In over 30 years of countryside campaigning, I can’t recall a subject that has divided public opinion as much as renewable energy and, in particular, wind-farm development. Organisations once considered to be close allies in environmental-protection campaigns have become the opposition. WWF and Friends of the Earth are pro wind turbines wherever they’re built, and they’re joined by the RSPB, which supports wind farms anywhere other than on its own reserves. Such a crass comment from an organisation with the environmental legacy of the RSPB is surprising, and deeply disappointing.

Many people ask about the Ramblers’ perspective and some assume we want a blanket ban on on-shore wind-farm developments. That is not the case. There’s no doubt, however, that many members are concerned at the impact on the landscape, not to mention our tourist industry, because of the sheer scale of the proposals – turbines the height of the Forth Rail Bridge and even higher interconnector grid lines. Having seen report after report and spoken to scientists and energy experts, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are only two types of people who really support the idea of large-scale on-shore wind-farm projects: those who are likely to make money out of them and the green hotheads who see burgeoning numbers of wind farms as a political statement in support of their cause.

But, while they appear to offer high-profile evidence of action against global warming, real reforms offering real solutions fall prey to industry lobbying and electoral expediency. It is becoming increasingly evident that the headlong rush to build new turbines is fuelled more by heavy subsidies than clear thinking, threatening the integrity of wild land but having little effect on global warming. Indeed, turbines operate, on average, at only 30 per cent of capacity and require a conventionally powered back-up facility – which, ironically, creates carbon emissions. Nevertheless, like it or not, wind power is here to stay, so there is now an urgent need to minimise the fall-out. Wherever possible, turbines should be located either in landscapes already containing a substantial built element or in off-shore areas out of sight of unspoilt coastlines.

In all cases, an environmental impact assessment is an essential first step. While I, and a growing army of others, oppose wind-farm industrialisation in our wild land areas, I would argue passionately that the Government is not doing enough to tackle the issue of climate change. Recent figures suggest reductions in CO2 emissions are well below target, and the reasons for this are not hard to find: lack of enforcement for codes of practice on building insulation, an absence of coherent policy on energy generation or usage, insufficient incentives for energy saving, and a one-horse renewables programme that pushes large-scale wind farms to the virtual exclusion of other sources, such as tidal power and biomass. Associated with the development of new energy sources is the renewal and expansion of the National Grid. The proposed Beauly-Denny powerline upgrade will run from near Inverness through Scotland’s scenic heartland – some of our wildest and most remote countryside, with equally contentious lines proposed for northern England.

I’d argue that long-distance transmission from the north of Scotland should be either via sub-sea cables or upgrading the existing routes that pass through agricultural land near the east coast. We have a tremendous opportunity to make our country a leader in energy conservation and environmentally acceptable renewable-energy generation. But that should never happen at the expense of losing our reputation as having some of the most outstanding wild land in Europe. The two can work together – but only if there is a political will and a change in the current subsidy-driven renewables industry.

Cameron McNeish is Vice President of Ramblers Scotland and editor of TGO magazine