Wherever the train network doesn’t efficiently serve. Your example of 8 hours from Reading to North Wales, for example.
I was looking at going from Cheltenham to Chester and it would take ages by train. But I was thinking slightly further afield such as between SW and NE or SE and NW.
Train, drive or walk is the only option for me. Nearest commercial airport is Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham. Kind of defeats the point I think.
For me this is just points back to where the UK has failed in delivering on infrastructure. All of those railway closures for example. Poor road network another. So we now support a more environmentally damaging industry in an attempt to patch the gaps.
From the starting point that I think we both agree that flying is not a good idea from a climate point of view. I’m struggling to accept that you can ever really justify domestic flights. Even if the train does take longer.
I get a bit frustrated with the narrative around climate change - that it’s an economy v climate thing and it’s OK to create damage to the planet if there is a net benefit to the the economy.
Too many people, and especially politicians, approach this issue as if we can somehow bargain our way through. That the planet will ‘let us off’ if we really need to pump carbon out.
The reality is we live on an incredibly fragile ball of rock floating in space. You can’t negotiate with that. It doesn’t care about a journey to reading takes eight hours, or that we think we need to protect a sector for employment reasons, or that we’ve become accustomed to a certain way of life.
For this reason, when thinking about within limit living, domestic flights should be the first thing off the table.
We’re going to hear a lot of foam from this government over the next two weeks about how green they are, but it’s transparent that they are absolutely indifferent to the lives and wellbeing of the next generation of people. You can’t claim to be in favour of mitigating climate change, while also trying to build new deep coal mines in Lancashire, exploit the Cambo oil fields, or pouring billions into fossil fuel extraction in Africa.
Completely this. Although I’m not in favour of investing in roads. It’s been shown over and over again that building roads increases car use.
For me the main issue with the road network overall is how poorly planned out it is. Most main routes are directed to London. There is very little north / south or east / west otherwise that isn’t currently a disaster zone. It’s a similar story with railways. There is no North South rail link for Wales. If I want to visit Cardiff by train I need to get to Birmingham, Crewe or Shrewsbury first.
Now I fully appreciate that much of this is a legacy issue from what we had pre motorways etc. but we’re still in a mess over it. Birmingham is a traffic disaster zone because everything converges into one spot. I also believe that some places simply need new roads or an upgrade on the existing. Newbury was an example of this. That place seriously needed a bypass. There’s certainly a discussion to be had on why they chose the route they did but the fundamental fact is that cars were basically stuck there for hours on end every day without it. I’d also add that the Construction Industry has a massive task ahead in finding more sustainable materials and methods of providing infrastructure. Concrete, asphalt, steel, even plastics need a serious look at. I know there’s a lot of work in concrete technology for example
Overall though I agree, the world faces some extremely difficult choices on reducing climate change. The balance between environmental spending and the economy needs to be addressed and I dont see a Conservative government doing that; ever. I dont think it’s in their DNA.
Hurrah, get the flags out
Agree apart from your last bit 
Are you suggesting they’ll change?
I hope they will, the planet needs them to, along with every other government.
I think you understate their green credentials but yes, I also think we’re seeing signs of them going further. Granted that there are still occasions (such as the Environment Bill) where they still need to be pressured to go further in some instances.
But Insulate Britain are “irresponsible crusties”
There was some really interesting research put out a while back by the Climate Outreach Network called Britain Talks Climate, which showed that, regardless of political persuasion, age, location etc. everyone supports stronger action on climate change. The reasons might change (the urban, younger, left might care about social justice, whereas older, right might care more about conservation and nature) but the headline is the same.
The problem is that once you move from ‘stronger action on climate change’ to actual real policies to that usually need us all to stop doing stuff that we like doing - like driving, flying, buying shit we don’t need - then that support ebbs away.
As far as the conservatives go, I don’t think there is anything in their DNA that prevents them caring about and worrying about climate change. The problem is that their core ethos is free enterprise, freedom from regulation and smaller state - and sorting climate change is going to need responses that are diametrically opposed to those ideals.
These are exactly the things in their DNA that will prevent them getting close to what’s needed on climate change. An end to neoliberalism and perpetual growth is the only way to prevent the climate catastrophe. The Tories just cut tax on in country flights and are blocking any attempts to stop shit getting dumped in our rivers. Just as we prepare to host COP26
From the article
In naval parlance, this is called a shot across the bows.
Technically, the French checks on UK trawlers in the Channel overnight do not form part of the raft of retaliatory measures announced in the fishing row.
But there should be no doubt they are intended as a message about what is to come.
From Tuesday, British and Channel Islands fishing boats will not be allowed to offload their catch at French ports.
But that is the least of it. Only 5% of UK seafood exports to France arrive in this way. The rest comes by freight.
Potentially far more disruptive will be intensified controls at Calais and other entry points for UK trade by ferry and tunnel.
The French authorities will be conducting what they call a “grève de zèle” - in other words becoming suddenly punctilious, thorough and on the look out for infractions.
And it is not just fish imports which will be checked, but everything.
The aim will be to create long tail-backs which will play on the news channels - reminding UK viewers of the costs of go-it-alone.
So basically this is what was voted for. I wonder how the trawlers captain voted?
There will be a huge drive to blame the French, which on some level is logical, but the reality - which was pointed out so many times by the remain side - was that it was always going to be like this.
It’s also revealing of French political buccaneering. There’s a legitimate reason why some boats have not been granted licences to fish in UK waters. They fished there previously illegally so cannot evidence their prior activity.
French response? Toys out of the pram > We’re going to break international law so we can deliberately harm you and your industries, even if that would also harm ourselves.
Nothing like French doubling down as a way of validating the UK’s stance.
Are they breaking international law by imposing the restrictions early?
Cutting off electricity supplies, unjustified and disproportionate retaliatory trade sanctions, unilaterally imposing trade barriers beyond those contemplated by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement…yeah, these would be clear contraventions.
Cheers and understood.
I appreciate that if French boats were fishing illegally then France needs to wind them in. At the same time people also need to start being honest about the impacts of incoming changes to trading with the EU as a result of the referendum and subsequent deal. It isn’t good and everyone needs to understand that and actually admit that it’s what was voted for.
Worth also noting that the UK was prepared to break international law in “a specific and limited way”
