Over the past couple of weeks I’ve come across a lot of public projects that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has had an outspoken public opinion on. The voice of a conservation organization making mainstream media is a very welcome sight. At times, however, the position can be a little more complicated than just sticking up for the interests of wildlife.

We need to paint a vision for members of the public watching or reading our views. The best way to inspire support is to be inspirational in the eyes of those who encounter us. 

A few examples are worth pointing out. Last week, when Mayor of London Boris Johnson decided to propose a new airport for London built on the shores of the Thames Estuary, the RSPB was featured on Newsnight, talking about the plans. While worries about the impacts on wildlife were mentioned in the piece, the RSPB spokesperson seemed to focus on concerns over aircraft safety due to the numbers of birds that could strike the engines. I found this approach disappointing – the Thames Estuary is a globally important natural treasure, one that we should be talking up, rather than pandering to the numbers and the health and safety game of those who would see the development go ahead. The problem here was one of message rather than strategy.

This week, the RSPB has stepped up its campaign against the National Grid’s plans to build a new line of pylons through the southern half of East Anglia. Two routes for part of the line are under consideration: one route which would rip through a piece of ancient woodland managed by the RSPB, and a second route which would avoid it. The RSPB has rightly come out fighting against the proposal to go through the woodland, with an appeal to the value of this ancient natural treasure. The alternative route would involve undergrounding the lines which would suit local residents better too.

Today, a piece in the Guardian focuses on local residents’ criticisms of the RSPB which is refusing to oppose plans for wind turbines near its Bempton Cliffs seabird colony reserve. The RSPB sensibly says that there is no evidence the wind turbines will have an adverse effect on wildlife and that “in wider terms, energy from windpower is clean and renewable, and if there is one overwhelming threat to wildlife and conservation, it is global warming.” I couldn’t agree more that the conservation movement should stop cutting off its nose to spite its face when it comes to renewable energy developments. However, local residents seem disappointed that their nimbyism can’t freeride on the back of concerns about wildlife.

An older example of this was the RSPB’s opposition to plans for a tidal barrage on the Severn Estuary. The RSPB usually opposes renewable energy developments because they are poorly sited and a good alternative exists. It ends up facing criticism from both sides – either for opposing a development or for failing to oppose one, as seen above.

However, in the case of the tidal barrage, while the wetlands on the Severn Estuary are massively important, a barrage would have produced five per cent of the UK’s electricity, making it a massive step forward for renewables. While the impacts on nature would have been substantial, surely the logic that holds true for the wind turbines at Bempton, about the threat of global warming, should have held true here. To its credit, the RSPB’s view here was nuanced and it said that if the project were to go ahead, it should do so with as little harm to wildlife as possible.

The tidal barrage (now to be found in the big public policy proposal heaven in the sky) was somewhat like this year’s HS2 rail link – a bold, brave political decision for Britain that inspires a sense of hope and vision about this country. We need far more of these visionary projects to inspire a sense of hope about a low-carbon, well-connected future. In the case of the tidal barrage, I think the sacrifice may have just about been worth making, as long as it could have been done without unnecessary harm to wildlife. The same holds true for HS2 – if it is to go ahead, the need to minimise the harm to wildlife and nature must be paramount.

The RSPB is at its best when it combines conservation of nature with foresight and vision for a low-carbon future. Most of the time it is the best organisation we have for championing the rights of wildlife and the preservation of our natural heritage. But as a young person inheriting an uncertain future, I feel the pressing need for action on climate change. The RSPB is right to step up to the plate and argue for renewable energy projects as part of the move to a clean, safe future, but also to act as a guardian for nature and special places.