Thread by @AdamWJT

@GeorgeMonbiot Thanks for your response, George.

Of course we shouldn’t be looking to “build anything”, but that’s never been the case; this is why planning regulation exists. Now who gets to write those regulations is of course a critical question. 1/n

@GeorgeMonbiot This is why I’m active politically; if we don’t like the decisions being made, we have to replace the decision-makers—and when it comes to planning regulation, the big decisions are made by politicians, whether on local planning committees or in the departments of Whitehall. 2/n

@GeorgeMonbiot Anyway, I’m happy to explain where we disagree on some of the points you’ve made... 3/n

@GeorgeMonbiot First of all, I don’t think the *primary* purpose of infrastructure is to enrich those who commission or build it, though I won’t deny that it is usually a secondary purpose. 4/n

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1428250112690692101?s=20

@GeorgeMonbiot ...But hell, even my fellow Greens sometimes fall into a neoliberal trap of focusing on “business cases” as if all infrastructure projects must somehow be profitable on their own terms. I'm not sure that this is a useful argument, even to our own cause. 5/n

@GeorgeMonbiot The above said, I’d like to make it clear that I don’t much care if, for example, the developer of a wind power infrastructure enriches themselves as a result of building a wind farm, substation or power grid. 6/n

@GeorgeMonbiot If that attracts more experts and professionals to the sector, then I struggle to see how this is a bad thing.

Next, we need to be very clear about what we mean when we say “free, prior and informed consent of the people it affects”. 7/n

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1428250231456604162?s=20

@GeorgeMonbiot Who, for example, did the construction of the Gwynt y Môr substation (pictured below) “affect”? How do we obtain their consent and in what sense is it informed? All good questions which, I’d urge, should not be oversimplified. 8/n

@GeorgeMonbiot As planners, we have to weigh the concerns local people may have about visual amenity and localised environmental impacts against perhaps greater environmental benefits, e.g. of powering 100,000s of homes with zero-carbon electricity. 9/n

@GeorgeMonbiot Fwiw, I’ve covered the dangers of nimbyism to the environment before.

And let me be clear: in my experience, nimbyism is, broadly speaking, a unifying political prospectus for the already propertied and privileged. 10/n

https://twitter.com/AdamWJT/status/1392428578738950146?s=20

@GeorgeMonbiot Ride the nimby horse all you want, but please note that, imo, you do so at the peril of the environment and social justice. 11/n

@GeorgeMonbiot Next… This is just deeply unhelpful. We are going to need planners to deal with the climate crisis, and giving your following the impression that we are hucksters is not only false, but will do little to assist with tackling the ecological emergency. 12/n

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1428250688925184000?s=20

@GeorgeMonbiot I broadly agree with the below but, frankly, I think it is a reach to expect current infrastructure to be retired before its replacement is in situ. I don’t see how this could be achieved, to echo a previous point, with the consent of those affected. 13/n

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1428251365097234432?s=20

@GeorgeMonbiot Sure, societal change will precede infrastructural change in some instances. But do not underestimate the impact that infrastructure can have on driving societal change. 14/n

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1428251659210199040?s=20

@GeorgeMonbiot Induced demand on transport systems is an excellent example of this in action (see below). 15/n twitter.com/search?q=Nethe…

@GeorgeMonbiot ...So let me be clear: we will need to build public and active transport infrastructure if we want to induce people to use these modes more, for the overall benefit of the environment. This is just one example (of many) of the infrastructural changes we urgently need. 16/n

@GeorgeMonbiot I do need to do some work now, but thank you for inviting me to respond. In summary, I’d say less of the generalised infrastructure-bashing please! Otherwise we run the risk of letting our conservatism stand in the way of the transformation the environment needs us to make. 17/17