Weekly compilation 24.06.2011

Here's another of our weekly round-ups of news that relates to our campaigns in some way:

Transport

RT @cyclingmobility: Analysis of highway design from cyclist’s view. Let us know ur thoughts!http://bit.ly/m75Myj

RT @birminghampost: Warwickshire County Council to object to #HS2 plans http://bit.ly/keeqsD

RT @beleben: How #Bickenhill parkway station illustrates the fundamental #flaws in the #HS2 concept http://wp.me/p1j38b-tA #disconnectivity

Surprised Bham only 13th most congested city http://bit.ly/ihojfq -urgently needs investment in public transport, cycling infrastructure etc

World Bank and OECD have recommended removing support for biofuels, yet the aviation industry continues obliviously:http://reut.rs/mJ71Mb

RT @sustrans: Encouraging more people to get on their bikes should be applauded not ridiculed http://bit.ly/jDEJb5 *applauds Wales*

RT @philiploy: NHS looking for community members looking at promotion of walking and cycling http://bit.ly/j1Fj6k by Fri 8 July

RAC has revealed some great news. People starting to think about car use more. Just need to make alternatives easier:http://bbc.in/lwJCGu

RT @sustrans: Sustrans & CTC join other environment & safety groups to fight Govt plans for longer lorries on UK roads:http://bit.ly/kzrqKC

Glad that Stephen Joseph highlighted the problems with parkway stations and #HS2 yesterday - huge problems with plan:http://bit.ly/lJKWUI

Cllrs & planning officers being misled by exaggerated claims that expansion of airports will create lots of extra jobs: http://bit.ly/jofAaf

Flying in the face of the facts - FoE Europe's report on biofuels and the aviation industry: http://bit.ly/liKV6z

Many can't afford holidays this year, almost as bad for the British tourism industry as subsidised cheap flights: http://bit.ly/mvoosP

Waste

Zero waste or zero ambition - has the Waste Review delivered?http://bit.ly/l5LF8B No, but we can still push locally: http://bit.ly/iJPiNo

Energy & Climate Change
RT @wwwfoecouk: Citizens across the world oppose #nuclearpower - new poll http://bit.ly/mINURG #climatechange

@northfieldeco Are you doing anything for Zero Carbon Britain Day? http://bit.ly/mp1VXE

RT @lucianaberger: Every Tory and Lib Dem on the #energybill cttee just voted against the Warm Home and Local Carbon Budget amendments

RT @wwwfoecouk: Please sign the petition for local carbon cuts: http://bit.ly/lKGayC #energybill

RT @guardianeco: Germany's nuclear phase-out will cause UK emissions to fall, report says http://gu.com/p/3v3ma/tf

RT @wwwfoecouk: Cameron must tackle Tory MEPs over climate vote: Tory MEPs revolt over proposed 30% EU emissions cutshttp://goo.gl/fb/RB5tR

Local Shops

RT @traidcraft: Supermarkets try to delay setting up Adjudicator http://bit.ly/lZMsDL

Food

RT @wwwfoecouk: US & Brazil scupper G20 action on #biofuels http://bit.ly/j48peu - despite expert food prices warning: http://bit.ly/mMT7FC

Trial of anti-aphid GM wheat awaits government green light:http://bit.ly/l2R1uF

RT @PigBusiness: New article in local paper ahead of tomorrow's town hall meeting we're hosting with @SoilAssociationhttp://bit.ly/l2IWtV

Others

Embarrassed, at all? RT @businessdeskwm: Friday Funnies: Whitby out of tune with the times! http://ow.ly/1dqsXF

Great comment by Paul de Zylva on govt making "sustainable development" meaninglessness after this planning blog post:http://bit.ly/ioeUwv

Nice of the government to clear up what sustainability is: http://twitpic.com/5c2plx

Blog: Brum-Hilde - street opera comes to Birmingham: Opera singers highlight environment with Save the Diva http://goo.gl/fb/jF36O

HS2 Debate Questions

We had a few of the questions that were submitted in advance answered by the panel at our debate yesterday, but didn't have time for all of them, so I promised to post some of them online today. Here they are and if anyone would like to answer them, then please do so in the comments section:

1) "HS2 is being developed after the main LTP plans have been agreed regionally. What will be the impact of HS2 be on local planning and on funding which could have been used instead to support local transport networks; particularly in the more deprived North of Solihull Borough where its inadequacies are a much greater economic and social barrier to the local economy than the need for a very expensive rail HS2 line?"

2) "223 mph (360km/h) trains use more than twice the power of 124 mph (200km/h) trains, add this to the emissions from construction and the increase in air traffic at Birmingham Airport as a result of HS2 and this will actually result in a substantial increase the UKs carbon emissions over the next 60 years. Should we be spending 34 billion on a transport project that does nothing to help the UK reduce CO2 emissions?"

3) "Why is the Government continuing to promote HS2 when there is a greener alternative, Rail Package 2, that will provide all the forecast capacity needs more quickly and at significantly lower cost?"

4) "The HS2 prospectus tells us that some 40 million passenger journeys into London per year will be slowed down or scrapped as a result of HS2. Will nobody spare a thought for the long suffering rail commuter (I am one of them) and consider upgrading our existing rail network at a fraction of the cost of HS2, so that ALL working class people can have access to a faster train service, rather than enabling a few executives to get from Birmingham to London 10 minutes quicker than they can already?"

5) "Why do we not go for a new line which runs at a slower speed and can therefore avoid damaging environmentally sensitive areas as it won't have to run in a straight line?"

6) "Instead of going to Euston station and disrupting the West Coast Mainline, why doesn't the line go into Stratford and onto HS1 there? Surely that's the way to really get people off planes."

The balance here isn't quite the same as it was in the audience, as there were more people there who were pro-HS2, but they didn't submit written questions. There have been a lot of positive comments about the debate, but many people feel that more evidence is needed to back up the claims by both sides. If you would like to contribute to this, please do.

Joe Peacock

Low Cost and Low Carbon Transport session at the Conservative party conference fringe

Yesterday I went along to the Climate Clinic at Baskerville House to hear the secretary of state for transport, Philip Hammond, answering questions on how we can deliver low carbon transport at low cost (the age of austerity is mentioned everywhere at the moment).

I was hoping to hear something about what's happening to transport funding ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review to give us an indication of what to expect and how the government will achieve cost savings and to be able to put a question the Philip Hammond myself, but neither of those happened.

I was pleased that the transport secretary does make all the right statements about the need to reduce carbon emissions, even if he doesn't seem to get all the issues, just yet. What I would definitely disagree with him on, is the idea of economic growth and carbon savings not being incompatible. Consumption seems to be so linked to economic growth and consumption = using levels of resources which are environmentally unsustainable on the whole. Also, the government has someone looking at reducing the need to travel as their remit, but this doesn't seem to be in evidence from a lot of the schemes that are going ahead; regional airport expansion, High Speed Rail etc. There still seems to be too much of a feeling that large transport schemes that encourage people to travel more are essential to a good economy.

Philip Hammond is very careful to say that he is “not anti-car, but anti-carbon” and sensibly said some things about which mode of transport was more suitable for which journeys. We agree that in rural areas, there is not always an alternative to the car and it would be very difficult to create an affordable one with such a lack of dense housing. However, there needs to be a lot more ambition in getting people out of cars for those journeys in urban areas, such as Birmingham, where the roads are totally clogged up and many areas have so many cars parked all over the pavements that it makes it hard for pedestrians to walk along them.

He stressed the importance of “greening the grid” for electric vehicles to play a full role as low carbon vehicles, but did admit that we can't make the change quickly enough with technology alone. Quite how he plans to go about achieving the necessary level of behaviour change is still unclear, though.

On land use planning, he said that we need to ensure that we build the homes people want (ones with gardens), not loads of 2-bed flats which nobody wants to live in, as has been the case. Doing this intelligently, and “without restricting people” is part of the solution according to Mr Hammond.

He also spoke about buses needing to change their image (and the people who introduced the meeting had stuff about marketing them for the greener journeys campaign), smart-ticketing across different transport modes and the need for innovative local solutions that are suitable for each area, rather than nationally decided policy.

The other speakers then had a turn – Sir Moir Lockhead from First Group talked more about buses and how they are friends with cars and want to have space for them in the roads, too. He also patted the industry on the back for offering 1million free tickets to people as part of a drive getting people onto buses. No mention was made of the potential cuts to the Bus Service Operators Grant and whether that will stay.

Next up was Edmund King of the AA, who was actually very sensible in what he was saying and quite positive and gave some good stats. He said that 90% of motorists said they would take steps to reduce their environmental impact, 70% of the people who lift-share say they do it for environmental reasons, but more people want incentives for doing it, such as exclusive parking spaces for lift-sharers. He also said that the scrappage scheme had meant 90% of the people switching to smaller, cleaner cars – is that true? He also emphasised the benefits of eco-driving which can reduce the amount of fuel used by 20% and gave the fact that 86% of journeys in the UK are made by car at the moment – another one I'm not sure of – is that true?

Doug Parr from Greenpeace was next and he said that transport is fundamentally different from other forms of carbon reduction because people really feel it in their everyday activity, unlike insulation, changing light bulbs, energy generation etc. he also spoke about oil and the dangers of extracting deep sea oil, as we've seen from the Gulf, and that we should be leaving it in the ground now to avert more environmental catastrophes in colder waters, such as the Arctic and off the coast of Scotland. Another good statistic that he gave is that there is £19 of benefit for every pound spent on walking and cycling initiatives – unrivalled by any other transport investment. I wanted to ask a question of Philip Hammond on this and why the government didn't invest more in it in that case, but wasn't able to do so.

Questions from the floor were asked on various issues while Mr Hammond was still there, including ones on biofuels, hydrogen vehicles, freight facilities for rail and nuclear power. I really wanted to get a question in on HS2 before Philip Hammond left, but the chair, just wouldn't come to me. He left at 7pm, after which there was time for my question, which was “If this is all about low carbon and low cost, why is everyone still talking about building high speed rail, which will not save any carbon and will cost a huge amount of money?”. The chair said “oh controversial question”, yet none of the panel who were left disagreed with me, so it doesn't seem that anyone but top politicians and a few business people really think it's a good idea.

Edmund King said he couldn't understand the reasoning behind it (maybe they'd rashly promised it when rejecting Heathrow) and spoke to me afterwards saying how convenient and easy he found the train for travelling between cities with no need for it to be any faster. Doug Parr was reluctant to rule it out but all the reservations that he gave are ones that the current plans do not meet and where on earth the funding for the transport infrastructure to link in other modes of transport as well as building HS2 is going to come from, nobody seems to have the answer.

Unless we are making the power supply truly green and the rest of the transport system geared to getting people door-to-door, we cannot support HS2 taking people between interchange stations based at airports – that is not low carbon or low cost.

Joe Peacock