More Tory nimbyism
Why is the Shadow Housing Minister, Grant Shapps so excited about the death throes of Brown’s eco-towns? Okay, that was a rhetorical question, but I ask it because I’m desperately trying to find the Tory alternative, if there is one at all. Whatever it is, their current opposition to eco-town planning smacks of typical nimbyism as well as crucial horsepower for their anti-Brown bandwagon.
He says,
We have set forward our answer to the problems with development and they amount to a very simple principle – work with people not against them.
Even though a YouGov poll in June showed 46 per cent of the public in favour of building eco-towns, with just 9 per cent opposed. Clearly local concerns about ugly wind farms tarnishing the virgin beauty of the English countryside are more important than any national concerns or global efforts to tackle climate change.
Similarly, despite national opinion being in favour (around 80%) of wind farms, the Tories classically backed the large nimby opposition that ensured only 54% of 167 on shore wind farm applications were consented at the local level before appeal. With the EU target of 15% of all our energy needing to come from renewables by 2020, wind energy will have to contribute the lion’s share of that target. But who cares about EU targets, right? Britain needs to take care of its own scenery, I mean environment.
With 27% percent of UK carbon emissions coming from housing and a proposed 3 million homes needed before 2020, what on earth do the Tories plan to do? If they have no real ideas, would they at least just stop with their nauseating whinging about the greenbelt and their fictitious concern for the environment.
Surprise surprise.
Ala:
I disagree with most of this.
Firstly, the EU targets are irrelevant. European countries have missed pretty much every target on cutting emissions (remember Kyoto?). When this one matures, they will ignore it too.
Secondly, we don’t actually need three million more homes. The government is arguing for that because of the projected population increase, both natural and as a result of immigration.
Thirdly, the eco-towns are badly planned. The government just seems to think that you can plonk down tens of thousands of people in a purpose-built town and that everything will be okay. What if more services are needed? What about the people living nearby? Will everyone move there on the same day? If not, who will provide goods and services?
Finally, wind farms generate very little energy, and that is on a good day as well. They simply aren’t realistic.
Labour has done its level best to destroy the countryside. Nice to see the Tories standing up for it for once.
Labour has done its level best to destroy the countryside.
What, as an agenda? Tories standing up for the countryside, hurrah.
I’m not saying the actual proposals are flawless, but it isn’t a sinister plan to destroy the countryside, and the tory agenda is also less than bucolic.
Don:
Yes. See post offices, fox hunting, EU payment delays, mass destruction of animals, transfer of money from rural to urban areas etc.
Rumbold, just because governments fail to follow targets, it doesn’t make them irrelevant. This is not about scoring political points, but about trying to prevent a real global catastrophe by leading the way as one of the world’s most advanced nations.
The government’s projected population increase is not something to shrug off. If you take immigration out of the question for a minute and think about natural increase, it’s going to happen sooner or later unless we adopt Chinese methods of population control. We need new homes and they need to be sustainable. How do the Tories plan to tackle these two issues?
Renewables also need to be harnessed as there is no forseeable alternative for the future. Blocking attempts now will only delay the inevitable, all for what? Getting a few votes from the countryside alliance? This kind of politics has no place in the 21st century.
Ala (5) – ‘This kind of politics has no place in the 21st century.’
Ala, much though I agree with the sentiment you express very articulately on here, that last sentence ignores the stark reality.
This kind of politics feeds into the new localism so in vogue at the moment. All issues like this do is tap into low quality thinking that is a kilometre wide and a milimetre think. It’s like 80%+ would probably be in favour of building more prisons, but that % would fall heavily if those prisons were to be placed in the neighbourhood of the people asked.
Sad fact but true is that the politics of being a free rider is all the rage and I can’t see it changing to be honest. Localism is a race to push others to the bottom and blame the centre when it fails.
For as long as political debate is equated to self-indulgence, this is a very 21st century brand of politics.
And before any smart alek asks, there is a prison about three miles from where I live.
I think you will find that this kind of politics is called a Democracy, and the Tories have every right to defend any constituency, even if it is a minority.
I think it is unanimous that we need to do something about climate change, but I feel that governments are more content in showing they are doing something about it, rather than actually doing something that demonstrably can help the environment. Its style over substance, and what better way than to give it a catchy name? How can anyone disagree with a town that has the “eco” prefix?
I am with Rumbold (#2) on this issue.
Ala:
It does, because if those who are supposed to follow them don’t, then what is the point of them?
Ah yes- the ‘too important for party politics’ scenario. See all issues for examples. Consensus must be achieved.
Building more energy efficient houses won’t actually lower our carbon emissions. It will simply mean that they increase at a lower rate.
2001 statistics show that British-born women were only having 1.6 children on average, which is below the rate (2+) for population increase. While immigration is needed and welcome in this country, it is also the cause of UK population growth.
http://www.population-growth-migration.info/index.php?page=population.html
If renewables generated sufficient energy (even with a reasonable subsidy) then I would be behind them. But they don’t.
Rumbold @ 8,
You are being your old controversial self, aren’t you?
Targets are things you aim for. I’d have thought that that was obvious. Your unique idea that governments that have set targets to aim for are then not going to aim for them, is, frankly, ridiculous.
Governments are aiming for them, and good on them!
Are you the pixie in the wind or summat!
Conversion of energy inefficient houses would have an impact, would it not? If my house was a bad boy, then converting it to be green would be positive. Wouldn’t it?
And if new housing met previously unmet standards, would that not also be a good thing?
Oh, this is so egregious, it is funny:
Well, you are not even trying, are you?
Here is a suggestion for removing 5% – 10% of our carbon footprint:
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/modelling-the-impact-of-the-severn-tidal-power-project.html
But the idiots that rule us, don’t deal with it, now do they?
I know you are a sceptic about global warming, which is frankly why I take the piss, because you are on the wrong side of the arguement. But frankly, this is beyond a joke.
If these new-fangled steam engines could even get from London to Leeds in half a day, I’d be behind them; but they can’t, Mr Stephenson.
Douglas:
But the Labour government always fails horrendously on environmental targets, so why believe them now? Remember Kyoto? All the vitriol directed against America for not signing it- how many countries who signed it reached their targets?
Agreed. I never said otherwise.
Yes, but I questioned the level of housing needed. It’s like eating low fat foods. You don’t benefit if you eat too much.
Exactly. A suggestion, a proposal. I hope that it works. I support funding for such endeavours.
Don:
Heh. The environmentalist movement would have strangled trains at birth because they used coal.
Ala, I think you are playing party politics. Its irrelevant what the shadow whatsit is thinking or saying. What is relevant is why we haven’t built these eco-homes already. And if this government is so keen on the environment, what got in the way of our integrated transport policy? And indeed why aren’t we already generating at least 20~30% of our energy from renewables?
Had these homes been built when they should have, we wouldn’t have had the housing bubble. You may want to question why they were delayed. You may also want to consider the fact that the housing bubble was of great political benefit during the Blair years, as the previous one was for Thatcher.
With regards this snail’s pace movement towards renewables, I’d be very watchful that both parties aren’t really banking on nuclear as a fait accompli.
Rumbold,
As for immigration and climate change, surely it is irrelevant. Unless of course we presume anyone coming in is expected to follow our existing lifestyle and therefore likely to generate more CO2 emissions than if they stayed in their home country.
And if you follow that line of thought, then the answer has to be we are consuming too much and rather than adopting strategies to mitigate our footprint, we should be looking to reduce consumption, reuse instead of recycling; more self reliance in all areas; reduce the number of TVs per household; number of TV channels transmitting night and day (a new form of licensing which could be auctioned); a campaign against the use of hairdryers as an audacious example. We need a new form of technology, cultural and knowledge transfer. From the developing world to the industrial nations.
Rumbold,
That was a side step. Young technologies show what is possible, investment makes it happen. But you would only be interested in developing renewables after they have become significant producers?
Rumbold @ 11,
Look.
We can do a taa raa, ching, about targets.
But, until folk like you actually read the other side of the arguement, which you, frankly appear incapable of doing, there is going to be no common ground. And the Maldives will disappear. Well, who’d have thought it?
Rumbold,
Look. Again.
I am 75% a Libertarian. The other 25% is trying to be sensible.
It is a tussle.
Well, yes, obviously. Yet your general silence pro green ideas suggests that you have another agenda.
Yes / No?
In terms of renewable energy, there are answers that we ought to see as national priorities. But, for some reason, we don’t.
The sooner, the better.
I am reminded, right now, of the Hoover Dam. Which did more than generate power, did it not? It helped the US out of the depression.
Retargetting our energy requirements away from the black stuff, it seems to me, is something Libertarians ought to be in favour of. But Libertarians are also, as a group, climate change denialists, which is a stupid position to take, eg Devils Kitchen.
Can’t be bothered with politics that don’t engage with reality…
“Building more energy efficient houses won’t actually lower our carbon emissions. It will simply mean that they increase at a lower rate.”
err…
Rumbold, you have yet to give an alternative to a)building new homes for a growing population
b)renewables as the main source of energy in the future when oil runs out.