0:04

Tortus. Hello, it's Claudia

0:07

here and you're listening

0:09

to the slow newscast

0:12

from Tortus. This week,

0:14

a tale about zealots. Earlier

0:16

this year, the Prime

0:18

Minister wrote a newspaper

0:20

article. It was a daily

0:23

mail splash, with one

0:25

specific group of people

0:28

firmly in its crosshairs.

0:30

a group that Kirstarmer accused

0:33

of holding the entire country

0:35

to ransom. The Nimbies and

0:37

the Zellets. His words, stopping

0:39

the country from building the

0:41

infrastructure it so badly needs.

0:44

In fact, he sharpened his

0:46

focus even further, pointing the finger

0:48

at one man, one so-called

0:51

Nimbie, who Kirstarmer blamed for

0:53

wasting tens of millions of

0:55

pounds of taxpayer's money. through

0:57

a tactic all the NIMBs

1:00

are using these days.

1:02

The courts. Or at least,

1:04

that's what the Prime Minister

1:07

thinks. So my colleagues

1:09

Katie Gunning and Matt

1:12

Russell went to meet

1:14

one of the NIMBY

1:16

kings to investigate whether

1:19

he's really costing the

1:21

country its future. Or

1:24

perhaps, trying to save it.

1:26

Tracking down the man the Prime

1:28

Minister called out as being the

1:30

ultimate nimby was the easy part.

1:33

We've come to Norwich on a

1:35

beautiful day. It's absolutely stunning, isn't

1:37

it? That's really lovely, what

1:39

is it? In the first line

1:41

of that article, Kirstama describes a

1:44

former Green Party councillor who spent

1:46

years trying to block vital safety

1:49

upgrades to the A-47. And,

1:51

well, that's a pool of one.

1:53

I'm Andrew Boswell, I'm a scientist

1:55

and a computer modeler, and recently

1:58

I've been taking the government. on

2:00

climate change. As a general

2:02

rule, no one refers to

2:04

themselves as a nimby, the

2:07

neat and catchy acronym for

2:09

not in my backyard. It

2:11

tends to be a pejorative

2:13

term, one which first appeared

2:15

in the 1980s and has

2:17

hung around because it so

2:19

neatly encapsulates why people block

2:21

developments. I'm fine with the

2:23

idea of a new housing

2:26

estate slash road slash power

2:28

station, just not right here.

2:30

Thank you very much. Dr

2:32

Andrew Boswell says he's very

2:34

definitely not an inby. No,

2:36

no absolutely and I'm not

2:38

an eco zealot too. And

2:40

it is hard to reconcile

2:42

the accusation of zealotry with

2:44

the mild mannered and softly

2:47

spoken man who's just met

2:49

us at the door with

2:51

his wavy grey hair, a

2:53

friendly face and light brown

2:55

shaw neck jumper jumper. He

2:57

looks the very picture of

2:59

a British academic. I took

3:01

early retirement from UEA and

3:03

then I was on the

3:06

council for 12 years. After

3:08

a doctorate in chemistry and

3:10

many years working at the

3:12

University of East Anglia, he

3:14

became part of the Green

3:16

contingent on the local council.

3:18

And of course I also

3:20

wanted to push for a

3:22

sustainable transport system in Norwich

3:24

and to really enhance that

3:27

so we could get some

3:29

of the congestion off the

3:31

roads. He's proud of the

3:33

electric buses which now were

3:35

quietly around the city and

3:37

which we took to reach

3:39

his house. He ran to

3:41

be an MP unsuccessfully and

3:43

found himself increasingly drawn to

3:46

the climate movement. You know

3:48

I was involved in X-R

3:50

and things like that on

3:52

the periphery bit in terms

3:54

of not getting arrested lots

3:56

of times and stuff like

3:58

that. There's this quiet determination

4:00

to him, a stilliness that's

4:02

softened by his manner. He

4:05

seems very British, quietly seething.

4:07

I am angry about the

4:09

fact that we've known... about

4:11

the climate for 50 years.

4:13

The fossil fuel companies have

4:15

known about climate change and

4:17

its impacts for 50 years

4:19

even longer. And I am

4:21

angry that we've allowed all

4:23

that to go ahead. But

4:26

what I've done, and I

4:28

do have as a spiritual

4:30

practice of Buddhist and so,

4:32

I've tried to channel that

4:34

anger into doing something constructive.

4:36

Over time being a local

4:38

councillor no longer felt constructive

4:40

Andrew wanted to make more

4:42

of an impact. That's when

4:45

I started to look at

4:47

climate litigation because I thought

4:49

I would have more impact

4:51

on challenging things at a

4:53

sort of national level and

4:55

true legal system. And that's

4:57

how he came to the

4:59

Prime Minister's attention. Norfolk and

5:01

in fact East Anglia generally

5:03

is a good place to

5:06

begin a story about building

5:08

things. or not building things.

5:10

On the government website, which

5:12

lists all 253 of the

5:14

country's major building projects, East

5:16

Anglia looms large, because it's

5:18

home, or will be, to

5:20

some serious bits of infrastructure.

5:22

There are nearly 20 wind

5:25

farms planned or already operating

5:27

off the coast. It has

5:29

large ports at Ipswich, Harich

5:31

and Felixstow, which mean thousands

5:33

of lorries rumble through the

5:35

region's roads. There are vast

5:37

solar farms coming down the

5:39

slipway, and there's a planning

5:41

whopper, the new nuclear reactor

5:43

at Seiswell Sea. All in

5:46

a largely rural part of

5:48

the country, which people are

5:50

drawn to for its natural

5:52

beauty. Constable painted Dead and

5:54

Vale's landscape of gently rolling

5:56

fields and ancient woodlands. The

5:58

wide beaches and endless coastline

6:00

of Suffolk and Norfolk are

6:02

backdrop to countless holidays. and

6:05

even Hollywood films. It is

6:07

a lovely area to live,

6:09

you know, there's lots of

6:11

nature with the coasts and

6:13

lots of wonderful nature in

6:15

Norfolk too, which is why

6:17

I don't think we want

6:19

roads cross-crossing all over it

6:21

and making the A-47 effectively

6:23

into a little motorway going

6:26

across the county. For Andrew

6:28

Boswell, that tension between nature

6:30

and development. crystallized with the

6:32

plans to upgrade the A-47,

6:34

a road that runs from

6:36

Birmingham all the way to

6:38

Lowestoft on the Suffolk coast.

6:40

One road scheme, yes, may

6:42

not make a difference, but

6:45

when you accumulate them over

6:47

lots of road schemes and

6:49

lots of other infrastructure, is

6:51

going to seriously impact whether

6:53

we can meet our carbon

6:55

budget. He decided to take

6:57

the government on. using the

6:59

courts. Funny enough, actually, the

7:01

day I launched the A47

7:03

legal challenge, the first one,

7:06

my grandson was born and

7:08

it was also the record-breaking,

7:10

that record-breaking heat, when the

7:12

UK, was it, sort of,

7:14

41 degrees. So my grandson

7:16

couldn't come home from hospital

7:18

for a few days because

7:20

it was too hot to

7:22

keep him in the... in

7:25

hospital, you know, it was

7:27

in July 2022. So all

7:29

that's all happened at the

7:31

same time. And so I

7:33

sort of dedicated that case

7:35

to him actually. It was

7:37

painstaking work scouring through every

7:39

detail of the application. I

7:41

spent days and days going

7:43

through this because I also

7:46

sort of... analyzed it, I

7:48

suggested alternative ways of doing

7:50

it, I felt more evidence-based.

7:52

Yes, absolute days. I mean,

7:54

I would put in a

7:56

submission which was 40 pages

7:58

and maybe sort of five

8:00

pages. that would be detailed

8:02

numerical stuff a lot on

8:05

the climate change act and

8:07

the law and a lot

8:09

on developing policy like the

8:11

carbon budget delivery plan. It

8:13

took more than two years

8:15

but Andrew Boswell finally got

8:17

his day in court and

8:19

by then it wasn't just

8:21

the A47 on the line.

8:24

If he was successful in

8:26

arguing that cumulative carbon emissions

8:28

should be taken into account

8:30

it would put on hold

8:32

and at risk Every single

8:34

major road project in the

8:36

UK, he lost. So after

8:38

all that effort and detailed

8:40

work, when the judge at

8:42

the Court of the Appeal

8:45

said that your submission had

8:47

an air of complete unreality,

8:49

how did that feel? You

8:51

know, it was one judge

8:53

who fought that and, you

8:55

know, actually during the appeal

8:57

hearing, it was clear that...

8:59

Well, I would say he

9:01

didn't have a very good

9:04

grasp of climate change, but,

9:06

you know, it was clever

9:08

he wasn't on side and

9:10

clearly sort of went for

9:12

the case in that way.

9:14

But I think to repeat

9:16

that in the media endlessly,

9:18

I mean, you know, it's

9:20

one view and there's many,

9:22

many other views on this.

9:25

That line, an air of

9:27

complete unreality. It was highlighted

9:29

by Kiastama in his article.

9:31

The Prime Minister appears to

9:33

be going into battle against

9:35

the NIMBs, and in particular

9:37

against legal challenges like Andrew

9:39

Boswell's. And not because they

9:41

work, but because they don't.

9:44

Most of these legal challenges

9:46

don't stop projects going ahead.

9:48

In fact, there's never been

9:50

a successful legal outcome for

9:52

opponents of major road projects.

9:54

But they add delays. and

9:56

the ad costs, which can

9:58

be considerable. National Highways

10:01

has calculated that the increasing costs

10:03

caused by legal challenges amounts to

10:05

between 66 and 121 million pounds

10:08

per project. And the government says

10:10

the courts have spent more than

10:12

10,000 working days on such litigation.

10:15

Those costs are borne by us,

10:17

the taxpayer, and the delays mean

10:20

we have to put up with

10:22

congestion or crappy infrastructure for longer.

10:24

The problem for any government... is

10:27

it's not just roads. Andrew Boswell

10:29

is part of a small but

10:32

significant group of people who've realised

10:34

that climate litigation is an effective

10:36

way to challenge major infrastructure projects.

10:39

Even if a project is meant

10:41

to be part of the green

10:43

transition, something that's meant to help

10:46

us decarbonise or make the switch

10:48

to using clean energy sources like

10:51

wind and solar. be demanding more

10:53

electricity because we're coming up with

10:55

all these new uses for electricity

10:58

whether it's driving or heating our

11:00

homes and yet we've not built

11:02

a new nuclear power station in

11:05

almost three decades now. Sam Dimitriou

11:07

is head of Britain remade a

11:10

pro-growth think tank. We're not built

11:12

of reservoir in three decades and

11:14

this is really really a big

11:17

problem. In the last 25 years

11:19

since the millennium the French have

11:21

built more miles of motorway. in

11:24

the entire UK motorway network. That's

11:26

dramatic. And you compare that to

11:29

some of the disputes that we

11:31

have in Britain, you know. It's

11:33

been, I think since about 2008,

11:36

we've been discussing the lower Thames

11:38

crossing seriously. I mean, people have

11:40

called for it way before then.

11:43

But actually, we still haven't got

11:45

a shovel in the ground. We

11:48

still haven't even got a planning

11:50

application approved yet. And that's a

11:52

3.4 mile tunnel with a few

11:55

extra miles of road on either

11:57

end. This is crazy. Since I

11:59

spoke to Sam, the lower Thames

12:02

Crossing has finally been given the

12:04

green light from the government. It's

12:07

designed to relieve congestion at Dartford

12:09

and to speed up journeys. The

12:11

new crossing will be the UK's

12:14

longest road tunnel and will connect

12:16

Tilbury in Essex to Gravesending Kent.

12:19

But just to get this far

12:21

has already cost £1.2 billion. That's

12:23

more than double what Norway spent,

12:26

actually building the world's longest road

12:28

tunnel. The planning application, for the

12:30

lower terms crossing, is 10 times

12:33

the length of the entire works

12:35

of Shakespeare. So imagine, just to

12:38

read the entire thing, assuming an

12:40

eight-hour working day, would take a

12:42

planning inspector almost four years. These

12:45

are the problems that Sam Dimitriou

12:47

is fixated on litigation. That, and

12:49

the fact that it didn't used

12:52

to be this way. Britain, we

12:54

split the atom, we built 10

12:57

nuclear power stations in just under

12:59

a decade, we built the national

13:01

grid in about as much time

13:04

as it takes a major pylon

13:06

scheme now to go through planning

13:08

alone. And when you look at

13:11

the problems of long delays, take

13:13

offshore wind for example, going from

13:16

start to finish with an offshore

13:18

wind project from... someone's idea to

13:20

get get finance, getting it through

13:23

planning, getting it built, takes about

13:25

12 years. Actually the construction phase

13:27

is only about two years and

13:30

the real problem is we have

13:32

a really long planning process and

13:35

the planning system that actually generates

13:37

a lot of legal risk. In

13:39

its new planning and infrastructure bill

13:42

the government's proposing that campaigners should

13:44

be allowed just one chance to

13:47

use the courts to stop a

13:49

major infrastructure project. But right now,

13:51

campaigners have three chances to get

13:54

something they don't like judicially reviewed.

13:56

That's what Andrew Boswell did and

13:58

failed at each stage. So if

14:01

you're a developer and you want

14:03

to build something, one of the

14:06

things you really really really don't

14:08

want to happen to you, particularly

14:10

if you're a state entity like

14:13

National Highways, is to lose a

14:15

JR. That could be professionally very

14:17

damaging if you're a civil servant

14:20

working on these projects, but also

14:22

if you're someone who's got real

14:25

cash on the line, it could

14:27

potentially mean the difference between... profit

14:29

and bankruptcy. So it's a really

14:32

really serious issue and people are

14:34

so afraid. And that fear of

14:36

legal challenge bakes caution into the

14:39

system which is why for instance

14:41

we end up with a very

14:44

expensive tunnel designed to keep bats

14:46

away from high-speed trains and why

14:48

the planning applications get longer and

14:51

longer as developers desperately try not

14:53

to fall foul of environmental regulations

14:55

that could see them suede them

14:58

sued. Remember Andrew Boswell and how

15:00

he told me he spent days

15:03

forensically going through the documents, searching

15:05

for errors or anomalies? And the

15:07

crazy thing is, even if a

15:10

legal challenge isn't successful, because actually

15:12

most legal challenges aren't successful, you

15:14

still end up with a situation

15:17

where you essentially lose a year

15:19

fighting these legal challenges through the

15:22

courts, it's become effectively a cost

15:24

of doing business. It's

15:29

probably classic East Anglian countryside. Big

15:31

skies, wide open scenery, lots of

15:33

arable land and some hedgerows of

15:35

streams. About an hour and a

15:37

half south of Andrew Boswell and

15:39

still in East Anglia. There's lots

15:41

of woodland around there and lots

15:43

of beautiful walking countryside. We've headed

15:45

to the Essex countryside outside Colchester,

15:47

between the villages of Marx Tay

15:49

and Aldem. A gentle stream is

15:51

burbling away. There are cropped green

15:53

grasslands and an orchestra of songbirds.

15:55

The bridge goes over the Roman

15:58

River, a tiny stream at that

16:00

part, but flows through Colster, the

16:02

ancient Roman capital, and you're looking

16:04

bare at a nature corridor along

16:06

the whole river. And we find

16:08

the place Rosie Pearson describes to

16:10

us, not far from a railway

16:12

station and a busy road, on

16:14

the edge of agricultural land. People

16:16

love the East England landscape, it's

16:18

what comfortable painted because it was

16:20

beautiful. We've come to Rosie's backyard.

16:22

I'm the founder of the Essex

16:24

Suffolk Norfolk Pylons Action Group. Because

16:26

seasoned campaigner Rosie Pearson is in

16:28

the middle of a fight. It's

16:30

really, really insulting and upsetting to

16:32

hear that something you love is

16:34

going to be destroyed and you're

16:36

a blocker. So three years ago,

16:38

April 2022, I was actually at

16:40

my parents' house one spring day

16:42

and they've received this sort of

16:44

innocuous looking package from National Grid.

16:46

and we were opening it and

16:48

trying to work out what it

16:50

meant. It had lots of pictures

16:53

of countryside and happy children skipping

16:55

through the cornfields and people cycling

16:57

and it was lovely. I think

16:59

it was one pile on the

17:01

picture in the whole leaflet. Then

17:03

within that there was a kind

17:05

of blurry map with a purple

17:07

swathe and we sort of all

17:09

referred to that locally as the

17:11

purple swathe of doom as Rosie

17:13

calls it could be used as

17:15

a location for a 50 metre

17:17

high electricity pylon. If you zoom

17:19

out on the map, Rosie refers

17:21

to, you see a long purple

17:23

line stretching from where we've just

17:25

left Andrew Boswell in Norwich to

17:27

here near Colchester and then all

17:29

the way to Tilbury in Essex.

17:31

180 kilometers of pylons. Their familiar

17:33

form and distinctive lattice design is

17:35

the legacy of a 1927 design

17:37

competition. They were meant to be

17:39

more attractive and delicate. than in

17:41

other nations. But in truth, a

17:43

few people love a pylon. Standing

17:46

in the Nature Corridor by the

17:48

small stream, I'm struck by how

17:50

a 50m high metal structure will

17:52

loom over this flat East Anglian

17:54

landscape. The root would have gone

17:56

directly through some woodland that my

17:58

father planted about 30 years ago

18:00

for nature. So I was obviously,

18:02

we were pretty upset about that,

18:04

but we then thought, right, but

18:06

it's not going to be this

18:08

one patch of woodland, it's going

18:10

to be a 180 km of

18:12

hedgerows, woodland, farmland, nature, the whole

18:14

lot, meadows affected. And so I

18:16

thought, right, I need to set

18:18

up a campaign group and kind

18:20

of went from there. There's

18:23

loads of clean energy being generated

18:25

by the blades of thousands of

18:27

wind turbines slowly rotating off the

18:29

coast of East Anglia. But there's

18:31

little point in harnessing all that

18:33

power if you can't then get

18:36

it to where people live and

18:38

work. That's what the Pylon line

18:40

is for, to connect all those

18:42

wind farms to the national grid.

18:44

Now, the challenge there is we

18:46

need more grid infrastructure. and we

18:49

need new cables and wires, which

18:51

are controversial. I think if I

18:53

had to choose, I'd probably rather

18:55

just stare at an empty field.

18:57

However, they are very necessary for

18:59

our way of life. We need

19:02

them. How do you try and

19:04

win that argument? How do you

19:06

kind of reconcile those views? I

19:08

think in some cases, in a

19:10

democracy, you have to accept that

19:12

some people's interests should be considered,

19:15

but ultimately are outweighed by the

19:17

greater good. But that's

19:19

always going to be a hard

19:21

sell if it's your woodland, your

19:23

field or view. Rosie isn't saying

19:25

no to the infrastructure or the

19:27

green energy, but she argues that

19:29

the National Grid hasn't given due consideration

19:31

to alternatives, like running the cables

19:33

offshore or underground. The National Grid

19:35

says it's explored all other avenues,

19:37

but that the pylons remain the

19:39

only viable option. Every year for

19:41

the last three years has been a

19:44

consultation so we will be presenting

19:46

evidence to show the harms of

19:48

these projects, this project outweigh the

19:50

benefits and talking about all the

19:52

alternatives that have been ignored. The

19:54

UN Secretary of State at the time

19:56

is very likely to approve it

19:58

because they can disregard what the

20:00

inspector says. When that happens there's

20:02

a playbook to follow. The same

20:04

playbook Andrew Boswell followed, to challenge

20:06

the pile online in the courts. So

20:08

at that point we look at

20:10

all the decisions and judgments and

20:12

we try and say okay is

20:14

it possible to take that to

20:16

digital review? So you can't actually

20:18

do that until sort of a good,

20:21

probably 18 months, year down the

20:23

line from now, two years at

20:25

the line. So hold on, the

20:27

campaigners are still two years away

20:29

from taking this project to judicial

20:31

review, which would in itself cause a

20:33

further delay. We could be into

20:35

the next decade before this transmission

20:37

line is up and running. I

20:39

can see why Rosie Pearson fears

20:41

the desecration of her local landscape,

20:43

but I can also understand the government's

20:46

frustration. If every pylon transferring power

20:48

to the grid from wind turbines

20:50

or solar farms... is judicially reviewed

20:52

then it's hard to see how

20:54

we can hit our target of decarbonizing

20:56

the energy supply by 2030. You

20:58

know I've debated the pylons issue

21:00

with people who are affected and

21:02

they will usually say well actually

21:04

if you built it offshore it

21:06

would be cheaper they will say that

21:08

the national grid itself says it's

21:10

cheaper if you actually dig into

21:12

these numbers you'll find the story

21:14

is a lot more complicated and

21:16

in fact it is more expensive

21:18

to dig up loads of ground bury

21:21

a cable underneath and then fill

21:23

that ground in but it's people

21:25

are very good at convincing themselves

21:27

that the national interest is their

21:29

own interest so i do think

21:31

you actually have to reach out to

21:33

the other people the businesses who

21:35

can't get a grid connection people

21:37

who might want to work for

21:39

those businesses and the people paying

21:41

very very high energy bills and

21:43

say look We have a choice. We

21:46

can either pay high energy bills

21:48

because we don't have the power,

21:50

we can pay slightly higher energy

21:52

bills because we don't have the,

21:54

because what we have the cables

21:56

to bring the power to you, we

21:58

don't, we've decided to build it

22:00

in a... very very expensive way

22:02

to make sure that some people

22:04

who live near the pylons don't

22:06

have their views affected or we're

22:08

building the things we've built for almost

22:10

100 years now building pylons in

22:12

the countryside and you can have

22:14

lower bills. I think you know

22:16

the country as a whole are

22:18

likely to opt for the third

22:20

option. Let's

22:31

continue to follow the path of

22:33

that proposed Pydon line even further

22:35

south, leaving Constable Country now and

22:38

imagining the metal towers marching southwards

22:40

across the countryside of South Essex

22:42

all the way to Tilbury and

22:44

the Thames Estuary. A sprawling area

22:47

covering 20 different local authorities and

22:49

with the wide mouth of the

22:51

Thames cutting through it. If you

22:54

imagine for a moment that you're

22:56

standing on top of some pools

22:58

and you're looking east, and you're

23:00

looking east. and you go out

23:03

to South End on the Essex

23:05

Coast and up to Ransgate on

23:07

the Kent Coast. And that landscape,

23:10

which is, you know, has inspired

23:12

artists from from Canoeto to Dickens

23:14

to Turner, you know, an inspirational

23:16

landscape. In places, it's still that

23:19

landscape described by Dickens and painted

23:21

by Turner, but it's also home

23:23

to ports, airports, wind farms and

23:25

a lot of traffic. It's where

23:28

Kate Willard is tasked with driving

23:30

growth. She's the chair of the

23:32

Thames Estuary Growth Board, as well

23:35

as holding the grand title of

23:37

Envoy to the Thames Estuary. Kate

23:39

is at pains to point out

23:41

that she isn't grand. So I

23:44

trained as an actress and I

23:46

did a lot of work. I

23:48

did a lot of work in

23:51

Central East and Europe. This was

23:53

in the kind of 80s. I

23:55

did a lot of work there

23:57

and randomly, again, I think I

24:00

was smuggled across the border of

24:02

every Central Eastern European country in

24:04

the boot of a Trebant, except

24:06

Albania. I have no qualifications whatsoever

24:09

and basically ran away to join.

24:11

an anarchist theatre collective. She's no

24:13

ordinary technocrat. In fact, she sees

24:16

transforming the Thames estuary as similar

24:18

to directing a piece of theatre,

24:20

where you have to get every

24:22

component right for the production to

24:25

work. I knew that this was

24:27

something that was going to be

24:29

extraordinary, like what a fucking opportunity

24:32

to have a thousand square miles

24:34

and four million people and no

24:36

rulebook. Her job, for which there's

24:38

no rulebook, is to kick-start a

24:41

regional economy. But there's lessons here

24:43

for the rest of the country

24:45

about the link between infrastructure and

24:47

growth. People are dying on the

24:50

estuary as young as anywhere else

24:52

in the UK as a direct

24:54

result of the fact that they're

24:57

poor. So Kate Willard's team dug

24:59

deep into the data to try

25:01

and find out exactly where the

25:03

pockets of poverty were and they

25:06

narrowed it down to certain streets

25:08

and even particular houses. Knocked on

25:10

the door, right? And they started

25:13

knocking on doors. Dave answered the

25:15

door and told us stuff. Fuck

25:17

off. Well done Dave, because he's

25:19

been excluded and probably his parents

25:22

from economic activity. So it's a

25:24

perfectly reasonable response. Luckily, the next

25:26

day Dave rang us, right? which

25:28

was great. So firstly we paid

25:31

Dave for his time, which was

25:33

appropriate, and we then had a

25:35

conversation with Dave about what the

25:38

issues were. And actually it wasn't

25:40

about a shiny new college, it

25:42

wasn't about town's entry generation plan.

25:44

I'm not saying these things aren't

25:47

important, but I'm just saying let's

25:49

listen to Dave for a moment,

25:51

yeah? And the issue was that

25:54

Dave had skills, he's a mechanic.

25:56

And there was a job over

25:58

there that Dave could do, but

26:00

Dave didn't have a car or

26:03

a bike or a thing, and

26:05

there was no bus. So Dave

26:07

couldn't get to that job. For

26:09

six years, Kate's been thinking about

26:12

people like Dave, thinking about how

26:14

she can grow the regional economy

26:16

and bring Dave up with it.

26:19

And she's learned that it's not

26:21

about small... projects or individual grants.

26:23

If you give me a grant,

26:25

a fucking magic fairy dust will

26:28

come down overnight and poverty will

26:30

be eradicated. It's a miracle, it'll

26:32

be eradicated. This magic dust does

26:35

not exist. But about big picture

26:37

thinking, big projects, huge infrastructure investment

26:39

like the lower terms crossing. Genuinely,

26:41

I was like dancing. It was

26:44

dancing in my heart when I

26:46

heard the announcement because it's fantastic

26:48

news for the country. The now

26:50

approved low attempts crossing is a

26:53

project that was first proposed more

26:55

than three decades ago. And for

26:57

yimbies, that's yes in my backyard,

27:00

people like Sam and Kate, it

27:02

sums up everything that's wrong with

27:04

how things get built in this

27:06

country and how long everything takes.

27:09

Here's why. Once opened the new

27:11

crossing is expected to double capacity

27:13

across the Thames to the east

27:16

of London and by doing so

27:18

give a 40 billion pound boost

27:20

to the British economy. So for

27:22

every year it isn't built the

27:25

economy suffers. And the freight lorries,

27:27

trucks and cars will continue to

27:29

snake back from the mouth of

27:31

the Dartford tunnel or crawl over

27:34

Dartford's QE2 bridge, adding time to

27:36

journeys, costing businesses money. The cost

27:38

to the wider economy of Dartford

27:41

congestion is estimated at 200 million

27:43

pounds a year. Now Kate's dancing

27:45

in her heart because work to

27:47

build the new crossing could begin

27:50

as early as next year, unless,

27:52

of course, there's a judicial review.

27:54

Campaigners say they're taking stock after

27:57

what's been a bruising campaign. Some

27:59

of the lower Thames crossing stuff

28:01

got very intense actually and quite

28:03

often I just do one or

28:06

two submissions but the lower Thames

28:08

crossing got to about five versions

28:10

in the end and sort of

28:12

every couple of weeks they were

28:15

making changes to sort of get

28:17

around some of the arguments we

28:19

were putting up and so on

28:22

it got into yeah it got

28:24

got very intense. But they continue

28:26

to argue that there are better,

28:28

cheaper and greener alternatives, which gets

28:31

short shrift from Kate. Let's have

28:33

a reality check. You know, you

28:35

don't like it, but genuinely, if

28:38

the tram was the answer or

28:40

if a fucking submarine was the

28:42

answer, we probably would have got

28:44

there. Because it's not like we

28:47

haven't thought about that. And we

28:49

need to hear those voices at

28:51

every step of the way. And

28:53

people will continue, probably, to talk

28:56

about Lertem's Crossing and say it's

28:58

horrible. And it should be stuck

29:00

like us. Crack on love. But

29:03

you know what, I've got a

29:05

job to do. We've got to

29:07

get David job as well and

29:09

we've got a few economic challenges

29:12

in the country to solve. So

29:14

we're just going to fucking crack

29:16

on here. There's something that ties

29:19

together all of these big projects

29:21

and which often stops us from

29:23

cracking on. Something which explains why

29:25

judicial reviews of big building projects

29:28

have become more common. It's called

29:30

the Ahus Convention, an international agreement

29:32

we signed up to back in

29:34

1998. The principle is that... you

29:37

have an access to environmental justice

29:39

and being forced to pay costs

29:41

could deter you from bringing a

29:44

case in the first place. So

29:46

under the convention a campaigner's costs

29:48

are capped at £5,000 for an

29:50

individual and 10,000 for an organisation.

29:53

You need members of the public

29:55

to... hold the system to account.

29:57

It's a check and balance on

30:00

the system. The reason I went

30:02

into climate litigation was for this

30:04

reason that the, I saw, but

30:06

the planning system is not securing

30:09

our carbon budgets and targets. I

30:11

think climate litigation is a very

30:13

powerful tool than all that actually.

30:15

It is worldwide. There's a vast

30:18

amount of climate litigation now going

30:20

on. Many many cases and you

30:22

know the cases don't always win

30:25

but they highlight issues which then

30:27

bring other things to light and

30:29

make people think more. Andrew Boswell

30:31

says campaigners often bring up issues

30:34

that developers haven't thought about or

30:36

suggest better solutions, but that cost

30:38

cap of just 5,000 pounds means

30:41

that even if there's little chance

30:43

of success a legal challenge is

30:45

often worth a go, particularly if

30:47

it holds up a project you

30:50

don't like. Do you ever worry

30:52

about the sheer? cost that's involved

30:54

that for the taxpayer all fighting

30:56

these battles? The cost, if we

30:59

do not tackle climate change, I

31:01

mean both globally and nationally, is

31:03

absolutely huge. You know, it runs

31:06

into trillions and trillions by mid-century.

31:08

So I was taking a case

31:10

which was iconic in a way,

31:12

of questioning the whole way these

31:15

decisions in government are happening. And

31:17

as it happened, I lost. But

31:19

it doesn't mean to say that

31:22

that problem still doesn't exist. Bringing

31:24

a lawsuit is very cheap, or

31:26

much cheaper than it ought to

31:28

be. And it's also the case

31:31

that's become much, much, much easier

31:33

to fund those lawsuits. We have

31:35

things like crowd justice where you

31:37

can chip into a lawsuit. Sam

31:40

Dimitriu and his fellow campaigners on

31:42

the other side of the fence

31:44

say it's made challenging the government

31:47

too easy. We also have... particularly

31:49

if you look at something like

31:51

the Norwich to Tilbury line, lots

31:53

of very wealthy people affected. And

31:56

provided they can make one of

31:58

their arguments on environmental grounds, they

32:00

can use their large amounts of

32:03

wealth to bring a legal case

32:05

and they can also be subsidized

32:07

for it if they're unsuccessful. Now

32:09

I don't think that's right. Since

32:12

2020, over half of all major

32:14

infrastructure projects have been challenged in

32:16

the courts. That's hundreds of schemes

32:18

tied up in legal challenges. And

32:21

those that aren't? The risk of

32:23

possible legal action on climate grounds

32:25

is always there, hanging over them.

32:28

So the civil servants, they try

32:30

to anticipate every eventuality, gold, plate,

32:32

every requirement, just to ensure that

32:34

when permission is granted, the project

32:37

won't be challenged in the courts,

32:39

forcing them back to the drawing

32:41

board to start the whole process

32:44

again. There's a project in the

32:46

northeast of England facing just this

32:48

sort of legal risk. and it's

32:50

firmly in Andrew Boswell's site. I've

32:53

been aware of carbon capture and

32:55

storage, sort of 25 years, and

32:57

aware that it's potentially a full

32:59

solution for many things. Net Zero

33:02

T-side describes itself as the world's

33:04

first decarbonised industrial cluster. At the

33:06

huge site on the south side

33:09

of the river T's near Redcar,

33:11

a new gas-fired power plant is

33:13

planned. It'll produce electricity and the

33:15

carbon dioxide generated during that process

33:18

will be captured, compressed and then

33:20

piped far out into the North

33:22

Sea to be stored in rocks

33:25

deep beneath the seabed. It first

33:27

of all is adding new fossil

33:29

fuel infrastructure, new gas-fired power station

33:31

into the energy mix. So there's

33:34

the rub. This carbon capture technology

33:36

is being used in the first

33:38

instance to store the carbon from

33:40

burning fossil fuels. The idea is

33:43

that once up and running it

33:45

can also be used to capture

33:47

the carbon emissions from dirty industrial

33:50

processes like cement production, but that's

33:52

further down the line. I'm skeptical

33:54

actually whether the thing ever proves

33:56

itself to be carbon neutral. Carbon

33:59

capture will play a really important

34:01

role. The government, unsurprisingly, disagrees. This

34:03

is Michael Shanks. I'm the Minister

34:06

for Energy. A climate change committee

34:08

has repeatedly said that it's an

34:10

absolutely critical part of... pathway to

34:12

decarbonizing the wider economy. We obviously

34:15

want to electrify as much as

34:17

possible but there will be some

34:19

industries for which electrification either in

34:21

the short term or just you

34:24

know forever will not be possible

34:26

and so if we can capture

34:28

those carbon emissions that plays a

34:31

really important role it's also a

34:33

massive economic opportunity. The North Sea

34:35

has the capability of storing fast

34:37

amounts of carbon. And if we

34:40

get this right with the investments

34:42

we've already announced, with other decisions

34:44

still to come, it will create

34:47

thousands of jobs right across the

34:49

country as well. Michael Shanks and

34:51

the government says we can't tackle

34:53

climate change without using carbon capture

34:56

and storage or CCS but it

34:58

is controversial. The government's own public

35:00

accounts committee says CCS is an

35:03

unproven first-of-a-kind technology and that it

35:05

is unconvinced the project is the

35:07

silver bullet government is betting on.

35:09

The committee members called it risky.

35:12

In the meantime Andrew Boswell is

35:14

challenging it on the basis of

35:16

what's known as upstream emissions. What

35:18

I mean by upstream emissions is

35:21

the emissions in supplying the gas.

35:23

So let's take the example of

35:25

fracking gas in Texas. First of

35:28

all the gas is fracked in

35:30

Texas and you will get methane

35:32

released from the fracking well. has

35:34

to be transported to a port

35:37

and then compressed into liquid natural

35:39

gas and there's a lot of

35:41

energy goes into that, further leakage

35:44

from pipes and so on and

35:46

methane, a CO2 emissions associated with

35:48

compressing the gas. Then it's travelling

35:50

in an LNG ship across the

35:53

Atlantic and those are powered by

35:55

various means but some are on

35:57

diesel, so you might have diesel

35:59

emissions over the Atlantic. and then

36:02

when it gets to poor in

36:04

the UK it will be re-expanded

36:06

into gas and more emissions there

36:09

and then gas in the pipelines

36:11

to the net zero T-side power

36:13

station. Now all those emissions vary

36:15

if it's from the North Sea

36:18

they're sort of not too much

36:20

but if it's from Texas they're

36:22

absolutely huge. Essentially even before the

36:25

power station is generating power it's

36:27

generating greenhouse gases and in particular

36:29

generating methane. Methane is a very

36:31

powerful greenhouse gas that means that

36:34

it's something which it creates global

36:36

heating on a 20-year times scale,

36:38

84 times as much as carbon

36:40

dioxide. So I pointed this out.

36:43

And the applicants who are BP

36:45

and Ekronor came back and said,

36:47

okay, well, we'll do that. So

36:50

his intervention made an impact. They

36:52

listened. So they included the upstream

36:54

emissions. I mean, the reason they

36:56

did that, I think, they knew

36:59

the Sarah Finch case was coming.

37:01

Last year, using the same litigation

37:03

tactics Andrew Boswell uses and the

37:06

same financial protection afforded by the

37:08

Arhus Convention, another campaigner called Sarah

37:10

Finch, successfully stopped an oil production

37:12

project in Surrey by arguing that

37:15

they hadn't taken account of downstream

37:17

carbon emissions. It went all the

37:19

way to the Supreme Court, which

37:21

ruled in a landmark judgment that

37:24

the full environmental impact of fossil

37:26

fuel projects needs to be understood

37:28

and included. As a result, the

37:31

fossil fuel companies are skittish. for

37:33

these things to take year upon

37:35

year upon year to complete and

37:37

the lack of predictability in the

37:40

system puts off investment and we

37:42

know for a fact that there's

37:44

investors who are looking at the

37:47

UK afresh because actually not that

37:49

we're saying the project will absolutely

37:51

go ahead that's not the point

37:53

of these reforms some will still

37:56

fail but that there's a predictable

37:58

efficient process and that we're not

38:00

up for years on end with

38:02

things like judicial reviews where people

38:05

can come back again and again

38:07

and again to ask the same

38:09

question and get the same answer

38:12

but hold up the project in

38:14

the interim. So that's what these

38:16

reforms are all about. Since we

38:18

met Andrew Boswell and Norwich he's

38:21

launched a second lawsuit against the

38:23

carbon capture project on T-side. This

38:25

time over the decision to award

38:28

a 10 billion pound subsidy to

38:30

the project. He's still using climate

38:32

litigation and it's still against a

38:34

project that the government says we

38:37

need to reach our net-zero goals

38:39

by 2030. But somehow this feels

38:41

less like nimbism. If anything it

38:43

seems like this is the system

38:46

working how it should. What the

38:48

Arhus Convention was designed for because

38:50

there are lots of concerns about

38:53

carbon capture. And if you're worried,

38:55

as Andrew Boswell is, then how

38:57

else do you challenge it than

38:59

via the courts? But here's the

39:02

thing. The same system Andrew Boswell

39:04

uses to stop a potentially damaging

39:06

carbon catcher scheme in T-side can

39:09

also be used by Rosie Pearson

39:11

to block pylons connecting up renewable

39:13

energy or by other campaigners to

39:15

stop wind farms being built in

39:18

the first place. The routes that

39:20

you're able to use to challenge

39:22

the A-47 projects or the T-side

39:24

carbon catcher and storage project, they're

39:27

the same... They're the same things

39:29

that can be used by other

39:31

groups to challenge wind farms or

39:34

other projects that perhaps you're more

39:36

in favour. So have we got

39:38

to a problem where a place

39:40

where it's become too complicated, too

39:43

bloated? That is a really interesting

39:45

question. I think the issue particularly

39:47

for me is a really interesting

39:50

question. I think the issue particularly

39:52

for me We

39:55

need to get, we need to

39:57

make sure we're protecting nature and

40:00

climate. properly and that comes from

40:02

policy of the government. And if

40:04

the government policy is right, then

40:07

the planning system should follow right,

40:09

but the problem is at the

40:11

moment it's not on climate. And

40:14

you're right that there's all these

40:16

other other things which may want

40:18

to stop good things happening like

40:21

the pylons and so on. But

40:23

again I actually think it's right

40:25

that those campaigns have the right

40:28

to put a check and balance

40:30

on government and you know maybe

40:33

they force it to go out

40:35

to a review where they look

40:37

at other options and so on

40:40

to going underground or doing more

40:42

underground and all the rest of

40:44

it because again you know the

40:47

campaign there has been faced with

40:49

the position from this is the

40:51

only way of doing it. And

40:54

they're basically saying, well, there may

40:56

be other ways of doing it.

40:58

But if the other ways of

41:01

doing it are more expensive or

41:03

slow down the green transition, then

41:05

won't we all pay in the

41:08

long run? Because there's an urgency

41:10

here. So we've set this really

41:13

ambitious, but... absolutely achievable target of

41:15

decarbonizing the power system by 2030

41:17

and we have a creaking infrastructure

41:20

in a lot of places so

41:22

we need to upgrade it, we

41:24

need to build new infrastructure, the

41:27

planning system is just far too

41:29

slow and I think the thing

41:31

I would say is that all

41:34

the reforms that we've set out

41:36

to do is around making the

41:38

process more efficient. community should still

41:41

have a voice that's really important.

41:43

That's the point of having a

41:45

planning system is that it's not

41:48

just government dictating where things go,

41:50

there's a process, but it doesn't

41:53

serve communities or the government or

41:55

developers well, but the prize is

41:57

that if we do that we

42:00

have a clean power system. It's

42:02

a big prize. A system that

42:04

can generate and distribute clean power.

42:07

all over the country will mean

42:09

lower energy bills and cheaper energy

42:11

bills along with more housing and

42:14

better transport are the magic ingredients

42:16

if we want economic growth. It's

42:18

why Kierstama says his government's taking

42:21

on the planning system and trying

42:23

to limit what they see as

42:26

nimby litigation, why he's calling out

42:28

Andrew Boswell. But what I'm struck

42:30

by is that it may not

42:33

be enough. There'll always be some

42:35

opposition to a big building project,

42:37

and although politicians talk endlessly about

42:40

growth, it feels like that link

42:42

between the nuts and bolts of

42:44

our lives, the spider webs of

42:47

energy transmission lines, the reservoirs, sewers

42:49

or roads, and our future prosperity,

42:51

it still hasn't been made. So

42:54

when national and local interests collide,

42:56

it's not the national interest that

42:58

comes out on top. And it's

43:01

not just our transition to a

43:03

green future that's at risk. If

43:06

our failure to build means politicians

43:08

can't keep their promises about better

43:10

transport links or lower energy bills,

43:13

then over time people will slowly

43:15

lose faith in the ability of

43:17

elected representatives to bring about change.

43:20

And that's bad for democracy. So

43:22

this isn't just a story about

43:24

how we build infrastructure. It's a

43:27

story about the kind of country

43:29

we want the UK to be.

43:31

While reporting this story I came

43:34

across a think tank publication called

43:36

Nimbism, The Disease and the Cure.

43:38

It was published all the way

43:41

back in 1990 and yet its

43:43

conclusion felt familiar. The author writes...

43:46

We have to find a way

43:48

to make new developments successful and

43:50

to show people how the games

43:53

outweigh the losses. 35 years on

43:55

and making that argument is

43:57

still a work

44:00

in progress. And

44:02

yet yet stakes are stakes

44:04

are much, much higher. to

44:07

this episode of The Slow Newscast. This episode was

44:09

Thanks for listening to

44:11

this episode of The me, Katie

44:14

This episode was reported

44:16

and produced by me, design

44:18

and by Dominic The sound

44:20

design was by artwork by artwork

44:22

by Lola Williams. The

44:24

editor was Jasper Corbett. Tortise.