high-speed two

HS2 plans to sign sweetheart wind farm deals would breach procurement rules, Tory peer warns

, ,

I think the on shore wind farm subsidy regime has historically little to commend it and this article raises my suspicions further. It tells us:


Proposals to power High Speed 2 using wind farms would breach official procurement rules, a Tory peer has warned ministers.

Viscount Ridley, the science writer and former businessman, claimed that a plan drawn up on behalf of the government owned-body building the railway involved a “hidden subsidy” that would ultimately be passed onto taxpayers or added to the cost of tickets.

The peer’s intervention came after The Sunday Telegraph revealed how a strategy document commissioned by the Government proposed powering the controversial rail line using onshore wind farms spanning the equivalent of 19,000 football fields.

The strategy set out prices that would be pre-agreed with energy firms, at rates…

High speed rail “threatens ancient woodlands”

, , ,

According to this article, the Woodland Trust, a conservation charity, believes the government’s high-speed rail link link between London and Birmingham will either destroy or cause irrevocable damage to sites which house treasured flora and fauna.

I have been receiving regular updates from those lobbying against HS2 on their activities and I applaud their hard work. Moving away from the conservation perspective (and I am keeping my views firmly neutral) I do like the theoretical idea of linking London and Birmingham to diffuse some of the mono-City economic effects of London more widely.

It seems to me the challenge is about how best to achieve this practically and perhaps there are other ways to do it linked to ICT and focused investment (one of the first enterprise zones announced in the budget will be in Birmingham) and on this basis is the idea of this extremely expensive new piece of infrastructure barking up the wrong tree?