Chris Johns
Here’s a recent headline from a BBC story about wind farms:
Climate change: Opposing wind farms morally unacceptable - expert
The ‘expert’ concerned is Lord Debden, the U.K. Climate Change Committee chair. Here is something else he said:
We can't all the time say we're in favour of things but somewhere else.
That isn't an acceptable moral position.
All across the U.K. and Ireland (and elsewhere), communities are ‘mobilising’ against wind farms. I think Lord Debden makes an interesting case, casting the choice as a moral one.
I hope to strike a respectful tone in this piece but fear that my words will offend. None is meant. I merely wish to question the logic behind passionately held views and to hold those opinions up to the light of scrutiny.
From Ireland:
Planning refused for Clare wind farm due to hen harrier concerns
Hen harriers are birds. Logically, one way to think about this is in terms of questions about priorities and trade-offs. If our priority is to save birds, or perhaps particular species of birds, then acting to eliminate the possibility that they might be harmed by turbine blades is a reasonable position to take. We might question placing birds above the future of the planet in our priority rankings, trading off bird welfare against that of the planet. But we are all allowed to make our own choices.
Maybe we should make laws about key national priorities to stop others making choices that will conflict with societal goals such as preventing catastrophic climate change. At the very least, those that think the well being of birds is more important than achieving emissions targets should be questioned when they opine about the green agenda.
Birds fly into lots of things, not just wind turbines. According to the Federal Aviation Authority, 255,000 bird strikes on civilian aircraft were reported in the US between 1990 and 2021 - each strike often representing multiple bird fatalities. Maybe banning aeroplanes world be both a bird and environment friendly measure.
Estimates vary (wildly), but up to a billion birds a year die flying into glass windows in the US. It is reported that 100 million birds fly into UK windows every year.
We might wonder about the consistency of banning wind farms in the interest of birds while not campaigning for the banning of glass. But consistency is not yet a matter of law in public affairs.
What about a broader consideration of bird welfare? This from Time magazine
Two thirds of birds in North America are at risk from climate change, to large range losses, potentially extinction, and this is especially so if we continue on the current trajectory,” says Brooke Bateman, senior climate scientist
Let’s move away from birds (and bats and other wildlife considerations).
From Scotland:
Monadhliath mountains wind farm refused consent…In their decision, Scottish ministers said the project would have a significant visual impact.
Me, I think wind farms look great. Better than many other modern structures. But that’s just an opinion.
A question: if the issue is whether or not we meet net zero targets, let alone save the planet, how could a wind farm’s ‘visual impact’ possibly matter? Yet this reason is cited time and time again in planning refusals. Something that even on its own terms is a nonsense: how something looks is entirely subjective. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that.
Google ‘wind farm planning refusals’ and the list is endless. The number tends to shrink more recently. My guess: developers have, to a considerable extent, given up. Here’s a selection from Ireland (lots of examples could be pulled from other countries):
Coillte refused permission for Carlow wind turbines
Planning permission refused for Wicklow wind farm due to nearby Air Corps activity
Wind farm for North Cork refused planning
Controversial Meath wind farm refused planning permission
Some of the reasons cited by multiple objectors to all of these planning applications included ones from flyers of a different kind:
The association for hang gliding and paragliding told the appeals board that Croaghaun Mountain had been in use by free flyers since the 1970s and was used for national competitions.
Of course, it’s not just Ireland that objects. The contest between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss last year to be UK Prime Minister included pledges by both candidates to restrict or halt solar and wind farm development. Campaign pledges are, of course, subject to subsequent collisions with reality.
Sunak accused of ‘economic illiteracy’ over pledge to block onshore wind farms
Our fields shouldn't be full of solar panels': Truss vows to crackdown on renewables development
That Danish Energy minister was moaning, rightly, about how long it can take to gain planning approval in Europe - if you succeed at all. The European alternatives industry is growing tired of pointing out that the rest of the rest of the world, particularly the US (Biden’s plans are not just about computer chips) and China (just look at the growth explosion in the chart), are about to grind the EU industry into the dust:
Offshore renewable Energy Installations:
Source: US Department of Energy
How ‘Green’ is Ireland?
The national debate about the environment sometimes embodies the assumption that the country is at the forefront of efforts to combat emissions. Here’s some data on that:
Source: Eurostat
A massive expansion of alternative energy is necessary for the climate emergency. It also makes abundant sense in purely economic terms at a time of an energy price crisis. It makes moral sense, not just for the future of the planet: we are still sending Putin billions to fund his killing of Ukrainians and his own people. Where is our sense of urgency?
Take a listen to our podcasts:
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Chris.
Our governments can do so much more in the quest to slow down climate change
They can change planning laws
They can reverse previous decisions if they do not allow us to protect our future
They can give serious grants to all sustainability activity ... and not make it a bureaucracy nightmare.
They can reverse the ridiculous rules in agriculture that penalises farmers for having wooded areas - surely that is what they should be encouraging?
They should insist on tree lined roads to save cooling costs!