Skip to main content

Energy companies took the wind out of my sails


My parish council news arrived today with latest news on the wind farm proposal on land adjacent to our village. Needless to say, it appears the majority in the village are opposed, and the parish council have lodged their objections with the local council.  This is more than simple NIMBYism.  There are genuine concerns about the impact on the local environment and landscape. The company concerned have signally failed to do anything like sufficient research on what the likely impact would be. Their approach has been cavalier to say the least. As a result they are only now considering obvious questions such as how they would access the site; currently there is a narrow lane off an  almost equally narrow country road.

The village feels under siege from wind farm companies with a plethora of proposed developments in the area. This is a great shame because I am generally in favour of wind technology. When the wind farm was first proposed I was supportive, although I had my concerns about the location.  I could not understand why the site was suitable other than being a large tract of land and I was puzzled by some key questions, not least of these was how they would gain access and what the environmental impact of that would be. I sent an email to the company asking for some answers. I got not response. But I do know they received my emails.

I had found a problem with the company website and dutifully informed them. I got an immediate response thanking me for my help! But as to my questions about the wind farm proposal: silence. As a result they lost potential local support. Not only that, it increased my doubts and concerns that little thought or planning was being put into the proposals. Sadly, nothing they have done since has allayed my doubts. They have taken the wind out of my sail.

Sometimes we do need to give or make sacrifices for a common good. If we believe wind has a significant role to play in reducing damage to the climate then clearly they have to be located somewhere. Sometimes that might just be in our back yard! I do believe my local landscape is precious, but I am willing to consider that sacrifice. From a great distance wind turbines can be majestic; close up this is not so certain. They are of titanic proportion;  number and location matter. Giving for the common good is fine, but it also requires a common consent and understanding. Local people deserve to be properly informed and should not be dismissed as selfish nimbies. Understanding or consent is unlikely to be achieved by riding roughshod over genuine concerns or by providing little or inadequate information.

What we need is a more coherent approach to wind technology by government, by energy companies and by local authorities.  A hotch-potch of ill-conceived applications is unlikely to achieve consensus or the objectives of cleaner energy.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As