I'M ALL IN FAVOUR OF RENEWABLES ...

... just as long as no wind turbine is more than three feet high. Oh, and they're all put somewhere else. India, preferably.

That, in essence, is what Peter Luff MP has decided to campaign about. On Tuesday of next week, he will waste ten minutes of parliament's time with his thoughts on how windfarms shouldn't be built near places where people (especially Tory voters) live.

The '2km - OK' campaign is one of the most impractical and fraudulent to have emerged from the current debate. Two kilometres was chosen, somewhat at random, because of a misunderstood situation in Scotland.

See, Scotland has quite a lot of territory which is two kilometres from any habitation. All the same, building windfarms exclusively in the Scottish Highlands, the Welsh mountains and around Cornwall wasn't going to solve the problems we need urgently to deal with. And as windfarms began to appear closer to population centres (like the huge SPR development near Glasgow), the two kilometre recommendation quickly proved to be unworkable.

Ah, but now a small number of English people who retired to country areas, or who made some money by whatever means and fancied the life of a country squire, are threatened with the appearance of a windfarm near them. And, of course, there's hell to pay.

But here's the first question to ask ourselves: what would be the result of imposing an exclusion zone around windfarms, be it two kilometres (as the ghastly VVASP placards insist upon) or 1.5km, which a 'scientific' study, carried out on behalf of a nimby group and relying on the desperately unscientific theories of Dr Nina Pierpont, suggested.

Granted that thousands of new turbines are required, where could they be built if the totally daft argument advanced by Luff and his cronies in VVASP won the day?

Quite how empty-headed and dumbly repetitive the argument has been rendered by VVASP's lies and untruths was demonstrated by a letter published in the Evesham Journal yesterday. The correspondent argued that covering the UK with thousands of wind turbines would make no difference to the energy problem. Surely by the age of 19 (the age of the brainwashed letter writer) it should have become apparent that such an argument is a) plain silly, and b) plain wrong. But that's how VVASP have conducted themselves in this dispute - by talking such utter rubbish about windfarms that many a local understands nothing whatever about the issue.

No, instead, the not-quite-with-it letter writer of Atch Lench insisted that the government should be encouraging us to conserve energy.

As far as I'm aware, that's precisely what the government has been trying to do for years, now. Has it worked? Apparently not.

So a solution exists. It has been proven to work. It's implemenation will have many and various benefits - clean, green energy, cheaper to produce than the known alternatives and generated at so many sites that the National Grid is able to counterbalance supply and demand in a way that was much more difficult with fewer, larger power stations.

But a few nimbies don't want it. They're not entirely sure why they don't want it, mostly because their self-appointed leaders have lied repeatedly to them about it. But they don't want it. And now Peter Luff MP is arguing that they shouldn't have to have it.

We have a solution that is good for all, but the reluctance of a tiny minority is enough to put the kibosh on it, at least as far as the egregious Luff is concerned.

But what exactly is the problem? VVASP have banged on and on, dishonestly, about noise, infrasound, amplitude modulation, shadow-flicker, property prices, wildlife and the landscape. However, most, if not all, of their claims are manifestly untrue. And a lot of them know that. So that their fallback position (articulated by the young letter writer of Atch Lench), is that we don't really know what might happen if the Lenchwick Windfarm is built.

We can make an educated guess, of course. Electricity will be produced quietly and harmlessly, with no impact on local ecology and with financial benefits for the immediate area.

But no - for as long as VVASP are able to plant the suspicion (based on incredibly dodgy 'evidence' and a complete breakdown of scientific method) that SOMETHING might go wrong, people will argue that we can't have a windfarm because we don't know what it will do.

That is specious reasoning. It's circular logic. Effectively, what they're saying is, "Okay, we know that we've lied about windfarms, but those very lies suggest that there is some doubt about them, and while that doubt exists we shouldn't build any."

Those doubts are all in the minds of the protesters.

And given that their claims about noise, health and environmental impacts are all hysterical nonsense, based on a deliberate misreading of data and lending credibility to unscientific studies while ignoring the scientific ones, the question should arise: "Why not build windfarms where they can function at their optimum level, as opposed to where a few self-interested nimbies, property developers and their stooges tell us we're allowed to build them?"

Let's face it. The argument isn't really about noise at all, or any of the other stupid claims made by the mouthpieces of VVASP. It's about whether a tiny cadre of wealthy people living out in the countryside should be inconvenienced by having to catch sight of a windfarm every now and then.

On that basis, there really is no argument, and Peter Luff is betraying himself, as well as the British people, by standing up for the interests of a privileged few when it is the longterm needs of all that should be considered (and let's not forget how that privileged minority has conducted itself during this whole dispute).

To summarise: if we accepted an exclusion zone around wind turbines, then we'd be abandoning wind turbines as a means of generated power. We would, to all intents and purposes, make it impossible for a viable windpower industry to exist in mainland Britain. Which would be fanatically stupid and, in the medium-to-long term, catastrophic for British interests.

If we accept that this wholly arbitrary exclusion zone is being demanded by people who just don't want to live near a windfarm - partly because they've told so many lies about windfarms that they've come to believe their own propaganda, and partly because these people are phenomenally self-obsessed and haven't the slightest interest in benefits which apply to other people as well as themselves - then we can see just how fraudulent the '2km - OK' campaign, and Peter Luff's ill-considered speech to the Commons, really are.

Both are based on a lie. That we can have a sustainable power industry without offending a tiny minority of middle-class country dwellers who are interested in nothing but themselves.

Peter Luff can't see it. He's trumpeting the "rights" (!) of property developers, liars and useless inheritors in the face of global need and the truth of the matter. He's speaking up on behalf of those who make the most noise, who demand always to have their own way, and against the interests of both local communities and the nation as a whole. He's defending the privileges of a tiny minority against the needs of society and future generations.

But this issue is too big and important, and the circumstances too urgent and alarming, to be left to the likes of Luff and the pack of braying hounds he's supporting.

Which is why, as Luff makes his speech to the Commons, and Wind of Change celebrates six months of blowing the lid on the immoral and anti-social activities of the nimby loons, we will be uploading a letter template expressing support for Lenchwick Windfarm.

Please, let's show our MP what democracy really is. It's not about the rights of the rich and the lies they tell to defend those rights. It's about the rights and responsibilities of us all.