UKIP is surely now the only credible voice on environmental issues.The Conservatives are now allowing major increases in developments on green belt (1), and the metropolitan Left doesn’t care about the countryside, because it’s alien to their trendy North London habitat.
Hot air from Lefties
During the referendum campaign, Ed Miliband insisted that Brexit would be bad for wildlife and the environment (2).
In fact Brexit is likely to have a positive environmental effect, because the UK will not have to pave over countryside to build all the new houses that would have resulted from uncontrolled immigration within the EU. We also won’t have to suffer building more EU subsidised wind farms scarring our countryside.
Wind farms are damaging to the environment in many ways. They can harm wildlife (particularly birds and bats) through disturbance, habitat loss and collision. They create noise which disturbs neighbouring homes. I wonder if Ed Miliband would like to live next to a wind farm?
Wind is unpredictable and the availability of wind energy is not constant and the cost-competitiveness of wind power is highly debatable. Wind farms rely heavily on financial incentives, which should be stopped. Obviously, less obtrusive offshore wind farms, tidal power and solar power are all alternative energy sources that we could continue to look at. The countryside, however, should be preserved as a habitat for wildlife.
Wind farms are just one example of how Governments have become blinded by the mantra of scientific theories, in particular, the ‘climate change’ theory. But why would we damage our environment and our economy based on highly disputed research from ‘experts’? There are other sides to this argument. In fact, many people believe that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. It is also contended by many, that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from natural processes such as fluctuations in the sun’s heat and ocean currents. Some say the theory of human-caused global climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty climate models, and misleading science (3).
Earth’s climate has always warmed and cooled, and the 20th century rise in global temperature, some say, is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years.
So much, then, for the assertion that we had to remain in the EU to tackle climate change. No-one is sure if this issue really needs to be dealt with urgently. However, if it did, it could be dealt with adequately via international agreements without surrendering sovereignty.
Housing in the UK – we’re close to capacity
Basically, we are rapidly reaching the point in the UK where there would be no capacity left, in living space terms, for further immigration. Yet all we hear from the Lefties is ‘let’s have more and more – we’ve benefited from immigration’, or: ‘we’ve got a strong tradition of immigration’, or: ‘immigration is good for the economy.’
Well, yes, that type of naive, rosy picture of immigration may well have been true in the past, to a certain extent. The new reality, though, is quite different. Proper control of immigration, via a work permit system, is something that we urgently need.
In employment terms, we need to make do with those that are already here, and, if they don’t have the right skills, then we should re-train them. To a certain extent, immigration is being fuelled by a costly, self-indulgent education system that is only capable of creating graduates in worthless ‘Mickey Mouse’, impractical degree subjects.
Hopefully Brexit will bring some reality to the house building argument. However, we still seem to have politicians arguing for uncontrolled immigration and all of the ‘mainstream’ parties are still proposing to build at least 200,000 houses annually. That would be 2 million homes in ten years.
However, I’d argue that 2 million more homes would be the absolute maximum the country could ever take. It’d be nice if the politicians would admit there has to be a maximum. If they say there’s no maximum, they should admit that they are proposing to carry out environmental vandalism on a massive scale, destroying our beautiful countryside forever and endangering wildlife.
2 million new homes would allow, on average, about 3 thousand new homes in each of the 650 UK constituencies. So that could be 4 or 5 thousand in some less densely populated areas and maybe only 1 thousand (or less) in e.g. some London boroughs. Because, let’s be clear, there is no way we can build more brand new cities, in an already densely populated country like the UK. All we can do is provide maybe a few thousand more homes in existing cities and towns. These 2 million homes would allow for maybe 8 million more residents. That would be the limit. In fact, over the next 25 years it’s expected the UK’s population will grow by 10 million, according to The Office for National Statistics (ONS). We may just handle that with about 2 million more homes, built over the next 20 years. About 2 million new homes has got to be the maximum because:
- We can’t build on greenbelt – to do so would destroy the environment with devastating consequences.
- We can’t build on areas with flood risk – and more of these areas are unfortunately being discovered every year.
- We can’t build where the knock on effect on services and transport would be prohibitive.
Houses can’t just be ‘dumped’ on existing areas. New housing depends on services (police, schools, health, social, fire, water etc.), they need shops, roads, transportation links. There’s a limit to how much of this infrastructure we can realistically provide.
There is perhaps some scope for creating additional living units by converting existing large homes to flats. However, that solution still means additional pressure on local services.
UKIP is the only party that truly cares about the future of our great country. UKIP has a major opportunity to be recognised now as the real protector of the UK’s environment.