Can the Lake District Landscape Fight off Vandal Miliband?

MOST of us are familiar with the magnificent mountains of the central Lake District: Scafell Pike, Helvellyn, the Langdale Pikes and many others. They are mostly surrounded by a superb ring of carboniferous limestone hills just over the 1,000ft elevation mark which may not be so well known. These rocks are 330million to 350million years old. They form escarpments and high pastures with rare flora and fauna, occasional limestone pavements plus untouched open country at places such as Uldale, Caldbeck, Hutton Roof, Berrier, Askham Fell, Crosby Ravensworth and Whitbarrow Scar in the South Lakes.

From this limestone ring, one can look in towards the Lake District older slate and volcanic mountains, and outwards to the Solway Firth, Southern Scotland, the Pennines, the Eden valley, the Howgill fells near Sedbergh, and Morecambe Bay.

The landscape value and views from the limestone escarpment are superlative, irreplaceable, of intangible value and beauty. Here is the view from Crosby Ravensworth:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cairn,_Crosby_Ravensworth_Fell_-_geograph.org.uk_-_6242621.jpg

and here from Askham Fell.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_Askham_Fell_(geograph_3003544).jpg

These hills are mostly free from industrial turbines, thank God, but we now have a so-called ‘Energy Secretary’ who wishes to cover our green and pleasant land in pointless turbines. He will target these limestone hills, and we have to stop his vandalism.

Turbines are pointless because for every one installed, it is necessary to have duplicate generative back-up from coal, gas or nuclear sources for when the turbines are ineffective, which is much of the time. The need for back-up and grid redundancy negates the point of turbines, and it means we pay twice.

The only winners are landowners and wind company directors who make more money from harvesting subsidy than they do from selling electricity, as this and other sites have documented repeatedly.

If the aim is to catch the wind, one could ask ‘Why not cover the Helvellyn ridge or the Scafell massif with turbines?’ ‘You can’t do that,’ everyone will say, even those within the wind companies, ‘the landscape value is too great.’ If the central Lake District fells are no-go areas, why should the beautiful limestone perimeter with equally good landscape value and views be treated any differently? And who is going to be the arbiter of the degree of beauty which may not be despoiled?

In the 2000s an array of turbines was proposed for Berrier Hill, part of the limestone escarpment between Greystoke and Saddleback/Blencathra. This is part of the site, with the misty Pennines in the far distance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10452433

 The vigorous opposition was spearheaded by local mountaineers Doug Scott and Sir Chris Bonington, and the plans were defeated in 2010, though at great expense

Scott and Bonington campaigning in 2006. Photo by the author

The two main Lake District constituencies with limestone hills at risk from Miliband’s wind activism are Penrith and Solway, and Westmorland and Lonsdale.

Penrith and Solway was won on July 4by Labour’s Markus Campbell-Savours, whose much-respected father Dale, former MP for Workington, is now in the House of Lords. The Conservative vote collapsed, but Markus polled less than the Conservative-Reform cohort combined.

Westmorland and Lonsdale was won comprehensively by Liberal Tim Farron, a popular constituency MP. Again the Conservative vote collapsed but even including the Reform cohort, Farron won with a huge majority of 21,472. I have been in touch with him about the risk of turbines spreading on the limestone hills and this is his reply:

Dear David

Thank you for your recent email regarding your concerns about renewable energy. Many people, including myself, greatly support renewable energy for two key reasons:

•        Renewable energy represents the cleanest option available with our current scientific and technological capabilities. By harnessing natural energy sources, it generates minimal emissions. For instance, solar panels simply absorb sunlight to produce energy.

•        Renewable energy is significantly cheaper than burning fossil fuels. Extracting fossil fuels requires extensive mining, drilling and burning, resulting in high operating costs, even if the initial price is relatively low. In contrast, renewable energy has very low operating costs since the energy collected typically doesn’t require additional processing.

I can assure you that coal is the most inefficient form of energy production, and there is [sic] powerful reasons as to why the UK has phased out its use. Ultimately, renewable and nuclear energy are the only routes to achieving Net Zero and protecting the earth for our children and grandchildren. 

Unfortunately, I think I will have to respectfully disagree on your views on the matter.

With best wishes

Yours sincerely

Tim Farron MP

Both constituencies have dramatically and demographically changed in recent years. The influx of southern retirees, many on index-linked state sector pensions, relatively entitled and privileged people with Liberal or Socialist tendencies, second-homers registered locally – all have diluted the indigenous Cumbrian and Westmerian Conservatives. Of course on July 4 2024, the Conservatives did all they could to commit ritual suicide almost as if they wished to lose the election.

The two largest Lake District Parliamentary constituencies

It seems there is not a cigarette paper of difference between the Labour and Liberal energy policies. In fact only the Reform party has a sensible energy policy based on real-world economics. Both Campbell-Savours and Farron will now be in a position where they will have to protect the landscapes of their constituencies (we hope) yet also follow the net zero decarbonisation and so-called ‘renewable’ policies of their political parties backed by many of their constituents. This is surely going to give both of them serious cognitive dissonance.

The Lake District, the first and finest National Park in England, was established in the early 1950s. The Park is now a ‘World Heritage Site’, but even this may not be enough to save it. It would be one of the most horrific and wanton acts of vandalism to cover these limestone hills in turbines. Turbines are optional, the landscape is not, and it must be saved for future generations rather than being sacrificed on the altar of ‘nut-zero’ – an aspiration that is physically and economically impossible to achieve anyway.

Eycott hill and the limestone hills of Berrier and Hutton Roof, located east of Blencathra and viewed looking north from Great Mell Fell. Photo by the author

This article (Can the Lake District landscape fight off Vandal Miliband?) was created and published by The Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Dave Cumberland

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*