Thanks to @ciarancuffe.bsky.social for chatting with me for the article.

Incredibly biased headline and angle, running with the notion that any challenge to motonormativity destroys commerce. It implies that people that cycle or walk instead of driving are an economic drain.

made daily with FOOD

I wrote a long piece examining fare-free public transport. Investing in frequency and quality, with targeted subsidies for those who need them, seems to be a better option.

foresightmedia.com/story/sBLL8k...

For more, listen to the piece here: foresightmedia.com/story/sB8DUT...

In a nutshell, experts say that cutting green regulations on housing now is a short-term move that will lower upfront costs while pushing up living costs, and which will likely mean that buildings need to be renovated in the future to meet climate/comfort standards.

The housing affordability crisis stems from more than just a lack of supply - inequality, financial speculation, and inefficient use of existing housing stock also play a part. Indeed, addressing the housing crisis will partly involve reexamining how we use the buildings that we already have.

However, experts warn this ignores long-term costs: higher energy bills, poor living conditions, and climate harm.

A lower purchase price would likely be offset by the cost of living in the home, which would require considerably more fuel to heat/cool, often with additional climate harm.

Politicians such as Donald Trump and Keir Starmer have argued that slashing environmental regulations will ease the housing crisis by speeding up construction. Doing so, they say, would "unleash" the construction sector to build more homes, boosting supply and dropping prices.

No mention of who these organisations are or who’s funding them? Just taking them at face value?