Letters: The National Trust and young people reply

Trust renewables

Sir: Your editorial (‘Green and unpleasant’, 3 May) accused the National Trust of jumping ‘aboard the climate change bandwagon’ and performing a ‘double backflip’ on wind energy and shale gas. Not true. We have long been worried about the impact that climate change is having on our properties. Sixty per cent of the 740 miles of coastline we look after is at risk from erosion as sea levels rise, and rising average temperatures are affecting the species we care for on our land. That’s why we are considering investing £35 million in renewable energy sources, so that by 2020 the Trust will only get 50 per cent of our energy from fossil fuels.

We recently published policy guidelines to ensure the environmental impacts of fracking are minimised. As an organisation looking after some of the country’s most beautiful countryside on behalf of the public, we also have to consider the aesthetic impacts of energy infrastructure. Until we can be sure that these impacts are dealt with, we would not allow fracking on our land. That is also why we will object to large-scale renewable developments — including wind farms — which we believe affect the historic significance or natural beauty of our properties.

It is not for us to tell government what their energy mix should be, but we won’t shy away from the difficult issues involved in protecting the places we look after on behalf of the nation from the unprecedented threat of a warming climate.
Dame Helen Ghosh

Director general, The National TrustLondon SW1

Damage done

Sir: It would appear laudable for Robin Hanbury-Tenison to have mortgaged his future for what he believes is the right thing to do (Letters, 10 May), but nothing can compensate for the substantial damage caused to the environment by the manufacture and installation of his wind turbine, the manufacture and installation of his field array of photovoltaic panels and the manufacture and production of his electric van.