BachelorBoy

Yes. I was not being serious. But there are ends-justify-means activists out there who think that way.

Pour épater la bourgeoisie. Gits and shiggles. Etc. And also as a serious warning about how things could go if green fascism becomes a thing.

I need you to give me lots of personal information to answer that.

I don't know you. How am I supposed to calculate without you providing me with information?

Yoinks. I've been rumbled. And your point about fascist dictators is perfect.

BTW: I am not being serious about permits to live in the countryside. But I have met green fascists (they of course don't think of themselves as that) out there who would love to implement such a scheme. Let that be a warning. The culture wars have only just begun. Ooer.

Everyone who wants to live in the countryside should be made to apply for a permit, The criterion for granting them needs proper financial and environmental analysis.

Back to the original subject. I think that exhibition organisers need to be prepared for questions about sustainability, and think of ways to justify their choices. And show that they're thinking about such things and trying to do something. (It could be worse ... imagine trying to justify burning coal and pumping all sorts of muck into the air on a preserved railway) The questions are going to get tougher and tougher as climate change worsens. The biggest weakness in PR terms is to be a railway enthusiast who doesn't believe in using public transport.

I don't. What is wrong with admitting that, and saying proper analysis needs to be done? Don't you wish more politicians would say that and mean it?

Fifteen minute cities exist. I live in one. But I doubt British people in suburbs would want to give up their gardens in order to live in high-rise apartment blocks. Even if the front garden has actually been concreted over to park a car.

They'd have to argue their case too. How far away is the town or city? Two miles? Probably not an issue? Forty miles? Well that would be more difficult to justify, wouldn't it? Especially if there's someone who wants to move from the city and work from home, and is prepared to invest money in harvesting rainwater for grey use, planting reed beds to purify their sewage, install solar panels, etc

That needs proper analysis of the costs and benefits. I'm not going to be a politician and make up some number off the top of my head. Indeed, proper analysis might show that the idea is unworkable. So be it.

The National LIbrary of Scotland has a website somewhere that allows to cross-fade between maps from different eras. Sorry, but I can't find the link quickly. It's fascinating seeing what bits of Heathrow lie on top of what. There are a few, but not many, ghostly traces of previous roads and streams in the layout of the modern airport.

Most things can be broken down into being a small percentage of a bigger problem. Action is needed on every front.

The comforting moral fallacy of "two wrongs make a right" Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if it's difficult, especially in times of great danger when inaction makes things worse for everyone. Was the UK " virtue signalling" when it told Germany not to invade Poland?

Everybody who wants to live in the countryside should be made to apply for a permit to do so. The people who live and work there, especially for vital industries such as food production, would be granted them without problem The chartered surveyors in barn conversions would have to justify in environmental terms whey they need to live in the countryside. If they can't, then either they do not get the permit, or they should be taxed extra in proportion to the excess detrimental environmental effects they produce.

When other countries are failing to do the right thing, then championing such issues are precisely what the UK should do.

Far from it. People how live and work locally would be a priority. Second homes would be clearly unsustainable! As for what size, etc: that needs to be worked out.

And in my experience, people will drive for miles in the country to drop off stuff for recycling ....

Sustainable is a slippery term. How about "appropriate environmental impact" I have no problem with people who work in rural areas on things like food production living rurally. That's better than them living in cities and commuting out. But people who live in the country and drive 50 miles to work in the city in SUVs? Perhaps people who want to live in the country should be made to apply for permits

Thinks like water, electricity, mail are much less efficiently delivered in areas where fewer people live Further, trips to supermarkets are lengthier. School children have to travel a long way to school. Traditional country lifestyles might be more sustainable. But very few people are agricultural labourers or plough fields by horse.

Does that mean taxpayers are subsidising people to live unsustainable lifestyles out in the sticks?

Singapore is a crowded island. It has a population density that makes public transport worthwhile economically. Around four-fifths of Singaporeans live in high-rise public housing. I think we have to accept that in the countryside, cars will always be more attractive than public transport. Therefore, people in the country should pay extra property taxes to compensate society for the extra resources they consume by living remotely.

It's not really a visitors centre any more.