Staff at the US Department of Agriculture have been told to avoid using the term climate change and to use “weather extremes” instead. (See here).

Meanwhile at Stonehenge there’s a similar phenomenon. UNESCO says a short tunnel could “damage” the World Heritage Site, cause “adverse impact” and “fundamentally compromise” its Outstanding Universal Value, but neither English Heritage, Historic England nor The Trust is admitting it’s true or even claiming it’s not. They can’t, because everyone can see it is. Instead they use substitute language which the US Dept of Agriculture would be proud of….

Damage is “enhancement“,
Adverse Impact is “improvement” and
Fundamentally Compromise becomes “offer enormous gains”, “remove existing road damage”, “reunite the landscape”, “do justice to our greatest prehistoric monument”, “reinstate the line of the Stonehenge Avenue”, “improve public understanding”, “cut congestion”, “improve journey times” and “boost the South Western economy”.

None of those hint that they involve damaging the Outstanding Universal Value of Europe’s greatest prehistoric World Heritage Site” yet they all do. The question surely arises, wouldn’t English Heritage, Historic England and The National Trust be better employed saying that to the public and that all the advantages could be delivered without damaging Stonehenge at all – by spending a lot less than the DUP bribe!

.