ALL areas of government policy require a balancing act. Needs are balanced against costs. Ideals are balanced against practicality. Environmental impact is balanced against jobs.

Nowhere is this need for balance more clearly evident than in provision of our energy. What can be good for the nation can be bad for the local community or, indeed, vice-versa. What can be good for clean power can be bad for visual impact on the environment.

Yesterday, Keith Brown, the Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, approved plans for a 19-turbine wind farm near Cockburnspath, East Lothian. The project has encountered opposition from local councils, community councils and campaigners. And, as a diligent minister, Mr Brown will undoubtedly have measured concerns against likely benefits.

In the end, for him, the balance swung in favour of a claimed £9.4 million in community benefit, the creation of jobs, and the provision of power to 35,000 homes. The project also fitted the Scottish Government’s commitment to renewables.

However, on the East Lothian-Borders boundary, many felt the Lammermuir Hills already had too many turbines. The Aikengall IIa application alone was adding 19 windmills to 16 already consented in 2009 and another 19 in 2013.

It was the wind energy dilemma in a nutshell: landscape intrusion versus clean power. But, even as we aim for the latter, we still need a mix of power sources for energy security, and Mr Brown will have noted with interest yesterday’s claims by EDF that the life of Torness nuclear plant could be extended beyond its projected 2030 closure. Some environmentalists will oppose that. Others will praise nuclear’s low carbon emissions and steady production. Just as some praise wind power. And others oppose it.

The trick remains to balance them all.