Another environmental conundrum: Emissions vs. conservation or high-speed rail vs. air travel
The Chilterns, photo by net_efekt (source: Flickr Creative Commons)
A lot of conservation seems to be about ’spoiling nice views’ rather than more pragmatic ecological or environmental concerns. More specifically, grass roots political opposition to energy or transportation infrastructure projects that also have environmental aims often stems from such projects’ potential to spoil rich peoples’ nice views. For example, the opposition to wind turbines in wealthy, picturesque parts of American states like Cape Cod in Massachusetts, or in various country retreats in the U.K. is rarely related to practical environmental questions like pollution, sustainability and clean energy. It is rather all too often about a sense of entitlement that is principally the domain of the wealthy. Basically, ‘we’ve got a lot of money and want to use it to escape urban sprawl and have unspoiled country views to look at’. Fair enough, but money can only pad so much against the realities of climate change, pollution and wars about foreign oil. Eventually everyone is affected – for better or worse.
A recent plan for building a new, expensive high-speed rail service between London and Scotland is ruffling a few feathers – predictably of a finer plumage. According to an article in the London Times, the new rail route would cut a swathe through some pristine and lovely pastoral scenery – specifically the Chilterns, an area northwest of London – and cost a whopping £60 billion (that’s €66.7 billion or $95.8 billion). British Transport Secretary Lord Adonis claims:
It will radically modernise our transport infrastructure and bring about a significant shift of traffic from car and the plane to the train, while potentially transforming the geography of our country as our cities are bought closer together.
–Times
But some local and environmentalist opposition is fierce:
Steve Rodrick, chief officer of the Chilterns Conservation Board, said: “High-speed rail would change the nature of the area for ever. It will be a gash across the landscape with the loss of soil, trees and habitats that can never be replaced.”
–Times
Though rail travel – particularly in Europe – generally produces less greenhouse gas emissions than car and especially air travel, some environmental activists oppose the construction of new railroads. This is understandable: the rails would cut through beautiful, treasured natural landscapes. Another point is heavy cost of constructing new infrastructure, such as stations and the tracks themselves. But I wonder who is really seeing the big picture?
by Graham Land
Additional resources:
The Guardian – Can you love train travel? Yes you can!
Graham Land grew up in Washington, D.C., where he was part of the local hardcore punk scene. Through this unique musical movement he became involved in grass roots anti-racist activism, animal rights and Ecology. Since 2000 Graham has lived in Europe, earning an MA in history from Malmö University in Sweden and working as a musician, English teacher, sports therapist, customer service agent and writer. Graham has a podcast with author Saci Lloyd and is currently pretending to work on his first novel.
Tags: air travel, Chilterns, emissions, environmental, high-speed rail, infrastructure, Nature, rail, views
Leave a Reply