I first thought that HS2 was a reference to hydrogen sulphide (H2S), the rotten egg smell, but in fact it is the proposal for a second high-speed rail line in the UK, though it seems to have caused as much of a stink as the chemical.

Apart from the Channel Tunnel rail link, it would be the first high-speed link in the UK – unlike France, Germany and Spain, where trains already reach speeds of 250mph, on 5,000 miles of track.

In comparison, the HS2 link from London to Birmingham, by 2026, and then up to Manchester and Leeds some eight years later, is only 140 miles initially, and will cost well over £30 billion.

At first glance, it should be an attractive proposition as it would provide more public transport, for those who could afford it, and mean less demand for new roads or for extra runways at airports.

Those in favour – the main political parties and the business community – stress that it will reduce travel times and increase the capacity. They point out that since 2001 the railways have seen a 50 per cent increase in passengers and almost as much of an increase in the freight carried.

While much of the local action group opposition is of the ‘nimby’ (not-in-my-backyard) variety, worried about the damage to the landscape, the view, the noise and the loss of houses – about 400 will be demolished – 21 local councils are also opposed.

So am I, as the HS2 fails the only important test – it does nothing to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by transport, and studies show that it will even increase the emissions as trains running at 220mph use 90 per cent more energy than at 120mph.

Moreover, there will be a significant increase in the CO2 caused by the construction, as 79 miles of the first stage will be in cuttings and tunnels, apart from all the new stations that will be needed.

It’s doubtful whether a slightly faster rail journey, chopping off 23 minutes on the journey from Birmingham to London, 28 from Manchester, and just 18 from Liverpool, is worth all the damage and CO2, particularly as the route does not link up with Heathrow or with the Channel Tunnel route. It will be decades before it even approaches Scotland.

There is an equally-strong case for improving the current track, adding more carriages, lengthening stations and upgrading the control systems to allow a greater frequency of use.

This high-speed rail proposal does nothing to reduce the cost of train travel, by far the highest in Europe, nor does it meet local needs, such as joining up Bradford’s two railway stations.