SUSTAINABILITY
Hot wheels: the HS2 debate Roger Gardner attempts to unravel the
fi endishly complex issues surrounding the pros and cons of HS2. Will environmental impacts outweigh the economic gains?
high-speed rail link is still quite a way off, if it is not scuppered by political wrangling. Yet the passions have been stirred among pro and anti groups in a way that few other projects could achieve and impact on the environment is at the heart of that conflict. So far, so obvious. There are infinite layers of complexity in this
L
debate and the chances of securing a reliable and objective assessment of the pros and cons is remote. Indeed, many of the environmental issues cannot even be weighed in conventional ways. How do you weigh loss of biodiversity or habitats against potential savings in carbon through decades of cleaner journeys? Or value destruction of communities against improved air quality along principal roads? This is fiendishly complex and it probably defies rational analysis, especially as some impacts are emotional and psychological rather than just physiological. Add to that the effects of local and national politics and we are doomed to be bombarded with a deal more ‘evidence’ – and that excludes the layers of economic arguments that also cut both ways. In France, the environment arguments were
relatively muted in 1990 but, understandably, have grown in the meantime as the TGV network and environmental awareness have grown. The social dimension also became more important as smaller towns and lines suffered for the sake of the mass traffic ‘city-pairs’. The carbon argument was easier for the
French given that nuclear power largely drives the network, but in the UK the position is unclear. By the time HS2 goes live, we may or may not have new nuclear generation, more wind farms or, if carbon sequestration takes off, more coal powered electricity. The Department for Transport asserts that
“ We have to make our own judgments about the balance of
environmental and community impacts versus economic gains
76 THE BUSINESS TRAVEL MAGAZINE ”
ike me, you are probably already fed up with hearing about HS2 so I pen this with some trepidation. Cutting soil on our first genuine
“ It should be the responsibility of us all to learn something of the pros and cons ”
HS2 will be carbon positive in all but the most pessimistic scenarios, while noise impacts will reduce with the latest proposed routing. Opponents will argue the opposite and the M25 experience does not inspire confidence. Given the uncertainties and the differing methods of calculation for power generation options, the integrated effects of embedded carbon through construction, and the carbon consequences of changed behaviour resulting from a new line, it is hard to rely upon any of the impact claims, whether positive or negative. And that omits the intangibles like impact
upon England’s green and pleasant land, in particular to many communities, to about ten Sites of Special Scientific Interest and to 50 ancient woodlands that stand to take a beating. International experience from similar schemes suggests that the big arguments about regen- eration of remote regions or social and enviro- nmental gains from new high-speed lines have been rather less easy to prove than hoped. As a boost to national infrastructure, their benefits have been more clear through enabling greater capacity: good economically for the main cities, one supposes, but is that enabling demand that had been previously denied or inducing new demand? Lord Heseltine has argued recently that the greater pace of growth in the South East has
its own environmental problems through disproportional growth in housing. Whether HS2 would rebalance that is unknown, and loss of land has an impact wherever it happens. Progress comes at a price and often that
price can be too high for some groups. Argu- ments will continue to rage about whether HS2 is good value for money and whether decision- makers will be viewed harshly by future generations if they fail to deliver a new line. It is impossible to do more than touch upon
the detailed issues in this debate in a page and, anyway, much information has yet to be put on the table. The government’s Environ- mental Impact Statement will be made available before a hybrid bill is laid before parliament to authorise construction. We will know more then but it should be the responsibility of us all to learn something of the pros and cons as the decision will be taken on political grounds, not which way the environmental evidence points. That being the case, the way we define
environmental impact and our particular perceptions of benefit or harm can still play a part. Whatever further evidence is put on the table, we have to make our own judgments about the balance of short and long-term effects and environmental and community impacts versus economic gains. Either way, we should all be airing our democratic opinions.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92