There are few policies in the UK which bring about as much controversy as the Green Belt. These vast areas surround many major UK cities, and are hailed by their supporters as bastions of environmentalism. Yet to many the benefits of the Green Belt are questionable, and the externalities of reduced housing and increased congestion raise doubts on the efficacy of the policy.
In the case of the Green Belt, the opportunity cost of a supposedly environmentally sound policy is vast swathes of land which could be used to solve Britain’s housing crisis. In fact research from the ASI estimates that for London ‘one million homes could be built on just 3.7% of Green Belt land,’ meaning that if the Green Belt has (if any) positive environmental impact, it must outweigh the distortion that it creates on the UK housing market to be even remotely justifiable.
Yet whilst some areas of natural beauty may exist, 37% of land around London is used for high intensity farming, carrying with it detrimental environmental impact, not to mention the vast swathes of land dedicated to private golf courses. This is far from the enchanted forest depicted by many Green Belt supporters.
Further, with employment becoming increasingly centred around London, more and more people are forced to commute further out from London because of the Green Belt. This consumes immense quantities of oil, and creates clouds of emissions, further diminishing the limited environmental benefits of the Belt.
If the environmental benefit is doubtful, why does the Greenbelt continue to persist?
For a politician campaigning on credentials of environmental activism, showing support for a physical green space is far more likely to persuade the average voter than any talk of arcane emission standards or other more effective policies. The narrative of ‘green good, building bad’ put forward by activist groups clouds the debate into one of emotion, rather than of facts. This isn’t even mentioning the upward pressure on constituents’ houses prices creating an incentive for politicians to appeal to local supporters, rather than the national, or even global interest.
Thus we must seek to change the narrative to one which favours logic and tangible improvement to society, rather than one that rubs politicians ego’s and improves electoral chances in order to save both our housing market and environment together.
Tim Edwards is the winner of the 18-21 category in our Young Writer on Liberty 2020 competition.