The Greens promised to push Labour to be more radical but are instead acting how they always have: pro nimby, anti-environment.
I didn’t vote Green, obviously. If I had, I imagine I’d be pretty angry that pretty much their first act having quadrupled their number of MPs was to oppose green development.
He wants the cabling to be put underground, instead of using pylons. You can disagree with him (I do) but it’s pretty disingenuous to say he ‘opposes green development’ just because he doesn’t immediately rubber stamp every policy labelled green.
Putting it underground is worse for the environment in and of itself, because of the direct damage to soil and plantlife (and so indirect damage to animal life). It’s also more expensive, which leaves you with less money to spend (on, e.g., just picking an example at random, green development). And it takes longer, which means relying on fossil fuels for longer.
So, his proposed solution is worse for the environment in three different ways. If his solution is less green than the thing he’s opposing, then it’s fair to say he opposes green development.
It’s not great, but both methods have their pros and cons, even for the environment. But you are very clearly pushing some bullshit anti Greens agenda here, which is even worse for green development.
There’s no bullshit involved. I have an anti-Green agenda because I have a pro-green agenda. Both in and out of power, the Greens oppose actual green development in favour of nimbyism. They have shown this in this case by immediately using their much-vaunted quadrupling in representation to oppose a project which would help meet the goal of decarbonising the grid by 2030. This is very much part of a pattern.
Whatever my limited influence on green development, I can guarantee it’s of smaller impact than Ramsay’s nimbyism.
Citing CapX isn’t making a great point for your case.
If you had a case at all, you’d attack the facts, not the source.
If you have to use a conservative corpo source then I have barely any other choice than that. But you continue your capitalistic propaganda shit.
It doesn’t matter who says ‘This Green politician opposes solar farms’ because this Green politician does oppose solar farms. Ranting about capitalist propaganda does not change the facts
Brought to you by the party who oppose high-speed rail because building it involves murdering trees
Green Party in “actually just another bunch of NIMBYs” shocker.
I know, so unexpected given their local government track record of nobly opposing solar farms.
Sounds exactly the same as the Lib Dems, who nationally support building more homes but oppose it on local levels.
I understand that it’s just telling people what they want to hear in a bid to win votes, but there becomes a point where you have to live in the real world.
I reckon there’s more nuance here. The quote I’ve seen from him on a BBC article seems pretty reasonable:
“So what I’m arguing for is a pause while the other options are considered, because of course we need the infrastructure; it’s a matter of doing it in the right way that has a long-term benefit.”
He seems happy about the offshore wind farm plans, he supposedly proposed several alternatives to the pylon positioning “including the idea of an offshore grid.”
I think considering they’re an 184km stretch of pylons, he’s not wholly unreasonable to ask for more consideration and conversation about it being done in a way that minimises harm to the environment and the communities affected.
Edit: Had a longer look through other comments and now realise that environmental consultation was already thoroughly completed. Which means Ramsey’s request for consultation has already been met, so he shouldn’t be able to prevent anything because (fingers crossed) it’ll all be environmentally sound anyways?
That’s the problem: there has been a consultation, but he’s opposed anyway and is deploying the classic nimby tactic of asking for yet more consultations!
Building pylons is absolutely necessary and non-negotiable if we are going to decarbonise the grid — indeed, in some ways, it’s the hardest bit.
they’re also ecological disasters and he’s right to oppose them; they not only hurt fish and ocean wildlife but they also contribute to noise pollution.
