Guest Post: High Speed Rail

This is a guest post from my friend Cathryn Symons who blogs at Camden Kiwi After the debate in Cardiff on High Speed Rail I thought it would be good to get someone who knows about it to explain the problems with HSR2. (See also Caroline Lucas in the Guardian)

High Speed Rail poses a dilemma for many Greens. We are in favour of public transport, but also have concerns with the proliferation of long-distance commuting because of the impact it can have on towns and communities which become dormitory places for the mighty metropolis.

We know that rail is one of the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly modes of transport, both for people and for freight, but are also concerned at the environmental damage and carbon emissions caused by large construction projects and aware that rail can be a major energy user. Many Greens are also concerned about the impact of high speed rail on local people and their environment.

The recent government proposals to build a high speed rail link from London to the North, starting with a dedicated London-Birmingham line called HS2, have led to strong debate in the party. It is a debate which was finally resolved in Cardiff last weekend, when conference agreed the Green Party does not support the HS2 project as it stands, and will only support high speed rail when it is clearly shown to be part of an overall policy which reduces demand for travel, CO2 emissions and energy use.

So far, much of the opposition to HS2 has come from local groups who are, quite rightly, concerned about local impacts. HS2 would pass through areas of outstanding natural beauty and disrupt many attractive areas in the Chilterns. In my local area of Camden, there is concern about the loss of social housing as Euston station is expanded, and the effect of tunnelling under Primrose Hill. These are issues which could be sorted out if the project's backers wished to do so - routes can be changed, social housing replaced and even tunnelling work managed to be less disruptive. The fundamental issues of ever increasing demand for travel, high energy use and CO2 emissions are far harder to deal with.

The HS2 proposal will be, at best, neutral in terms of carbon emissions. The first London-Birmingham leg will not be available until 2026 by which time we will need to have severely reduced emissions, and for a major project like this to not contribute at all seems unreasonable. In fact, the project's backers have barely even tried to establish the carbon budget for the project.

Perhaps the most severe impact of HS2 comes from its dependence on enormous levels of growth in domestic travel over the coming years. As with building roads, there seems to be a 'predict and provide' approach, which simply indulges unnecessary and expensive travel. Birmingham will become part of the London commuter belt, in the way that Peterborough, Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Brighton already are. It is hard to see where that kind of growth will stop, or what use it is. Although claims are made that the line will reduce the North-South divide, and help to regenerate the North, there is no evidence given for this.

HS2 is not a sustainable project. It is possible that, in this small, densely populated country of ours, high speed rail will never really be sustainable. The onus should be on those promoting these projects to show that they benefit society and the environment.

So far, most of the resistance to HS2 has been local and risks being labelled 'nimbyism' and so dismissed out of hand. But there are wider issues here, which the Green Party has now acknowledged. Campaigning against this damaging, wasteful project needs to embrace both these wider environmental and social issues and the concerns of the Chilterns householder who finds a railway line planned for her living room.

CSR special: Environment

The Comprehensive Spending Review has a few cheap headlines in it for the environment - but sadly this amounts to a bit of window dressing amid some pretty hefty carnage. Before we start looking at the poor old Department of Energy and Climate Change let's look at transport first.

The Department of Transport is facing a 12.6% cut (an 1/8th of it's budget) and there will be a sharp rise in rail fares. That's right, in a country that already has massively overpriced rail tickets we're going to see above inflation rises.

Some infrastructure projects have been saved, like Crossrail and Thameslink, but Network Rail has promised savings by putting on hold plans for new carriages to ease overcrowding. So no new capacity, but even more expensive to travel. However High Speed Rail 2, a stonkingly expensive project that may not move anyone off the roads onto trains looks set to go ahead.

Fear not though because the road building continues with an extra lane of gridlock planned for the M25 and others. Don't worry if you're concerned about buses clogging up these precious new roads because the fuel tax subsidy to bus operators has been cut from 80% to 60% which will mean less services and higher fares - particularly for rural and less used routes.

I'm also told that even walking and cycling provision will be hit as this comes under the remit of local councils who are all facing their own massive funding crisis.

Department of Energy and Climate Change

The DECC budget will be reduced by 33% over the next four years which includes cuts in insulation subsidies, the renewable heat levy, subsidies to feed-in tarriffs and the Severn Barrage which is to go to the wall. Admittedly this was a controversial project that would have supplied a good deal of renewable energy at the cost of the local wildlife and habitats.

Between three and eight thousand jobs will be lost in the department out of a total of 30,000. Hundreds of nature reserves are likely to be sold off and grants to institutions like Kew Gardens and the Royal botanic Gardens are to be cut.

Half a billion is to be shaved off the explicit flood defences budget on top of the expectation that local councils will be cutting back on local flood prevention provision. There's also going to be cuts in animal disease prevention with the private sector being expected to take up much of the slack.

Both of these moves look quite dangerous to me, and a repeat of the foot and mouth disease outbreak a few years ago and/or new flooding like last year would cost the economy and the government dear. Yet another false economy.

However, there will be one billion for the experimental technology Carbon Capture and Storage and another billion for a 'Green Investment Bank' to help deliver new projects. However, the department has been particularly badly hit by the 'bonfire of the quangos' that were already funding projects and groups like the Carbon Trust and Energy Saving Trust will suffer so whether the GIB is a move forwards or not seems a little doubtful to me.

However, in the context of green job losses and budget cuts the occasional piece of good news is hardly earth shattering. Certainly this is a million miles away from the million green jobs policy of investment that we need, although what on Earth the 'Green Deal' turns out to be is anyone's guess.

The report also contains the chilling phrase "the DECC will develop innovative ways of working with the private sector, acting as an enabler rather than a provider." Presumably because they'll no longer be in a position to provide anything.

Bizarrely the Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne said: “DECC is playing its part in tackling the deficit. Like the rest of the public sector we have taken some tough decisions, but we remain on course to deliver on our promise to be the greenest government ever. We will help create green jobs and green growth - and secure the low carbon investment we need to keep the lights on.”