If the left is serious about tackling climate change, we need to back HS2
Sections of the UK’s terminally incoherent environmental movement have chosen High Speed 2 (HS2) as their latest object of opposition. The planned high-speed rail system was first proposed in 2009 during the latter days of New Labour by then-Transport Secretary Lord Adonis. Construction finally began in 2020 and has been met with renewed criticism and escalating protest since. The Green Party of England and Wales have made its opposition a headline policy while a series of protest camps, including the latest month-long protest in an elaborate network of underground tunnels at the Euston Square site, seek to disrupt the project.
We need HS2
Curious observers may wonder why environmentalists are choosing to exert so much energy and resource opposing rail infrastructure. Indeed, as the climate crisis intensifies it becomes increasingly urgent that we transition our transport system away from the domination of polluting private cars and short-haul aviation. The expansion, electrification and decarbonisation of rail therefore makes sense as a headline demand for environmentalists. Jon Stone has argued persuasively that although ‘speed’ is in the name, the real purpose of HS2 is expanding rail capacity. Government has done a poor job of explaining this, but right now many of our rail lines are full. I’m sure we’ve all endured the indignity of sitting on the floor of a packed train (probably Cross Country or Virgin Trains) sweating cobs as dozens of fellow passengers tread on your ankles. Right now quicker inter-city trains share the same lines with slower commuter or local trains. Because trains cannot overtake each other on the same track, this severely limits the amount of services of each that can run. HS2 would allow more trains of each kind to run on separate tracks.
Alex Hern has levelled similar criticisms of the HS2 communications strategy, comparing it to the 5G rollout which also emphasises speed over broader benefits. For what it’s worth, I think the argument for capacity is a strong one and I’ve not seen opponents of HS2 offer a compelling rebuttal. However, this doesn’t mean we should abandon the case for speed. As much as I love travelling by train, spending as little time on them between cities is undeniably a good thing. So is being able to connect in person for work or leisure with maximum ease. Quicker inter-city and local train travel will further incentivise using public transport over cars and planes. Increasing supply should make tickets cheaper too.
Criticisms of HS2 often include the lobbying efforts of regional airports for the project. How can I argue that HS2 will take planes out of the sky when Manchester and Birmingham airports are so keen on it? Well it’s true that many of us (including those businesses we dislike) will benefit from better rail connections. Our task, alongside supporting investment in rail infrastructure, is to vociferously oppose airport expansion as part of a broader transformation of our transport system.
Any project conceived under New Labour and progressed under successive Tory governments is bound to be delivered with flaws. HS2 does not guarantee decarbonisation or climate justice on its own. However, HS2 will be essential infrastructure for decarbonisation as we fight for a broader vision of a publicly owned transport system, free at the point of use, connecting every part of this country and internationally too.
Never mind the cost
Arguments against HS2 have tended to focus on the growing cost of the project, as well as environmental impacts including tree felling. High profile opponents of HS2 have regularly joined activists in comparing the cost of the project to the annual budget for the NHS. ‘NHS not HS2’ was the banner of HS2 Rebellion protestors at the Euston construction site in May 2020. It is entirely self-defeating for environmentalists to oppose infrastructure projects on the basis of cost. The investment required for the economic mobilisation of a Green New Deal will be huge. We should be making the case for significant public spending, not reinforcing neoliberal arguments against it. It is even more self-defeating to pit investment in national transport infrastructure against spending on public services. It simply reinforces the logics of austerity that have dominated our politics for the past decade with such devastating consequences.
The other focal point of opposition to HS2 is consistent with a major trend in 21st century Green politics: that cutting down trees is literally the worst thing we can do. It’s on this point that the incoherence of many HS2 opponents comes to light. The Green Party of England & Wales’ policy is to scrap HS2 but support 26 new major train lines. I’m not sure how the Greens think they can avoid cutting down trees for the lines they do support.
Of course, I don’t think cutting down trees is a good thing. If possible, it should be avoided and regardless we should be planting a whole lot more. However, we do have to accept that if we want to build things like rail, those things may have to take the place of some trees.
Climbing up the wrong tree
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate movement was largely ground to a halt. Extinction Rebellion (XR) protests were paused, and school strikes cancelled. It has been frustrating to see opposition to HS2 persist as one of the few environmental direct-action campaigns during this time. All of this leaves me wondering whether this is what a socialist government prepared to implement a Green New Deal would face. Never mind the forces of capital, the deep state or the far-right. Would the UK’s environmental activists be the biggest internal opposition to an economic mobilisation for climate justice? Will all attempts to build low-carbon infrastructure face a resistance of direct-action? Factions of XR and the Green Party and big names like Chris Packham and George Monbiot represent a worrying tendency within the UK’s environmental movement. When push comes to shove, we cannot rely on them to not oppose the most decisive measures for decarbonisation. Because they require building things.
Engineer Gareth Dennis is right to point out that the Tories’ road building program has been met with minimal organised opposition compared to HS2. It is absurd that Greens and XR have chosen to prioritise opposition to HS2 at exactly the moment we should be making the case for mass public investment and low-carbon infrastructure on this scale as part of a Green New Deal. This tendency should urgently shift its focus to the real enemies of environmental justice: the fossil fuel industry, finance capital, and new roads and airport expansion.
PS. We hope you enjoyed this article. Bright Green has got big plans for the future to publish many more articles like this. You can help make that happen. Please donate to Bright Green now.
PPS. Bright Green has an exciting series of events coming up. Join us for debates, interviews and much more.
Image credit: Les Chatfield – Creative Commons
Nigel quite right & it will not run at 225MPH any where for more than a mile or 2 I feel sure??? there has &y will be destruction everywhere I have lived from Wendover & near Waddesdon in Bucks to Cubbington & Kenilworth in Warwichshire & now in Staffordshire & Cheshire, The Great Central line was fast, viz the Mastercutler to Sheffield I enjoyed seeing it thunder at great speed through Wendover at 11AM each morning drawn by a pair of lNER(BR)A4 Pacific locos & I travelled on parts of it from 1948 to 1958 on where it was great to be drawn by engines like Mallard(steam engine World speed record holder at 125 Mph). at 83 I have seen & experienced a great deal.
So funny to see all the anti-HS2 trolls spitting out their dummies and having a temper tantrum in the comments when faced with facts and arguments they cannot rebut and then reverting to type and just making stuff up (viz: “230BN”, “90 times more energy”, “beating up protestors”, “illegal”, etc. etc.)
The abject failure of the anti-hs2 movements is that it just makes stuff up (in the real world outside the bubble of autocratic lefties, we call that lying.) Lying always fails when it meets the truth.
Where I differ with the author is the implications that “all flying is bad.” The Left (whether wearing a Green skin or otherwise) does tend to rather pick a target, aim its guns at it and keep on firing to the exclusion of everything. The real world is holistic and peoples use of it needs to be understood holistically and not on a myopic focus on only one target (whether it be flying, “big finance” “big pharma” “Tories” or anything else.)
“Normal” people – particularly those disinterested in politics – are going to see Lefties and Greens wagging fingers and telling them what they cannot have. Autocracy is not a persuasive argument. Much better to explain the problems and encourage change unilaterally and individually. For example, we could be campaigning right now to persuade those that can afford to to ditch their Gas Central heating, their Aga’s and their ICE’s. All that would require is some newspaper ads. instead of reverting to type and waiting for the glorious day we we take charge and order it by dictate by the state.
Why don’t we?
Please do not insult others when you no doubt do not have requisite experience,I am 83 had a condensing combi gas boiler in the early 1980s & 250mm of insulation in my loft also fitted double Glazing & even Quadruple in a few parts I have not had an AGA since 1966, insulting others shows a paucity of argument, I would quite like to have electric heating soon but also quite like the idea of Hydrogen boosted gas central heating, I put in a new combi as soon as I came to present smaller modern house 17 years ago & my combined bill is very moderate for a 4 bedroom modern house & has been as high as £800+ in credit, my 3 cylinder 1 liter car has used very little fuel, amazingly have not been to get petrol for months. No TV.
This in response from George Hibberd:
Hi Philip,
Yeah, this article isn’t brilliantly written and misses plenty of stuff out of it, not to mention the true cost is no estimated to be £230billion.
One thing that we really focus on in HS2 Rebellion is that it more than just a railway. It’s everything wrong with our political system in one project: dodgy contracts, no public demand, no public mandate, contracts between the police and private security firms, illegal felling of trees, protestors being beaten up by both police and security, rampant sexual assaults on female protestors by police and security, the threat to London’s water supply, the fact that a ticket would cost £250… the list goes on and on and on.
I see where they are coming from, but they haven’t done a lot of research, nor probably experienced any of the daily frontline abuse of power from the Police and security.
Thanks for the heads up, though. It’s always good to see the other side.
George
Hi Philip,
Sure, you can put my name if you like.
George
I think you are right on many points, to start they talk about HS2 starting construction but Isee it as very unneceswsary Vandalistic DESTRUCTIION, why unnecessary it will be mostly just duplication of existing routes at enormous cost to passengers,the environement, on the point of capacity Then at much less cost & damage most of the Great Central line could have been returned & much less distress caused to the !00s blighted by these HS2 routes & many other towns reconnected & very useful edxtra capacity.
The Cons are so financially in competant & worse the party of destruction twice over. I despare of the 2 leading parties the have bad ideas so often & to gain popularity try to give the electorate what they wrongly think they want. Many other lines were dismantled that would now be useful & lead to lower over all additional CO2 being emitted.
So if capacity is the issue surely the cheaper and less intrusive option would be to re upgrade the underused Chiltern line to Birmingham which was once 4 track but now only two. Most of the track bed is there already to restore to 4 track running which allows for the “overtaking” which trains allegedly cannot do
I read this when first published, and was tempted to rush into a critical reply. Now all I need to do is to endorse the criticisms already made, especially the detailed case argued by Andrew Cordiner. Well said, Andrew. My only qualification is that Bright Green publishes a wide variety of views, and I wouldn’t condemn the totality just because one article touted an extreme argument, poorly researched and supported. And my only addition is that all projects, even if purportedly green, need to be assessed for environmental impact.
Complete and Utter Nonsense, misunderstood is the politest comment I can make.
Bright Green’s credibility gone with one foolish article
Complete crap. The author should come and examine what’s left of my local SSSI nature reserves, which now resemble the surface of the moon.
The fundamental reason this, and HS2 is wrong is that HS2 is designed to travel at 225mph. Thus it hast to go in very straight lines compromising many well documented ancient woodland and sensitive habitat.
Further it requires 90 times more energy than if it was to travel at 125mph so not energy efficient. It is not the solution for our needs. No point building HS2 in the hope that it provides us with other spinoffs. Just build the thing that we do need instead.
Where on earth are these morons coming from killing our trees,wildlife,people losing home and costing Billions of pounds.
Come on now anyone of you that believes this is being brain washed . Stand up for banning the HS2 this is a complete waste of time and money if you want our England to stay A Green and Pleasant Land we must fight all the way.
I question who Mr Saltmarsh works for. HS2 are setting up “Green” Lobby groups to generate a case for the project on environmental grounds but the information they are sending out is false, flawed and manipulated!
1. HS2 Carbon case is based on releasing capacity for Freight which converts from Diesel to Electric – except the cancelled Electrification project to pay for HS2.
2. It assumes 300,000 passengers per day will travel – current use is 40,000 pre Covid and that is expected to fall by 20%. The more HS2 trains run empty or fewer trains running means HS2 carbon footprint reverses to being a major polluter!
3. 58% of HS2 business case is based on premium fare business travellers – that market has collapsed due to work from home and will not return. We know 85% of FTSE businesses are switching to work from home.
4. They allowed a 500mTCO2e carbon saving from assuming 7 million tree planted on phase 1 would be mature & full carbon sequestration by 2017……so far they have planted less than 500,000 and worse they ignore any loss of carbon sequestration and carbon return by grubbing out 30,000 acres of hedgerow, farm Land not to mention 1000s of acres of Trees and Ancient Woodland!
5. HS2 uses 900mw of power and in context it will need 2/3rds of the current electricity used by the entire rail network! High Speed Rail is one of the biggest power consumers across the world and biggest single power consumer in Germany France and Spain at over 1%. Given our grids are less than 40% decarbonised and given the emergence of electric vehicles also requiring supply……HS2 will mean our grids fail to decarbonise and we will continue to pollute with carbon fuels for many years to come!
6. HS2 has 9 official new stops – 2 are directly to Airports that intend to double in flights for the new passengers Hs2 will bring and another 2 will provide Links to airports which also intend to double in flights – this is also conveniently ignored in the carbon case!
7. HS2 was designed to release freight capacity so The Atlantic Gateway port system would triple the number of Panamax size freight ships to Liverpool and Salford. Panamax ships are the worlds largest polluters spilling massive bunker diesel fumes around the globe as they use the worst kind of diesel that is 2000x worse than the diesel used in trains or cars…..also conveniently ignored in the carbon calculation!
Therefore is Beight Green do not offer a right of reply or official publish this reply(tidied up for spelling and grammar) then it is not only guilty of greenwash and loses all credibility…..it is also I suspect another Construction of the 17 PR companies that are highly resourced to infiltrate the green movement as faith columnist in the fight against climate change!
Thanks for that analysis, Mr Cordiner. I’ve had no particular opinion on the project but now I can see the poor case for it from any truly Green perspective.
What utter nonsense… How wrong can you get it and how dare you put this in print. Shame on you. STOP HS2!
I suppose the author likes to be a contraversialist, and he has stuck his nose right into a bees’ nest, hasn’t he?
We need a new transport infrastructure, rail upgrade included, all are agreed. But this, undertaken to support state-dependent private “enterprise”, is ill-judged, and is the wrong starting point from many angles.
I am no expert, but would a new canal network not make sense, as well as other measures?
I’m no expert, but don’t bees live in hives, not in nests?
We are in the midst of a global pandemic. Nobody needs to get from Birmingham to London 20 minutes
quicker, the cost of the project far outweighs any benefits. We need trees more than we need speed. This shocking article is clueless and obviously ill researched . Do your homework before criticising tree protectors
just like in the 1930s not many people flew from London to New York. Now (pre Covid) its one of the busiest flight routes in the world. HS2 is designed to have a life of at least 120 years. during that time the population will likely increase, and people’s travel habits will change. we need to invest in our future. and anyway yes HS2 may be expensive, but if there is one thing that the economy needs as it pulls out of the pandemic is jobs and HS2 provides lots and lots of jobs.
1 thing we do not need is lots of jobs that are the wrong type & just increase global warming/climate change, for example trashing the landscape & producing even more concrete etc, I doubt people will want to spend/waste time travelling to work when they do not need to, I have almost always lived fairly close to my work & in fact for years worked from home, thus allowing me much more leisure time & other time walked or cycled to work for years meaning I saved for an early retirement succe4sfully.
Of course many people do need to travel to work but usually not a great speed or distance!
This article is irresponsible in its attitude on two major counts. 1] Shrugging off the destruction of large swathes of ancient woodland as the cutting down of a few trees that can be replanted. 2] attempting to justify the cost of improving one route via HS2 without considering that this amount of money, if spent on improving existing lines, rolling stock and infrastructure, could expand rail capacity across the country.
Scotland and Wales have already begun the process of bringing rail franchises into public ownership and major rail investment is a key part of Scottish Green Party policy (‘Rail for All’).
I have cancelled my payment to this joke of an organisation and unsubscribed.
What a complete load of utter utter bollocks.
OK a rail link is better than having short unecessary air routes BUT this is simply the wrong route. It is unclear to my why the route of the former Great Northern Railway with some appropriate spurs was not even considered. Did Labour want an expensive option to plough money into the economy and create employment rather than a sensible rail plan? Anyway how much of the money spent goes back into a circulating economy vs getting creamed off in company and shareholder profits and overseas purchases…
The Great Northern Railway still exists as the East Coast Main Line to York. In fact it’s one of three main lines which HS2 bypasses with one route.
The Great Northern Railway still exists as the East Coast Main Line to York. In fact it’s one of three main lines which HS2 bypasses with one route.