Making space for Government greenwash

Most sensible people see the horrific wildfires in Los Angeles as a clear symptom of climate change – a clear result of six months’ lack of rainfall in California and fires driven by stronger winds than usual.

President-Elect Donald Trump, however, knows better. On his own social media platform, Truth Social, he blamed California governor Gavin Newsom for the challenges in meeting fire-fighters’ needs for water to tackle the cataclysmic fires.

It’s all due, said Mr Trump, to the governor not signing a “water restoration declaration” and his desire to protect a small estuarine fish called a smelt.

There is, in reality, no such declaration and California has been working hard to supply the needs of farming, humans and the natural environment, but climate change is rapidly diminishing its supplies. Delta smelt, an indicator species, have long been in decline thanks to abstraction of freshwater harming its habitat and, in any case, most of Los Angeles’ water comes from elsewhere or aquifers. But Trump has never been one to let the facts get in the way of a political rant. And don’t his supporters love him for it?

But why is this relevant to our own current attack on England’s environment stemming from the new National Planning Policy Fantasy? Because nature, or its theoretical protection, is emerging as just one of the big losers in the Government’s drive to accelerate hypersprawl.

The Government, we’re told, is taking a “more strategic” approach to planning and nature recovery. Leaving aside the issue of strategic planning by elected oligarchs (sorry, mayors), it’s plain the new system will see vast tracts of ill-located greenfield land, both agricultural and natural, designated for housing in local plans and given profitable consents. Whether building accelerates at a similar rate is a great deal less certain, of course.

Natural England chair Tony Juniper is at the eye of this storm, but has waded in with a blog for the Green Alliance, headlined We Can Make Space for Nature and People.

Well, quangos have to try to implement government policy, however disastrous, but the policy’s shortcomings aren’t obvious from the blog.

“Under the current planning system, local authorities and developers have been unable to bring forward the building projects needed by a growing population,” writes Juniper. “In addition, and although it has helped to protect small pockets of wildlife, the current regime has been unable [to] secure sufficient enhancements for nature to reverse the long-term loss of species and habitats.”

This vision of local authorities bringing forward house building projects to meet the needs of a growing population is a beguiling one, but one totally at odds with reality since the 1980s when central government effectively strangled councils’ ability to build social-rent housing and made them flog off their existing stock to tenants. There is not the slightest sign of the current government seriously addressing either of these.

It’s also a fantasy to imagine developers bringing forward the house building levels the government seeks. As always, they’ll force things through our shredded planning system to ensure their business model supplies a dividend flow, and will build as many or as few homes as suits them. That’s how they’ve already run up a million unbuilt consents – which could make a pretty big hole in the one-and-a-half million houses the Government wants built.

But is it really worth even considering the likelihood of wide-scale realisation of Tony Juniper’s vision of “at-scale” nature renovation on huge sites paid for by the ever-so altruistic, generous philanthropists in the development industry? He admits land is in high demand and short supply, so it’s worth asking where these “at-scale” natural restorations could happen at sufficient scale to balance the massive damage to nature that hypersprawl causes.

Leaving that aside, what I’d really like to ask is this: why is this discussion limited to nature? Of course, accommodating nature is one of the principal ecosystem services that our rapidly diminishing greenfield land delivers. But only one.

What about food security in a country that currently produces only half its food? A country that’s heavily indebted, with a weak currency that depends on imports of staples like cereals, food whose availability to the free world is currently being harmed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and which looks increasingly vulnerable to new threats to the western alliance.

What about water security in a country with a rising population, frequent droughts due to climate change, whose most water-stressed areas are also the most development-stressed areas and whose aquifers, that provide a third of its drinking water, are having their recharge reduced by urban sprawl?

What about drainage and flood-control, both of which depend on our fast-shrinking open land to provide buffering and to slow flood waters and both now plainly and critically inadequate in the face of climate change? If the Government really wants to stimulate the economy with construction, this ought to be its number one priority.

We urgently need a revived planning system that supports development a post-neoliberal society needs, while protecting and enhancing the ecosystem services our land provides. It’s no good any longer just considering some of them.

“In addition to fostering cleaner water and air, nature can help reduce flood risk and mitigate extreme heat and drought, with that now a vital planning consideration as we face into the growing threat posed by rapid global heating,” says Juniper. “And the same nature provides opportunities for people to relax, exercise and feel the joy of wild places, protecting and improving their physical and mental health. This is why areas for nature recovery will ideally be placed close to new developments, so that residents can easily enjoy them.”

Really? The point about “wild places” is that they can’t survive next door to vast housing estates whose air, noise and light pollution and disturbance extends far beyond their boundaries.

Juniper argues we could be at the threshold of “a golden era of sustainable development”. Sadly, all we’re at the threshold of is a golden era of urban sprawl and developer profits, of increased car dependency and greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s depressing to have to say this to someone with such a long and distinguished record of devotion to nature and its protection, but this is just Government greenwash.

Jon Reeds