A NEW high-speed rail link between Scotland and England could help wreck the climate, not save it, as it would increase pollution by encouraging more people to travel.

A major report to be unveiled tomorrow challenges the growing green assumption that a regular 186mph train service from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London would benefit the environment.

Its high cost – up to £32 billion – could only be justified by a huge increase in the number of journeys made, the report says. And this would increase emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.

The report was written by David Spaven, chairman of Transform Scotland, a campaign group involving 64 environmental and public transport organisations. He said: “Lobbyists for a high-speed railway to Scotland claim environmental benefits which give the concept a ‘green glow’. But an expensive new dedicated route could create more environmental problems than it solves. The most sustainable solution looks like upgrading the existing network to get faster journeys which will coax people on to the train.”

Spaven’s report concludes that much of the recent research on high-speed rail links fails to properly investigate environmental impacts. The few studies which have examined the issue concluded that high-speed rail could have serious environmental drawbacks.

Research by Atkins consultants suggested ticket prices would have to be so high they would not attract enough passengers away from air services to reduce the number of flights.

Professor Roger Kemp from Lancaster University, who was the project director for Eurostar trains from London to the continent, has highlighted the huge amount of energy needed to enable trains to reach high speeds.

Spaven is not opposed to high-speed rail in principle. He accepts that for some journeys in Europe it may replace air travel and cut climate-wrecking pollution. But he is not convinced it is the right solution for travel between Scotland and England. He is also worried an “obsession with speed” could worsen the problems railways are meant to be solving. It came down to a choice between providing ever-more mobility, he said, “or recognising the limits to growth and the need to manage transport demand down to a sustainable level”.

The cost of a high-speed link between Scotland and England has been estimated at between £11bn and £14bn by Network Rail, which runs Britain’s railways. A faster “Maglev” train that uses magnetic levitation could cost up to £32bn.

More benefits would come from much smaller investments in upgrading the main east and west coast lines, Spaven argued, which could cut journey times to London to below four hours. Other lines in Scotland should be electrified, aviation should be taxed and airport expansion prevented.

Spaven, who has chaired Transform Scotland since its formation in 1997, is stepping down this month. The group will now reassess its policy on high-speed rail.

Pressure for a new high-speed rail link between the north and south of England has increased with the formation earlier this year of the lobby group Greengauge21. Headed by Jim Steer, a leading transport specialist, it argued that a link would “extend the range of the London effect”.

“A larger part of the country can exploit the opportunities of the world city economy,” the group’s manifesto stated. “This means businesses in the Midlands and north can participate in the economic advantages enjoyed by the south.”

Network Rail’s deputy chief executive, Iain Croucher, said: “A [high-speed] link is one way of releasing capacity on existing routes in a way that has a good business case.” But he added that other steps could be taken. “Much can be delivered out of tweaks, timetabling and small-scale investment in enhancements, but you can’t do this forever.”