Pylons have made waves. EirGrid’s plans to reinforce and extend the power grid have run into considerable opposition. But pylons are only a symptom. We should discuss energy and climate policy instead.

People have moved east, to the Greater Dublin Area where the jobs are. Power generation has moved west, to the Atlantic seaboard where the winds are. As a result, electricity needs to be transmitted over longer distances. Transmission lines will need to be built.

Power cables can go over ground or under. Underground cables are considerably more expensive, and it is much harder to detect and repair faults. Underground cables are more common in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, but there soils are soft and the terrain is flat. Overground cables and pylons are better suited for Ireland’s geography.

The case for more pylons is clear cut. It is an indictment of the quality of the Irish planning process that this project has run into such high profile opposition. The project has been years in the making, but still a cabinet minister made off-the-cuff remarks that reinforced concerns. And the same issues pop up for every large infrastructure project.

Three problems interlock. Companies and authorities do not try very hard to consult stakeholders. Indeed, the entire National Renewable Energy Action Plan, upon which rests the expansion of wind power and hence much of the grid reinforcement, has been found, by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, to violate the rules for stakeholder involvement.

But the energy authorities are not the only ones to blame. Stakeholders often ignore invitations to provide input into proposals for planning permission, but swing into action when building starts. “We weren’t heard” is a common complaint, but all too often people don’t speak up until it is too late – until after decisions have been made. In this case, the decision to build new pylons was made a long time ago without much public discussion. The remaining decision is where the put them.

Lack of compensation is the third problem. The urban myth that pylons and overhead power lines damage human health has been around for decades but repeated research, with ever more data and ever more refined methods, has never found any evidence for any health problems.

Pylons are ugly, though, in the eyes of most people. It therefore stands to reason that they are concealed as best we can, that recreation and conservation areas are spared, and that people who live nearby are compensated for having to look at them.

The current row over pylons is nothing compared to what we might expect in the future. The transmission lines now under discussion are only the start. EirGrid foresees some 800 kilometers of new power lines by 2025. People are now getting worked up about the first 200 kilometers or so. There are 600 kilometers to follow.

And EirGrid’s plans do not account for projects like GreenWire and EnergyBridge, which aim to install 3,000-5,000 MegaWatt of new wind turbine capacity. Current wind power capacity is around 2,000 MegaWatt. The additional wind power would be for export to England and Wales. That would require not only about five times the current interconnection capacity, but also yet more overhead transmission lines.

GreenWire and EnergyBridge may well collapse. The English are losing their appetite for subsidizing wind power. The European Union may abandon its targets for renewable energy. Climate policy, however, seems here to stay; and onshore wind power is still one of the cheaper options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The dreams of a European SuperGrid are alive and kicking, connecting Irish wind power to Norwegian and Swiss hydropower to supply German industry.

Ireland can therefore expect more transmission lines for electricity. The discussion should move away from the question whether the next pylon should be in Paddy Murphy’s backyard or in Mary Kelly’s. The discussion should focus on the question whether more pylons (et cetera) are a price worth paying. Are the aims of energy and climate policy sufficiently worthwhile to justify the planned transmission lines? If so, Paddy and Mary should be looked straight into the eyes and told that their personal sacrifice is for the greater good. Monetary compensation might help to convince them.

But if the benefits prove elusive or small, then protests should not target the pylons and transmission lines. These are but symptoms of the underlying policies. The debate should not be about the pylons, but rather about the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets that cannot be met without those pylons.

Some may argue that a few pylons here and there are a small price to pay for preventing the planet from overheating. Others may argue that Ireland’s contribution to climate change is too small to bother. But the smaller question whether to build new transmission lines and where to site them cannot be separated from the larger questions of energy and climate policy.

An edited version appeared in the Sunday Business Post of 19 January 2014