United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
I try not to be all doom and gloom, but this is the exact sort and scale of project the UK needs to be successfully completing to combat climate change. The fact we can't is legitimately terrifying.
Stuff like this just makes me wonder what’s the point of working and contributing to the country.
Things like this and funding the NHS are what people need, yet apparently it can’t be done.
How can every single thing that benefits regular people be too expensive, what else is there to spend money on??
It's not, so far as I can tell, saying that the project cannot be done. The Red rating, equivalent to unachievable, is measuring against the goals set for the project, including financial.
So what this is saying (or rather confirming) is that it's not achievable based on the current project goals. Or to put it another way, it's over budget and cannot be delivered within budget.
So yeah, still not great that we can't deliver something like this on budget, but if you look in to how it was originally costed for the business case there are holes in the logic large enough to drive several high speed trains through. Sideways. Hopefully the benefits are large enough that they still go through with it, but I suspect that's largely dependent on which narratives take hold during the run up to the next election and whether the Tories can gaslight people in to thinking that country finances work the same way as personal finances.
There's growing evidence that the opposite may be true:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/02/will-hs2-really-help-cut-the-uks-carbon-footprint
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/23/halt-new-roads-and-developments-adding-to-emissions-advisers-to-tell-uk-government
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/23JAN_HS2_Double_Jeopardy_FINAL01.02.23.pdf
That's not exactly the case, your second link even states that HS2 would offset (via modal shift) more carbon than it emits during construction.
That ofcourse isn't to say we should hand wave it away, construction is one of the worst industries when it comes to pollution. But, the problem is we will need to build things, because the structure of society needs to change to stop being so carbon dependant. If we do nothing, then we still have all the structural problems which caused the problem in the first place.
HS2 stops, some, people having to drive. Longer term, it would also help to move business concentration away from the south east. Decentralisation across the entire UK would mean that a lot more things are a lot more local to a lot more people. HS2 doesn't do that alone, but HS2-type projects (my original comment) absolutely do.
Even if you support degrowth as a method, that still requires substantial change, which in turn means construction.