After letting in so many immigrants, the UK government has realised it needs to find homes for them- as well as for those indigenous Brits already living here.
Thus, the powers that be have determined that some 3 million homes are needed by 2020 or so.
It has also developed the concept of an 'eco-town'- supposedly a new town built on 'brownfield' sites of little scenic or agricultural value. The towns would also aim to be carbon neutral
Well, the reality is quite different.
Just down the road, the local council is against plans for such a town, noting the project is slated for green belt- protected open countryside.
Another proposal to the south is encountering opposition, as is 'secrecy' over a planned ecotown in Surrey.
Now, I'm no expert, but I thought building around existing townships might be better, say on undeveloped 'infill sites' where there is already building nearby, not in the open countryside.
Of course, eco-towns are a New Liarbour proposal, so we can reasoably be skeptical over the government spin.
But what can be green about concreting over what is left of the British countryside, mainly to house the immigrants you let in. Immigrants whose carbon footprint will probably be greater than in their countries of origin.
I do not doubt that these homes are needed if younger and poorer people are ever to be able to afford their own homes, but calling them eco-towns seems as much greenwash as any other 'eco' product.
I wonder if we will see them in New Zealand? And if so, where?
So, how is the click bait mentality working out for media?
51 minutes ago