It is a constant source of amazement that the green movement is so focused on the invisible — the gases contributing to global warming — that it seems to overlook what many of us think of as the real green agenda: the protection of the green spaces and countryside that is such an important part of our national heritage.
Already some parts of the country are witnessing a new and hugely damaging threat to this great national amenity. In Somerset, for example, as plans are being finalised for the building of the Hinkley C nuclear power station, National Grid is preparing a replacement transmission network.
These new electricity lines will be able to handle more than 400kV, compared with the 130kV that we have at present, and will require pylons to be almost twice the height they are now. Imagine the blight on the countryside with 150ft pylons installed rather than the current 90ft ones.
While the focus is on green generation of electricity, there is no equal focus on green transmission of electricity. This needs to change or the electricity production of the future will result in a visual scarring of our landscape for future generations — something that is completely unnecessary. The industry seeks to use the technology of the last century, not this one.
National Grid is planning for 300 miles of new lines across England and Wales, meaning another 1,000 pylons to add to the 22,000 in existence.
The legislation governing the issue is complex and in effect gives rise to something known as the “Holford rules”. However, National Grid, it seems, is in effect able to interpret these in the way that it chooses, giving little power to local authority planners to have a say. This is, of course, contrary to our drive towards greater localism.
Cost is the chief reason, and once the grid’s obligations to protect nationally designated areas are met, it seems to have no compunction about erecting lines across important but undesignated areas of countryside elsewhere.
It is a cost that is measured purely in financial terms, and as a result our countryside will gradually be taken over by these giant steel monoliths and the spaghetti of wires that link them.
Recent legislation on the erection of infrastructure in the countryside offers some encouragement. For example, the Communications Act 2003 gave more robust guidance on the need for mobile phone masts to be sited with proper regard for the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. This is why, while pylons are getting bigger, phone masts are being disguised as trees or placed in the most unobtrusive places possible.
It seems to me, therefore, that we should be using the Energy Bill, which is on its way through parliament, to make amendments to the Electricity Act so that pylons are subject to the same sort of legislation as phone masts.
Our modern lives require modern infrastructure and this means that we have to accept that things are sometimes built for the greater good. But with pylons there really is an alternative — a more modern alternative — and that is to route our new power lines underground.
There will, of course, be some financial cost to this, though campaigners in Somerset and Suffolk have found it difficult to obtain consistent and reliable figures from National Grid about exactly how great the impact would be on electricity bill-payers — which makes a fully informed debate difficult. But there are other costs — for example, to our tourist industry and consequently to the rural economy in many parts of the country.
It is also worth pointing out that in some places we are already contributing to the cost of putting electricity lines underground. Electricity pylons scarcely seem to make it inside the M25 motorway that encircles London and there is no chance of seeing them tower above Hyde Park or along the Thames. Instead, power lines are sent underground just like our gas, water and waste pipes.
In many European countries, it is forbidden to build new power lines above the ground — legislation requires electricity transmission lines to go underground. Even newer technologies, such as gas-insulated transmission lines, which provide much lower transmission losses, offer the potential of cheaper underground capabilities.
This week, there is a chance for the House of Commons to amend the Energy Bill, giving those who build our electricity transmission networks an additional duty to take into account the impact on the physical environment and the utility of the countryside. I believe this is a real test of our green credentials and something that the public will readily appreciate.
Whether it be new roads, new railways, airports, power stations, masts or pylons, infrastructure development is never popular with those who must live with it on their doorsteps. Improved infrastructure is essential to our economic growth and we must be ambitious about what we are trying to do.
However, I firmly believe that when we have the technology to improve our infrastructure without damaging the environment, we have a moral duty to do so, so that our green and pleasant land is preserved for the next generation and the generations that follow them.