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

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't