Government Inconsistency

The following UK scenario is given as a case in point, where government policy is riddled with contradiction. By no means is this isolated; similar situations seem prevalent in as many locations as there are government initiatives to supposedly address the needs of the population.

While the Department of Energy (DoE) has been active in incorporating environmental criteria into its policy process, the same cannot be said of other government departments. This is particularly true in relation to the Department of Transport (DOT) and DTI, and can place local authorities in and invidious position. For example, in the case of transport, all the evidence published by the DoE points to the need to cut car reliance while boosting walking, cycling and public transport, in order to reduce congestion, danger and greenhouse gas emissions. Planning and transport authorities are therefore charged with devising plans that reduce the need to travel, and promote alternatives to the car. Many authorities have duly begun to do this, instituting traffic calming schemes, tighter parking controls, public transport priority measures, and so on. But they are greatly hampered by having little influence over privatized bus and rail companies, and no control at all over the biggest transport investor of all, the Department of Transport. So the local authorities can find themselves in a no win situation: unable to implement a sustainable transport strategy because of Government policy decisions, yet criticized by the Government and local people for failing to combat transport pollution and congestion. The Bristol area provides a relevant example. Avon County is trying to do all the right sustainable things, but the DoT is investing vastly more than Avon can afford in constructing the second Severn (road) crossing and widening the M4 and M5 motorways. These DoT investments will affect travel patterns and behavior fundamentally and serve to undermine the Avon strategy.

In the field of energy the situation is little better. While on the one hand the DoE (and the Energy Efficiency Office which it contains) plans progressive and irreversible improvements in the building regulations so as to reduce heat loss from buildings, on the other hand the private oil, gas and electricity companies compete to sell more energy. There is no overall government body capable of ensuring the rational use of scarce fossil fuel resources, or able to co-ordinate a strategy of conservation, job creation and pollution reduction as advocated by environmental groups. The inevitable result is continuing fuel poverty (people unable to heat their homes), high levels of pollution and wasted resources.

The signs are not all bad, however. The momentum towards sustainable development has recently been given an extra fillip by the trenchant conclusions of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1994). The Commission recommends the setting of tougher pollution targets, national policy changes and the restructuring of the DoT to reflect altered priorities.

Articles under this Sustainable Development topic have been lifted from Part IV- Planning for Sustainability by Hugh Barton, from the book: Investigating Town Planning- Creating Perspectives and Agendas, edited by Clara Greed.