summary, the report explores whether HS2 really can fulfil this role, and its findings are both predictable and challenging.
Predictable because although the report finds that HS2 can indeed be low carbon, it demonstrates that this is only the case if government acts to ensure HS2 takes passengers and freight off the roads and out of planes. It also underlines the importance of ensuring that the electricity used to power the trains is from low carbon sources.
Challenging because we have few guarantees from government that they will take these actions. There is currently no coherent plan to reduce emissions from transport and reduce the use of private vehicles and planes in favour of trains. And just last week, the UK Government was warned by their own advisers that their current energy plans would breach our legal commitments to cutting carbon by wedding our electricity supply to gas.
So, the ball is firmly in the new Transport Minister’s court. It’s a simple choice between big, shiny new projects that could undermine our chances of fighting climate change, or a coherent strategy (which could include shiny, new projects) that delivers a low carbon, green transport system.
Maybe, it is just my odd personality that wants to have coherent strategies. But surely if decision-makers were up front about the challenges (in this case of tackling climate change and protecting the natural environment whilst modernising transport infrastructure) and explained how activity and projects helped to deliver their objectives, people would be more likely to support the overall package. And who can blame them for opposing new ideas if the plans don't make sense?
What do you think? Do you think that HS2 will provide the answer to our low carbon transport problems? Do you hanker for coherent strategies from government?
It would be great to hear your views.
Disappointing! Not even HS2 Ltd claims that it will be Carbon neutral let alone low carbon. The right lines charter has been an unbelievable sell-out and resulted in some Chief Execs having to stand down. How can you, as part of RSPB be getting into bed with a lobby group like Greengauge 21. The only organisation to come out of this with any credit has been the Woodland Trust who has pointed out the threat to 21 Ancient Woodland habitats..... " Any government agreeing to the destruction of ancient woodland is wholly mistaken when referring to itself as the 'greenest government ever'. Regardless of any mitigation strategy put forward by Government on HS2, no compensation can exist for this loss."
These woodlands cannot be re-created - or moved as Justine Greening suggested! It might be "green" if it replaced capacity but to succeed it has to create capacity. It is not replacing flights (none between London & Birmingham) or road journeys but creating new ones. You also don't mention the new power stations that will need to be built to power the route. How you managed to get so badly de-railed on this is a mystery to us all!
Thanks for your insightful comments Padav. Decisions on transport policy overall and specific infrastructure projects like this always involve tough choices that directly affect people's lives. The RSPB is highly sensitive to the impacts of planning decisions on local communities and from many conversations with the local communities affected by HS2 over the past couple of years, we're aware how strongly some people are opposed to the project, and we know that there will always be some people who disagree with us, both over the principle of the project and the specifics of the route.
HS2 has Government support, and our view is that we must be making the case for it to be part of a bigger transport strategy that ensures the many opportunities that HSR presents are taken, and that nature is properly protected and accounted for.
Ultimately, the greatest long-term threat to people and wildlife is climate change. This will mean real-life impacts here in the UK, and we should do everything we can to minimise those by making the changes which help us to shift to a low-carbon economy now.
Good to see a respected organisation such as the RSPB engaging both responsibly and constructively in this debate about vital evolution across UK transport infrastrucutre.
Unfortunately there is a large element of naivety at work here - you pose the not unreasonable challenge <i>"But surely if decision-makers were up front about the challenges (in this case of tackling climate change and protecting the natural environment whilst modernising transport infrastructure) and explained how activity and projects helped to deliver their objectives, people would be more likely to support the overall package."</i>
Your sentiment is understandable but you must understand that there is very small, but exceedingly vocal community (punching well above its weight), residing in close proximity to the approved Route3 pathway of HS2 phase 1 - these groups aren't remotely interested in coherent or incoherent Transport Policy - in fact they aren't interested in anything except a single relentless goal; removing the threat posed to their immediate environment by HS2 - anywhere will do, just as long as it's nowhere near them!
This small community is affluent, articulate, well connected and determined to resort to any tactic to achieve their goal. They aren't concerned with the wider impacts of any policy changes they may influence, simply their own narrow self interest.
There is no constructive engagement possible with these campaign groups, many of their leading lights are personally invested (due to proximity to the planned route) in achieving the aforesaid goal of removing HS2 from their particular local environment, it doesn't really matter how this happens and what collateral damage might ensue elsewhere, nowhere near them!
Trust this background context informs the debate?
P.S. Yes, I live in area that will eventually be relatively close to HS2. When phase 1 opens the Classic Compatible trainsets operating up to Manchester will pass 600m east of my house. After phase 2 opens (if my guess proves accurate - phase 2 plans not yet in the public domain), the new line will pass approx 3000m west of my house, probably in cutting as it descends to pass under the runways at Manchester Airport
speed is polluting. there is no getting away from that. the air resistance of high speed creates a huge energy demand that inreases exponentially..if one takes into account all the CO2 and damage of construction; its not green.