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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,