I lose track of all his changes of party, but I think I heard he was starting a new one, called Restore. Someone should tell him (a) such moves rarely work out in the short term, never mind the long, and (b) restore is a vague concept (unlike, say, Brexit). Restore to what ... or back to when? The Victorian era, pre world wars, inter war, post 2nd world war, Thatcherite, austerity? And has it ever worked well for the majority anyway?
Those who decide to designate Green as Grey and therefore open to development don't usually have to worry as it rarely affects them. I seem to remember a few years ago when the housing "crisis" became newsworthy that as the UK had thousands of acres of Green space meant we could develop much of it and still have plenty left for people to enjoy nature. What they still fail to take into account is the fact that many will have to travel much further to see a few blades of grass or the odd tree and not everyone has that choice. Covering the ground with concrete won't exactly help the flooding issue either.
I get really upset when I see all the national parks and really nothing around here within easy reach.
Can't say I've heard of Rupert Lowe ........MP, Tory, Labour, Reform, Lib Dem ? Whoever he is, if he is aiming to restore something, I'd suggest he puts Common Sense at the top of his list
He is trying to do so because he has now been kicked out of Reform for allegations of threatening physical violence to another person in Reform. I think that he thinks Reform isn't far enough to the right!
I don't understand any government, local, regional or national thinking it's OK to build on green belt land rather than re-purpose grey or brown sites. Nor do I understand the social bankruptcy involved in granting permission for housing projects without ensuring infrastructure from basic roads and amenities such as power, water and public transport to schools, playgrounds, meeting halls, shops, doctors, dentists. Maybe there needs to be a mandatory basic training for all councillors and MPs so they have a grasp of what makes a viable community. It could be worse tho. Trump is keen to sell of national parks to his pals and psychopants (and yes that spelling is deliberate!) so they can be exploited for gas, oil, mining and timber. The rest of the world is doing its best to move to carbon free hydro, solar and wind power and he wants quick profits from mucky stuff. Where are our descendants going to live and how will they feed themselves once he and his ilk have stripped the planet of all its sustainability? Mars with Musk and Bezos? It would be cheaper to fix this planet than set up there.
It's not just the building of more housing without also providing the necessary infrastructure here in the UK but also the fact that there is a limit to the space available overall. Brown field sites can certainly be made use of but I gather that is often more expensive to convert to an acceptable standard and many developers are neither interested nor have the capability. Just looking at the increase in agricultural land going on the market and planning permissions being altered/ignored, it's cheaper to take advantage and build new. As for the Space Invaders - we have already proved that we are incapable of protecting this planet or living sustainably and I doubt we'll do any better elsewhere.
The planet will survive, maybe humans wont. I think when people talk about looking after the planet they really mean keeping it livable for humans, two totally different things.
And in short term, keeping currently liveable places as they are. Close to home, if Spain, most of Italy and Greece turn into barren deserts, it's goodbye to tomatoes, citrus and holidays, and the folks who currently live on those, will have to move. That's quite a lot of people who will have to find a place to live.
Speaking for myself I care about keeping the planet livable for all living creatures from teeny cellular beings thru plants and animals of all kind. I do think it's mad to be putting solar "farms" on agricultural land when there are buildings and car parks that can be covered with PV panels. Infrastructure from roads to rail to water pipes can surely be built/improved on existing tracks without digging up more valuable countryside envrionments. There are over 700,000 emty houses in the UK and it would be cheaper in the long run to get those back into a livable state and occupied than to keep digging up green belt. Whay doesn't government - local or national - make this a priority? Empty home crisis: Why aren't they being used to solve shortages?
If we want to keep the planet liveable, we need to put a halt to the vast data storage centres for a start. There is no need to keep every single bit of data generated. It benefits big tech and oppressive regimes, but no one else.
Problem with a lot of the empty houses is it's often one here and one there and in total diabolical places, either very rundown areas or inner cities, basically slums. Often it's the inhabitants that make an area what it is, be that liveable or just a slum. Lots of places I see need demolition but they are listed so no one is going to take them places on. The old cinema around here has been empty for about 25yrs and as soon as someone suggests knocking it down the history lovers jump in and say you can't do it,it's listed,but you are allowed to leave it to rot for 25yrs. I tend to think digging up green belt is the cheapest option, otherwise developers would not be doing it, that is where the big money is not messing around trying to sort out dilapidated buildings.
The new plan by space x is to build a constalation of data centres in orbit. They applied for a licence to launch 1 million satellites last week. They also backtracked on their Mars plan and instead plan to colonise the moon.
