A good case for pylons

Today I feel on top of the world, but thoroughly shattered. I guess that is what I get from getting up at 5 AM. Not in itself exceptionally early, but a killer if you only went to bed at 2:45 AM. I'm not going to go on about having lots to do; instead I'm going to completely changed tact today. I will come back to the history of money and how we can heal our money relationships later or should I say soon (note the way I am being deliberately vague in order to keep my options open).

Anyway, what caught my attention this evening was an item I heard on "Costing the Earth", the BBC Radio 4 programme that looks at environmental issues. Now my approach to environmentalism is like everything I do, very pragmatic. I can't see how there is any sense in trying to get people to voluntarily change their behaviour if the consequences of that change is:-

a) Too far removed from the timeline of their conscious existence. That is, most people believe that the impact of their behaviour is way beyond their life span and unfortunately they don't hold the same values about generational responsibility as the Native Americans. I have heard it said that traditionally some Native Americans took the view that they should never do anything without considering the consequences on seven future generations. Put simply; it won't be their problem so they just don't care. And

b) The type of shift in behaviour is so great that people can't conceive how they would function if they had to give up or drastically reduce their environmentally damaging behaviour. For example we have become so used to the car that asking people to stop driving now that our lives are based around them is like asking people to give up mobile phones. Yes we can live without them but why should we. In my view cars are not the problem; the problem is that they use fossil fuel that has a greenhouse effect. So rather than expecting people to cut down on car journeys, wouldn't it be easier to make non-polluting cars compulsory.

Costing the Earth was looking at the arguments for and against pylons versus underground cabling. Apparently pylons are ugly and spoil the appearance of the traditional British landscape. I was shocked to learn that pylons are ugly. I have always quite liked them and I've never seen them as an intrusion on the landscape. I can remember being totally mesmerised by pylons as a child. To me they looked like a space army of giants marching across the planes. And in my imagination they were friendly, their outstretched arms protecting us from the hostile invading armies of aliens.

If I was naturally biased towards pylons; what clinched it for me was the revelation that it costs between 3 and 18 times more money to lay underground cables than it does to put up pylons. 1 mile of electric cable carried by pylons cost roughly £1.5 million. Conversely underground cabling can cost around £18 million per mile. Guess who gets to pay for it. Yes you and me through our fuel bills. I'm sorry, but electricity is already at a price point where I am seriously contemplating kerosene storm lanterns to light my house; so there's no way I want to pay 18 times more than I have to just to keep someone in the countryside's view of fields and trees “unspoilt”.

So much for the big society! Shouldn't the people in the countryside sacrifice their views for the good of the nation? If they aren't prepared to do that then I'm sure they could volunteer to cover the difference in cost through a local levy. That seems like a win-win situation to me. Perhaps I’ll send a link to my blog to OFGEM!

What are your thoughts on pylons – works of art or eyesores? Please share your views; I look forward to reading them.