PRIORITIES

Nimby campaigns tend to be quagmires of gobbledegook.  Though there's almost always a nod in the direction of "greenwash", along the lines of "We in Stop-Everything-That-We-Might-Be-Able-To-See are pro-renewables".  And then they reveal that they are completely anti-renewables.  Wind power especially.  What they really like is nuclear.  They have suddenly discovered what a wonderful, clean, safe, cheap, reliable and - ahem - "renewable" - thing nuclear power is.  It would be a different matter if someone decided to build a nuclear reactor a mile from their homes, of course.  But the nimbies can't see that.  They can't see much at the best of times.  And because they've got it in for renewables - windfarms especially - they will say all sorts of stupid things about them and pretend that nuclear is the answer.

The nimby nutters have now been joined in their madness by some of our heritage agencies, who are proving to be as short-sighted and muddled in their thinking as the loopiest of anti-wind activists.

The National Trust and English Heritage have announced that they will mount a legal appeal against the planning inspector's decision in favour of a four-turbine windfarm near a Grade 1 listed garden at Lyveden New Bield.

Now, the proposed windfarm will be a kilometre away from the garden and will do no physical harm whatsoever to the National Trust property (a house which has remained unfinished since 1605).  That is an important point to make.  It will do no physical, material harm whatsoever to the house or garden.  None at all.

But, as the National Trust has been telling members who have contacted the organisation to express their outrage at this retrograde and foolish step by the heritage charity, they "support all forms of renewable energy", but ...

Yep - it's that same old nimby refrain: "we are all in favour of renewables, but we think nuclear is better".  Not cheaper, certainly, with various companies pulling out of the plans for the UK's new fleet of reactors on the grounds that the figures don't add up, and with the outgoing CEO of America's biggest nuclear power provider admitting that nuclear is not economically viable.  And not greener, because nuclear relies on an awful lot of concrete and a fossil fuel for its power source.  And not safer, because no windfarm has or will achieve what Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima Dai-ichi achieved.  And not even more reliable - not when Britain's newest nuclear power station, Hinkley B, could spend upwards of seven months producing absolutely no electricity at all while the UK's growing fleet of wind turbines did exactly what they were designed to do.  No.  Not cheaper, greener, safer or more reliable.  But better, because by and large the nimbies can't see them.

English Heritage certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with nuclear power stations.  If they did, they might have registered an objection to EDF's plans to strip away 400 acres of top soil and vegetation from the proposed site of the Hinkley C power station in Somerset.  English Heritage felt some qualms about the loss of archaeological sites - burial mounds, etc. - and a significant stretch of historic green lane at the Hinkley C site.  Those losses are permanent.  As English Heritage acknowledged, there would be "major impacts" as a consequence of EDF carrying out preparatory work on a site for which it didn't even have planning permission.  Still, English Heritage did not object.

So English Heritage does not object to the permanent damage done to heritage sites in the case of a nuclear power station.  It does, however, object to the perceived, short-term "damage" done by windfarms.

In other words, if you're a nuclear power operator who wants to tear up many acres of soil, and various archaeological sites, when you don't yet have planning permission for a nuclear power station, English Heritage probably won't stand in your way.  But if you're a wind energy developer who has no intention whatsoever of tearing up many acres of soil or damaging any archaeological sites, English Heritage will fight you all the way.

The problem here is very simple.  It's a problem that goes to the heart of the nimby madness which is plaguing this country of ours.  It's the inability to understand the difference between the objective and the subjective.

English Heritage (like their nimby friends) clearly don't have a problem with material, physical damage to the environment.  But they don't like perceived, imaginary damage to the "landscape".

Windfarms are an integral part of the solution to a pressing crisis.  Climate change will alter the landscape.  If we want to protect and perserve our environment, we need to do something.  Wind energy is a very big part of the answer.

But there are some boodies who think that windfarms spoil the view.  The view is not a material thing - it is a subjective response to an objective reality - and it is debatable whether windfarms really do damage the view.  Many places, such as Ardrossan in Ayrshire, insist that their local windfarm has enhanced the landscape.  So, even if you're a foul-minded, anti-social, mindless nimby you cannot actually say that a windfarm would spoil the view: you can only say that, in your opinion, the windfarm will affect the view in an adverse way for a certain period of time.

It is not about the view, though.  The landscape isn't the view.  It's more than that.  It's the physical environment, which is under threat from something much more worrying and invasive than windfarms.

If you want to preserve the landscape, you have to protect the environment.  English Heritage and the National Trust are making the same fundamental mistake as the selfish and stupid nimbies.  They're confusing the environment with the view.

Neither the house nor the garden at Lyveden New Bield, remember, will be affected in any material way by the windfarm.  Only the rather airy-fairy, define it how you will, subjective notion that is the view will be sort-of affected.  Where a nuclear power company did decide to rape the earth at Hinkley Point, English Heritage let them get away with it.  Evidently, English Heritage don't care about the real, physical environment.  They're too busy worrying about the "environment" that doesn't really exist - the so-called "unspoilt" view.

That is insane.  Utterly insane.  Anyone who claims to be "all in favour of renewables" and then fights them on specious and fallacious grounds because they might "spoil" the view is, without doubt, barking mad.

It's not the view that matters.  It's the earth, the rich and varied ecology of the physical environment.  If you care about the view more than you do about that - as English Heritage clearly do - then you really have got your priorities completely muddled.