Why? Because it has big environmental implications and it’s on us to get informed and stake our ground.
TIMELESS FACT
Ancient woodland is land that has been continuously wooded since at least 1600 - think Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest
This is a biggie and very complex so it’s a longer read than our usual! We’ve worked hard to distill the voluminous arguments, tearing our hair out in the process, so we’re guilting you into reading on!
So, as we all know, Boris Johnson just gave HS2 the go-ahead, but he said the plans, particularly for Phase 2, should be reviewed in detail. So now’s our chance to make our voice heard.
But what do we think? Isn’t train travel better for the planet? We’ve been harping on for ages that cars need to go...so isn’t HS2 a big win?
Well…
There’s 3 central contentions to the debate: the emission ‘savings’; the impact on ancient woodlands; and the benefit to the economy. Let’s take the top arguments for each one…
1. EMISSIONS
Transport (mostly road) is Britain’s largest greenhouse gas emitting sector. So, at face value, HS2 should be a good way to cut carbon…
What HS2 supporters say:
Emissions will be 7 times less than passenger cars.
Emissions will be 17 times less than domestic air travel.
It will free up space for 144 extra freight trains per day. Freight by rail produces 76% less CO2 than by road.
The carbon footprint of 120 years of Phase One will be less than one month’s road transport emissions.
But is it?
It relies on more people ditching cars and flights and using the train instead. But the Department for Transport suggests that 95% of HS2 passengers will in fact be existing train passengers.
HS2 may reduce demand for domestic flights by connecting airports in London, Birmingham and Manchester better. But that could lead to the aviation industry filling domestic flight slots to more profitable, and carbon-intensive, long-haul routes.
It’s untested if this new freight capacity will be used and what the impact will be but it’s a welcome ambition.
Great. Except the government’s own calculations suggest HS2’s carbon emissions could exceed potential savings. As a not-so-side note, we have 10 years not 120 to sort out our emissions targets. And it will take a decade and more to build.
2. ANCIENT WOODLANds
Trees are being planted elsewhere to replace the ones cut down along the HS2 route. In theory this compensates for the destruction of 108 irreplaceable ancient woods…
The HS2 team have been working with Natural England and the Woodland Trust to identify the habitats impacted by the proposed routes and determine appropriate ‘compensatory measures’. However…
Thousands of trees planted along the HS2 route last year will have to be replaced after saplings were not watered in the summer drought.
HS2 said replacing the dead trees was more "cost effective" than watering them.
Natural England recommends that replanting should be at a rate of 30 hectares for every 1 hectare of ancient woodland destroyed - that ratio does not yet appear to be happening.
Whether ancient woodlands respond to ‘compensatory measures’ is of course another matter entirely.
Here’s what’s at stake:
They are rare and irreplaceable - our richest land habitat, home to many rare and threatened species, that no amount of new planting can recreate.
The undisturbed soils support complex ecological communities that perform vital functions underpinning our collective survival.
The Dingy Skipper Butterfly, the 250 year old pear tree, the barn owls, the shelter, the shade, the woods that are living, breathing beautiful things will all be under threat of destruction.
3. THE ECONOMY
It will super-charge the economy and deliver more to the regions. Or that’s the theory
What HS2 supporters say:
The CBI, British Chambers of Commerce and other business bodies are championing HS2 as being good for business.
Greater connections will make business travel easy and breathe new life into towns, such as Crewe.
But will it?
The new routes look to mainly benefit the London economy. And the average commuting passenger will be in the top 10% income bracket.
Just connecting a few cities makes it an artery without any veins to feed it.
Only 18% will accrue to the North West, 12% to the West Midlands and 10% to Yorkshire and the Humber. Oh.
The upshot? The intended objectives of HS2 may be laudable and the fact is that we don’t know what will happen and if it will usher in a more universal shift towards trains, including more travel on existing ones. Nor do we know how crucial this project will be once the car industry has transformed itself beyond the end of sales of petrol and diesel cars in 2035.
But it seems there may be better, more viable alternatives across time-scale, cost and environmental impact. Lord Berkeley has submitted a letter to the PM suggesting exactly that. Friends of the Earth have commissioned proposals too. Arguably, the £106bn (current) cost would be better invested in more effective carbon-saving transport, like regional rail, buses, cycling and walking routes across the country, moving us towards a more connected vibrant way of life, serving the nation, not just isolated parts. And any transport system that destroys irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland can never be called 'green'.
Ok, got it. Where from here?
The Woodland Trust, through its work with HS2 during Phase One, has been able to successfully negotiate adjustments to the route to protect 14 hectares of ancient woodlands, …so there is hope that our action now can make a difference. If you feel strongly you can:
Sign this petition which then automatically triggers a pledge to your MP
Donate to the Woodland Trust to support their crucial work
Are you directly affected by HS2 or want to highlight anything we’ve missed? Share your thoughts in the comments box below…
We…
Aimee: I’ve spent hours and hours researching this and it’s hard to be definitive on the full pros and cons when we don’t yet have final costs and details. So I’m focusing on what we know for sure - (i) the ancient woodlands are irreplaceable; (ii) we have 10 years or less to mitigate climate tipping points and HS2 will have damaging implications in this time frame; (iii) there appear to be more economical alternatives that would be gentler to the planet. Therefore, I’ve signed the petition and donated to the Woodland Trust, who at the very least, can advise HS2 on how to alter their routes to reduce the impact on our precious habitats.
Sonia: If it involves decimating beautiful old woodland, I don’t really care what the arguments are, much as it’s good to know them. Besides I think the whole thing is upside down. Progress doesn’t = speed. Progress doesn’t = hurtling on a bullet train away from local communities. Progress does = connection, self-sufficiency, regeneration. We’re not here just to transactionally reduce emissions, we’re here to fundamentally re-balance what got us into this unholy mess in the first place. Not sure that calculators and chain-saws can do that.
“Money doesn’t grow on no trees
”