Skip to main content

Ecological Defilement - How a new trainline is carving up the British countryside


When I was 11, my English teacher gave us all a newspaper clipping to teach us about persuasive writing. The article was about High Speed 2 (HS2), the UK’s proposal for a new highspeed railway line. The line will cut through people's homes and carve up ancient woodlands, destroying both livelihoods and ecosystems in its wake. I remember asking my teacher if “this was actually going to happen”. Nine years later, and it's worse than I ever could have imagined.

After a last review of the costs, HS2 was definitively approved this year, 11 years after it was first proposed. Construction was given the greenlight in April. Britain might need to update its rail network – most of it dates back to the Victorian era, while most of Western Europe is already well-connected with highspeed rail links. Before we built HS1, which connects London to the Channel Tunnel, you could feel trains crossing the Channel from Paris slow down as they reached the British border. Highspeed rail might be necessary. However, HS2 is being carried out with total disregard for the environment.

The HS2 website states, “HS2 is a state-of-the-art, high-speed line critical for the UK’s low carbon transport future.” A big part of the argument behind HS2 is its supposed long-term environmental benefits, producing seven times less carbon than the equivalent car journey. Interestingly though, in 2012, the government faced five judicial review cases regarding the negative impact of HS2 on the environment.

The latest (rejected) legal challenge to HS2 was also environmental. The government last reviewed the environmental impact of HS2 in 2013, before the UK had agreed to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Chris Packham, behind this latest challenge, claims that the most recent review of HS2 did not fully evaluate the impact of HS2’s emissions.

He also adds that building HS2 will result in the destruction of “almost 700 wildlife sites, including about 100 ancient woodlands”. HS2 argues that “only” 62 woodlands will be affected.

Source: Woodland Trust | Guardian

HS2 proposes moving the woodlands' soil to other places in order to preserve their ecosystems. This idea has been declared fundamentally flawed by ecologists, who argue that there is little evidence to suggest that this so-called ecological translocation will actually work. HS2 is also being criticised for felling the woods too early – doing so at a time which increases damage to the ecosystem and will increase the likelihood that the translocation will fail. Dr. Mark Everard has called the translocation charade a “smokescreen for destruction and recreation."

Meanwhile, a last-minute plea to save a 250-year-old pear tree, set to be felled to clear the way for HS2, fell on deaf ears, as the tree was felled last week. This after just last month a 300-year-old oak was felled to clear the path for a new road.
Cubbington Pear Tree - Frances Wilmot/Tree of the Year

HS2 is hiding behind a façade of environmentalism. They claim HS2 will reduce the UK’s carbon footprint in the long term. They claim that they can recreate ancient woodlands in different places. A child could tell you that that won’t work. You cannot regenerate ancient woodlands (which, by the way, date back from before 1600), you cannot move ancient trees. Their blatant disregard for the ecosystem is destroying habitats and beauty spots. And for what? Britain may need highspeed rail, but not like this.

This article was originally written for TheLatest.com

Popular posts from this blog

We Need To Talk About Bridgerton (spoiler alert)

My social media has been spammed lately with fans of the programme Bridgerton lamenting the departure of the much-loved Duke of Hastings (Simon) played by Regé-Jean Page. The seriousness with which people have taken this is what I am lamenting. No, @regejean ! You CANNOT leave me like that. I WILL NOT have it! @bridgerton !!!!!! — Dionne Warwick (@dionnewarwick) April 3, 2021 I have an admittedly unpopular opinion on the programme Bridgerton, in that I think it is objectively bad. Bridgerton is a Netflix series based on a series of novels by Julia Quinn. The programme is set in London during the reign of King George III, and the first series followed the life of the upper-class Daphne Bridgerton, and her courtship with the aforementioned Duke of Hastings during her first season out. Daphne and Simon Bridgerton, Netflix I watched the first series of Bridgerton upon the recommendation of several friends, and I had (relatively) high hopes. I really like period dramas, and I am a fan of...

Power Play at the Olympics

I have really enjoyed these Olympics. We have been treated to new sports, surprise victories (naming no names, Italy), and the usual astonishment when humans achieve the impossible. However, there is always an extremely political side to the Olympics, and that's what I wish to analyse in this article. Superpowers wear gold The term “superpower” was first used in 1944 to describe the UK, US and the USSR. During the 20th century, Britain lost influence and, with the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the US became the only superpower. This led Samuel Huntington to write : “There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar [rather] a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers.” So what we can learn about the current world order from this year’s Olympics? It's no secret that sport isn't the only thing in play during the Olympic Games. Many will remember the US boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and medal races between Ru...

On the health of our leaders

In May 1996, journalist Alistair Cooke remarked, “I thought I knew everything about the physical condition of President Kennedy and how much of it was, by an unspoken agreement in those days, kept secret.” Cooke describes a “code, unwritten, never brought up, which would have made it tasteless to mention such things”. [1] He describes how, during the 1960 Democratic primary campaign, then Senator Lyndon Johnson’s team suggested that then Senator Kennedy had Addison’s disease. At the time, this was a “foul accusation” (although true) which was quickly denied by the Kennedy camp. However, secrecy regarding the health of our leaders can be dated to much further back. For example, in October 1919, President Woodrow Wilson, with 18 months left in office, had a stroke which left him bedridden and partially paralysed. First Lady Edith Wilson became the intermediary between the President and his Cabinet, deciding which matters were important enough to be brought to her husband. The President...