The Scottish landscape

is disappearing before

our eyes

Chris Brittain

 

We all worry about the state of our planet – well, you would wouldn't you. I care passionately that we slow the deterioration – not for myself but for my children and future grandchildren. I try to recycle, shop local and reuse; not a difficult challenge for someone old enough to remember when supermarkets were unknown and the 'make do and mend' of my childhood. Now that I do not commute for nearly three hours a day or jet to one-hour business meetings in uniform boxes at some distant location, my carbon footprint has dropped to a fraction of its previously unsustainable level.
     My simple conclusion is that counteracting climate change is not rocket science, but looking at the world around you and making sensible graded changes in keeping with your own lifestyle and your surrounding area. I can now get on with enjoying my retirement, my hobbies, and the beautiful Scottish countryside.
     The only problem I have is that, as I walk in the countryside and look at the views, the forests, and the wildlife, I see less of them. However, my eyesight is not failing as I see more of the wind turbines, power lines and other markers of our 'sustainable' energy infrastructure. I was beginning to think that I was just another grumpy old man who thought that everything was better in the past, but I am now concerned that it is rather more a case of the 'emperor's new clothes'.
     What I have seen is really happening. Recent research from Scottish Natural Heritage shows that Scotland's pristine scenery is disappearing. The percentage unaffected by adverse visual influences fell from 31% in January 2008 to 28% in December 2009. That is a loss of over 2,300 sq. kilometres in two years (more than the area of Stirlingshire). How do we balance the gain of renewable energy against the loss of the landscape?
     Even worse, over the past decade we have cut down between 5,000 and 10,000 hectares of Scottish woodland to build wind farms. In a recent article in the Telegraph, MEP Struan Stevenson said: 'This is a scandal of gigantic proportions. It is counterproductive to destroy woodlands for wind farms. They are natural carbon capture and storage systems. It is the Scottish equivalent of cutting down rainforests in the Amazon and it's unforgivable...To desecrate so many forests is environmental vandalism on a monumental scale'.
     In the same article Jenny Hogan, of Scottish Renewables, the industry lobby group, responded: 'Renewable energy is our biggest tool in tackling climate change. Wind farms constructed in Scotland today save almost three million tons of C02 emissions per year. There is a clear moral, economic and environmental imperative to tackle climate change. It has become common practice for developers to compensate for felled trees by replanting'.

 

     I am not sure that I can completely agree with either party. I agree with Struan Stevenson's sentiments, but think that comparison with the Amazon is more political than actual. It is a scandal like the treatment of vulnerable groups in care homes rather than MPs' expenses or footballers' super injunctions. A disaster that we have slipped into more by omission than commission. Established forests do capture and store carbon – as well as looking good and lowering my blood pressure when I walk in them. The enthusiasm to 'do the right thing' for the environment without realising that we are damaging something we hold dear – the Scottish landscape – has occurred because we have not seen the bigger picture.
     I have less to agree with in Jenny's statement. It may be that renewable energy is a part of the solution, but what about energy conservation? Is wind energy even the right renewable technology? We have used wind energy generation since the Syrians invented it in pre-history. It has been used in the UK since the Doomsday Book. With its history and 'off the shelf' availability it is relatively cheap and accessible – but is it right? Other options are relatively new and will involve more research and investment. For the developers, wind produces profits; especially when government subsidises electricity production and even pays not to produce it.
     There may be a 'clear moral, economic, and environmental imperative to tackle climate change' but there is an even clearer imperative to make sure that we make the right choices. Power production is a commercial activity. Who can blame them for producing the easiest, quickest solution and the biggest return for their investors? Simply to say: 'It has become common practice for developers to compensate for felled trees by replanting', and think that this makes everything right is laughable. We have grown with our landscape, and cherish it, as we would a pet or a child. Would replacement with some token facsimile assuage our grief at its loss?
     Who then should have the bigger picture? It should be us – or perhaps more realistically the government that we pay to make the best decisions for us. They need to ask the right questions – of academics, environmentalists, economists, the community, and the voluntary sector – and, yes, even the power companies. They should be informed but not biased, and be prepared to justify the decisions they make. Instead, it appears that our 'emperor' decided that he needed a new fashionable suit of clothes and the power companies made them – wind turbines. He enthused so much about it that his courtiers pretend to agree.
     I am glad that, despite my age, I am a child at heart. I can confidently say on this subject 'the king is in the altogether'. I just wonder why so many other normal, intelligent, critical environmentalists are convinced that wind farms are the solution to climate change, despite the adverse effect they have on our landscape. One of our most precious resources is disappearing before our eyes.
Perhaps climate change makes us blind.

Chris Brittain is a retired GP