Letter: Long-term plans stymied by short-sightedness
SIR – Mr Padfield’s letter (Letters, 31st March – Where’s debate on real issues?) drew attention to the inconsistency implied by the recent emphasis on a “drive for growth” at a time when the equally urgent need for environmental probity requires us to reduce polluting and wasteful (over-)productivity.
He notes that we are stumbling through a devil’s brew of financial, security and energy crises that have left our leaders and opinion formers floundering.
However, Mr Hewson’s letter in the same issue (Eco systems a must for new homes) hints that ample ‘growth’ opportunities already exist which do not conflict with our duty of environmental care.
Indeed, the key enabling action he mentions, the adaptation of planning regulations to foster environmental goals, is not confined to the New Forest District Council bailiwick but is a nationwide priority.
Unfortunately, local initiatives to promote sustainability can only be realised if the national infrastructure to implement and support them exists.
For example, current UK plans rely heavily on ready access to ‘green’ electricity to meet this demand.
That requirement will involve significant upgrading of our national electricity network and close collaboration between national and local providers, implying that local initiatives will have a limited impact unless matched by national developments.
Similar links, from the local through to the national level, can be traced for almost every aspect of our environmental ambitions: pollution finds it easy to cross borders, so a similarly vigorous cross-border effort will be needed to clean up our act.
Regrettably, our world leaders appear to be overwhelmed by the magnitude of this task, distracted by shorter-term priorities or diverted by the desire to maintain or advance their place in the world pecking order during the transition.
In the resulting absence of top-down initiatives, we are beginning to see some evidence of bottom-up impatience as vested interests promote their ‘oven-ready’ palliatives, keen to recoup the capital investment they’ve already made.
So where do we go from here?
Pressure is growing from both supply and demand sides, often without the responsibility for ensuring an orderly and fair transition.
Only our elected representatives can be held to account for their actions but they appear to be inhibited by the vagaries of public opinion on the range and complexities of the issues involved.
Clarity will only emerge through a vigorous, informed public debate – to which the A&T is now giving voice.
Jim Gibb,
Norleywood
