Charities tend to lose focus on the cause they were created to espouse, and expand their activities into areas they have nothing to do with. In the case of the RSPB, this results in the absurd situation of them supporting wind farms that they know will kill the things they exist to protect. [They have lately, and tardily, taken to opposing wind farms like Berwick Bank.] The National Trust has been accused of wokeism, and in departing from its core mission of preserving stately homes and ancient landscapes. Several news stories have cropped up on this topic, often highlighted by Mark under my earlier diatribe. They become a bit of a blur after a while, so I wanted to trip through the news to remind myself what has been going on.

Climate is slang for weather these days, and is a casual go-to excuse under most circumstances for the National Trust. It also shapes their obsession with Net Zero and “green” “investments.” Anyway, here is what I found on the first page of a Google News search for “National Trust climate.” [Some links might be paywalled. Try a judiciously-timed strike of ESC.]

The top two hits (-1 week) were local outlets covering the story of Avebury Manor (next to the stone circle, one lump of which, pictured by YT in infrared is the featured image).

“Wiltshire National Trust site adapts to climate change”

The story is about how 160 hazel trees have been planted in the Manor’s grounds, after

…increasingly wet winters that have damaged existing apple trees in the orchard.

The location is right next to the River Kennet, which sometimes floods. I don’t know if there is any evidence of an increasing incidence of this. Personally I doubt it. I also wonder how the installation of hazel trees because of “wetter winters” squares with the hotter summers they are probably also expecting.

Funding for the project was provided by The Tree Council and Defra through the Trees Outside Woodland Fund, which supports tree planting beyond traditional woods.

The NT is richer than Croesus. Literally. Why they can’t fund this themselves, I do not know. In any case, I would have stuck with the apples.

Hazel Scott, visitor experience manager at National Trust Avebury, said: “This project protects the heritage of Avebury Manor Garden, while embracing the realities of our changing climate.

“Visitors will still be able to see our wide variety of traditional apples in a location where they should thrive, while the orchard becomes an example of thoughtful, sustainable adaptation.”

I do not believe that. At all.

*

Moving swiftly on…

The next hit is an opinion piece (-1 month) by Charles Moore, who had seen a training video aimed at NT staff and volunteers. He remarks that it hardly has anything to do with what the NT is actually for.

Having closely studied the film, I find it striking that it so rarely discusses what is distinctive about the National Trust. The values and images it espouses are those of any green organisation.

Archived version.

*

Third, from January this year,

“National Trust annual wildlife report lays bare climate damage to Peak District”

…from the Derbyshire Times. Click on it, and the headline becomes

“National Trust Peak District wildlife report finds climate extremes killed 40 per cent of new trees in 2025”

It was a hot summer or something. 40% of newly-planted trees died rather than the expected 10-15%.

He [Peak District NT guy] added: “We are also aiming to plant one million trees in the Peak District, storing even more carbon. The droughts this year have unfortunately made it harder for newly planted young trees to establish, so we will adapt our methods and double down our efforts to increase the chances of future success.”

Another colossal waste of money. Stop planting trees, and they won’t die. Let them spread naturally by removing the factors preventing them establishing, i.e. burning and grazing.

*

Next, a piece [January this year] in the Yorkshire Post with Sir Kier Starmer lamenting that the cross-party backing for national suicide, I’m sorry, climate change action, has broken down. I haven’t read it, but you can find it here. What does it have to do with National Trust? Dunno, maybe nothing.

*

Next, something from December 2025 by Europa Nostra. These are a European version of the National Trust, which also has a UK branch. They are there to protect heritage and culture. Naturally there is a heritage-climate nexus, somehow.

“After COP-30, INTO and partners reinforce the climate-heritage agenda with an inspiring exhibition in London”

INTO being an international group of Trusts National, including our own.

The exhibition and its accompanying events conveyed a compelling message: heritage is not merely a witness to the past, but a vital catalyst for climate action, resilience, and sustainable development, shaping both present and future societies.

*

Moving very swiftly on – and we’re near the bottom of the first page of results, and no I’m not going any further. Fourth from bottom, a story about flood prevention projects. I haven’t read it.

Third from bottom, a piece from October 2025 by Christian Climate Action, on their “Pilgrimage To National Trust AGM November 2025.”

This was a small platoon of mostly old people, some in the uniform of ?Extinction Rebellion?, and mostly annoyed by Barclays. They visited Silbury Hill to connect with the ancient (i.e. pre-Christian) landscape. Alas, you’re not allowed to ascend Silbury Hill any more, thanks to erosion, or some such excuse. The photo of the three people holding anti-Barclays boards is just sad. They have no idea about the topic they are protesting about.

*

Second from bottom, the NT is restoring part of Wicken Fen. who could object to that? Surely not this ecologist?

Well, no. But it would probably be as well to leave it alone. The project also includes sacrificing 200 ha of prime agricultural land, in order to store carbon. This particular part of the plan relates to 35 ha of land at Hurdle Hall.

The Hurdle Hall plans are an “essential component” in helping the National Trust to tackle climate change, as stated in the plans.

Dead vegetation in permanently-waterlogged soil does not decay, or at least, it decays very slowly. The National Trust’s plan is not going to “tackle climate change” however.

I am slightly torn here. I would love to see fenland expanded back into some of its former locations. However, Britain is a small island, which is not self-sufficient in food. Sacrificing more prime farming land is questionable.

*

Finally – and the bottom of the page – “New report on climate adaptation policy for the National Trust.” Somehow, it’s nearly 3 years old. Still, that’s Google News for you. Has it already been mentioned at Cliscep? I don’t know. Am I going to read it? Well, I’m going to click on it at least.

Well, I’ve skimmed it and it’s the kind of horsey apples you might expect. I wonder how much the National Trust paid for it? I could give them a nice answer for my usual fee (a pint of mild). Q. How do you adapt to climate change? A. You build resilience to today’s weather, and that will stand you in good stead for 99% of tomorrow’s weather.

I quote from p.35 of the report:

People are also at the heart of these adaptations. Compostable coffee cups are shredded to use in Ham House’s soils and retain moisture, benches are moved to ensure visitors can find shade in times of extreme heat, and the Trust are introducing Mediterranean working hours so their staff can avoid the midday heat. Ham House is just one example of the work the Trust are doing to improve every property’s resilience, alongside their hazard mapping and pilots. This is just the beginning of the changes the National Trust will need to make in order to protect the nature, heritage buildings, staff and visitors they care for from the future impacts of climate change.

I think that is probably enough on this particular topic. The report links to the National Trust’s “Hazard Map.” This is probably a goldmine of humour, but alas, it’s for staff only.

*

That’s all from the first page of a Google news search for “National Trust climate.” Not all the results had something to do with the National Trust, though I included them here anyway. The search results didn’t mention the apparent losses to its vast funds via investment in green holdings (e.g. as mentioned three years ago in the Telegraph: National Trust loses millions to green investments in rush for net zero). It didn’t mention Cragside’s roof, allegedly not good enough for climate change (as reported by Mark here). Nor did it mention the slump in profits from its renewable energy subsidiary (as also reported by Mark in the same thread here). Nor did it mention any stories about the National Trust’s declining membership – is this because the demographic is ageing out? Is this why they are trying to broaden their appeal? Who knows.

Dear National Trust, please stick to the core mission. And while you’re there, mebbe ditch the notorious “quick vote” tick box?