Protecting the environment is a noble cause and one that we should all support.
But it must be done with pragmatism, common sense and respect for local communities.
The approach should not be ideological, inflexible and dictated from the top down by people who rarely venture away from the centre of Edinburgh or London.
Unfortunately, that is what is now happening under the cover of ‘net zero’, a phrase which has been polluted by zealots who demand absolute adherence to the policies they demand are enacted, regardless of the harm they cause.
These extremists have no respect for views that are contrary to their own, no regard for rural areas, and no care for the outcome of their dogmatic proposals on jobs, businesses or homeowners.
This is most evident in the rush to install energy infrastructure all over the Scottish and British countryside.
My constituency in the Borders has been inundated with applications for all kinds of developments. Wind farms, solar projects, battery energy storage units, data centres, mega-pylons…you name it, there are attempts to build it in the Borders.
Some of these proposals would see the construction of ghastly developments that are bigger than local towns.
One site, which I went to view earlier this month, would replace natural habitats and a special conservation area with a substation, battery energy storage system and a solar farm. Its combined size would be the equivalent of 40 football pitches.
The biggest, backed by the UK Labour government, is the proposal to construct 80 kilometres of mega-pylons right through our beautiful Borders countryside.
The lack of pragmatism, care and common sense is more than concerning. It is reckless and it could rip up valuable countryside for good.
That’s why I recently brought a debate to the House of Commons on the impact of electricity infrastructure in rural communities.
We all understand the need for a modern, resilient electricity network, but there must be a balance that recognises the natural habits that would be destroyed, the farmland that would be lost for good, and the countryside that would be spoiled.
All of those outcomes would have a deeply damaging consequence on jobs, businesses and economic growth. On those grounds alone, a rethink is necessary.
Yet, there is also a fundamental principle at stake which should be paramount in all our considerations. Local communities deserve the right to choose what happens in their own areas. They should not have gargantuan projects imposed on them without proper consultation and no acknowledgement of their views. That’s unfair and it’s not right.
These mammoth energy infrastructure projects are deeply unpopular with local people, who fear the loss of their quality of life and the destruction of land that they love and live on.
But they are being ignored and their alternative proposals are not even being considered. An idea for underground cabling, instead of overground pylons, has been dismissed by the developer, ScottishPower Energy Networks (SPEN) on cost grounds alone.
But what is the cost of destroying our natural environment forever? What is the cost of the jobs of lost farms and small businesses that will no longer be viable? What is the cost of the lost tourism? What is the cost to homeowners who worked hard to buy a family home and could now see its price devalued? What is the cost of the people who may no longer choose to live locally?
Those costs have not been considered because the rush to install energy infrastructure is being driven by zealots like the net zero secretary, Ed Miliband, and a band of extremists who refuse to listen to people in the real world. It will not impact them, living in a big city, so they simply do not care that it will crush local communities.
The Borders, and areas like it, are expected to bear the bulk of the burden of net zero. Local people feel that projects are being done to them, rather than with them.
This is not how things should be done in Scotland or Britain, where residents should have the right to decide what happens on their own doorstep. I believe power belongs with the people on the ground, not those who will never know the cost of their carelessness.
The move to net zero requires, “pragmatism, common sense and respect for local communities”
