Friday, October 30, 2009

I'M ALL IN FAVOUR OF RENEWABLES ...

... just as long as no wind turbine is more than three feet high. Oh, and they're all put somewhere else. India, preferably.

That, in essence, is what Peter Luff MP has decided to campaign about. On Tuesday of next week, he will waste ten minutes of parliament's time with his thoughts on how windfarms shouldn't be built near places where people (especially Tory voters) live.

The '2km - OK' campaign is one of the most impractical and fraudulent to have emerged from the current debate. Two kilometres was chosen, somewhat at random, because of a misunderstood situation in Scotland.

See, Scotland has quite a lot of territory which is two kilometres from any habitation. All the same, building windfarms exclusively in the Scottish Highlands, the Welsh mountains and around Cornwall wasn't going to solve the problems we need urgently to deal with. And as windfarms began to appear closer to population centres (like the huge SPR development near Glasgow), the two kilometre recommendation quickly proved to be unworkable.

Ah, but now a small number of English people who retired to country areas, or who made some money by whatever means and fancied the life of a country squire, are threatened with the appearance of a windfarm near them. And, of course, there's hell to pay.

But here's the first question to ask ourselves: what would be the result of imposing an exclusion zone around windfarms, be it two kilometres (as the ghastly VVASP placards insist upon) or 1.5km, which a 'scientific' study, carried out on behalf of a nimby group and relying on the desperately unscientific theories of Dr Nina Pierpont, suggested.

Granted that thousands of new turbines are required, where could they be built if the totally daft argument advanced by Luff and his cronies in VVASP won the day?

Quite how empty-headed and dumbly repetitive the argument has been rendered by VVASP's lies and untruths was demonstrated by a letter published in the Evesham Journal yesterday. The correspondent argued that covering the UK with thousands of wind turbines would make no difference to the energy problem. Surely by the age of 19 (the age of the brainwashed letter writer) it should have become apparent that such an argument is a) plain silly, and b) plain wrong. But that's how VVASP have conducted themselves in this dispute - by talking such utter rubbish about windfarms that many a local understands nothing whatever about the issue.

No, instead, the not-quite-with-it letter writer of Atch Lench insisted that the government should be encouraging us to conserve energy.

As far as I'm aware, that's precisely what the government has been trying to do for years, now. Has it worked? Apparently not.

So a solution exists. It has been proven to work. It's implemenation will have many and various benefits - clean, green energy, cheaper to produce than the known alternatives and generated at so many sites that the National Grid is able to counterbalance supply and demand in a way that was much more difficult with fewer, larger power stations.

But a few nimbies don't want it. They're not entirely sure why they don't want it, mostly because their self-appointed leaders have lied repeatedly to them about it. But they don't want it. And now Peter Luff MP is arguing that they shouldn't have to have it.

We have a solution that is good for all, but the reluctance of a tiny minority is enough to put the kibosh on it, at least as far as the egregious Luff is concerned.

But what exactly is the problem? VVASP have banged on and on, dishonestly, about noise, infrasound, amplitude modulation, shadow-flicker, property prices, wildlife and the landscape. However, most, if not all, of their claims are manifestly untrue. And a lot of them know that. So that their fallback position (articulated by the young letter writer of Atch Lench), is that we don't really know what might happen if the Lenchwick Windfarm is built.

We can make an educated guess, of course. Electricity will be produced quietly and harmlessly, with no impact on local ecology and with financial benefits for the immediate area.

But no - for as long as VVASP are able to plant the suspicion (based on incredibly dodgy 'evidence' and a complete breakdown of scientific method) that SOMETHING might go wrong, people will argue that we can't have a windfarm because we don't know what it will do.

That is specious reasoning. It's circular logic. Effectively, what they're saying is, "Okay, we know that we've lied about windfarms, but those very lies suggest that there is some doubt about them, and while that doubt exists we shouldn't build any."

Those doubts are all in the minds of the protesters.

And given that their claims about noise, health and environmental impacts are all hysterical nonsense, based on a deliberate misreading of data and lending credibility to unscientific studies while ignoring the scientific ones, the question should arise: "Why not build windfarms where they can function at their optimum level, as opposed to where a few self-interested nimbies, property developers and their stooges tell us we're allowed to build them?"

Let's face it. The argument isn't really about noise at all, or any of the other stupid claims made by the mouthpieces of VVASP. It's about whether a tiny cadre of wealthy people living out in the countryside should be inconvenienced by having to catch sight of a windfarm every now and then.

On that basis, there really is no argument, and Peter Luff is betraying himself, as well as the British people, by standing up for the interests of a privileged few when it is the longterm needs of all that should be considered (and let's not forget how that privileged minority has conducted itself during this whole dispute).

To summarise: if we accepted an exclusion zone around wind turbines, then we'd be abandoning wind turbines as a means of generated power. We would, to all intents and purposes, make it impossible for a viable windpower industry to exist in mainland Britain. Which would be fanatically stupid and, in the medium-to-long term, catastrophic for British interests.

If we accept that this wholly arbitrary exclusion zone is being demanded by people who just don't want to live near a windfarm - partly because they've told so many lies about windfarms that they've come to believe their own propaganda, and partly because these people are phenomenally self-obsessed and haven't the slightest interest in benefits which apply to other people as well as themselves - then we can see just how fraudulent the '2km - OK' campaign, and Peter Luff's ill-considered speech to the Commons, really are.

Both are based on a lie. That we can have a sustainable power industry without offending a tiny minority of middle-class country dwellers who are interested in nothing but themselves.

Peter Luff can't see it. He's trumpeting the "rights" (!) of property developers, liars and useless inheritors in the face of global need and the truth of the matter. He's speaking up on behalf of those who make the most noise, who demand always to have their own way, and against the interests of both local communities and the nation as a whole. He's defending the privileges of a tiny minority against the needs of society and future generations.

But this issue is too big and important, and the circumstances too urgent and alarming, to be left to the likes of Luff and the pack of braying hounds he's supporting.

Which is why, as Luff makes his speech to the Commons, and Wind of Change celebrates six months of blowing the lid on the immoral and anti-social activities of the nimby loons, we will be uploading a letter template expressing support for Lenchwick Windfarm.

Please, let's show our MP what democracy really is. It's not about the rights of the rich and the lies they tell to defend those rights. It's about the rights and responsibilities of us all.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

NO WAY TO RUN A PROTEST

Let's take a moment to imagine what might have been.

When the news broke that ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) was examining the Lenchwick area as the potential site for a windfarm, those who were likely to be most affected by the immediate presence of wind turbines had an option.

They could have gathered the facts, assessed the extent of the probable impact, and then endeavoured to negotiate with SPR over how to move forwards in the most mutually beneficial way.

Or they could scamper round the place looking for anti-windfarm dirt on the internet and then foment an atmosphere of deluded anger, misguided hatred and panicked confusion.

Which do you think they did?

At the heart of the VVASP is a handful of individuals - monied and determined. They exploited the uncertainities of other villagers faced with the prospect of a windfarm by spreading rumours and lies about it. As a consequence, the entire debate about the windfarm became lopsided.

For example - noise. It doesn't take much to find out for oneself just how (not) noisy a modern windfarm is. But so many in the Lenches who haven't been bothered to go and find out have willingly relied on the obfuscators and the propagandists of VVASP to tell them how noisy they are (not). So we have a strange situation - dozens of people convinced that the Lenchwick Windfarm will be noisy, when it won't.

Not a good basis on which to build, is it? People have been misled, and have allowed themselves to be misled, and have actively misled themselves. In the Lenches, this has become something of a social requirement: if you want to fit in with the village scene, you have no option but to spout ignorant rubbish about the windfarm.

This is no way to run a protest. Because the basis of the protest is lies.

Yes - a tiny number of households will be quite close, in the great scheme of things, to the turbines. That is an issue which requires looking at - initially to determine if there will be a downside (apart from the fact that one or two people may not be excited at the idea of looking at a windfarm), and, if so, what can be done about it.

That would have been the logical, intelligent, grown-up approach to the problem. To put it another way, study the matter in detail to identify the genuine areas of potential disruption and then seek a solution.

Spreading lies about windfarms, noise, magical mystery noise, pretend noise, infrapenny infrapound noise, dead bats, house prices, 'light flicker' and all the rest of the gobbledegook has no place in this debate. It counts as white noise, a deliberate move to confuse, alarm and terrify the neighbours so that the whole debate is hijacked by the lunatic fringe.

This is where Peter Luff's latest meaningless contribution comes in. Luff is strutting his stuff. He plans a ten minute bill reading in the House, in which he will argue that windfarms shouldn't be built close to people's homes.

It's a point that deserves debate (of the grown-up variety, rather than the screeching, hysterical, woefully misguided and hopelessly badly managed VVASP variety). Not least of all because this situation is going to arise often, repeatedly, up and down the country as the UK struggles to catch up with the rest of the world.

Let's put it this way. We need thousands of new wind turbines in this country. And dreaming up an arbitrary exclusion zone of the '2km OK' type espoused by the nimbies will only prevent that from happening. Back to square one. The rest of the world forges ahead with a low carbon economy, renewables and green energy. We sit on our backsides pulling faces.

Peter Duff demonstrated in today's Evesham Observer where his true interests lie. He linked the need to protect rich peoples' properties from the encroachment of windfarms to the need to limit affordable housing.

Duff likes to boast of his pro-green, pro-renewables credentials (another example of the 'I'm not racist, but' school of green politics). But he also doesn't want a tiny minority of wealthy individuals inconvenienced in the slightest way by the nation's vital move towards green energy. Similarly, he believes in affordable housing, but only 'the right amount and in the right place.'

Yes, you heard that right. Social housing, like renewable energy, can be held hostage in Duff''s whacky world by a couple of people who've made a bit of money.

It is utterly wrong that an area like the Lenches can be turned into a rich person's playground, with traditional rural activities stopped by the incomers (who consider them, a) noisy and b) dirty) and only a privileged few permitted to enjoy the unnatural peace and the almost unlimited pony riding ground. That is not what the countryside is for.

But that is what MP Duff is trying to enforce. Privilege which, having stamped itself on a living community (in the process, undermining and sidelining that community), sets itself the task of determining what can and cannot happen within its domain.

The sad thing is that Duff has been repeatedly advised about the real methods, tactics and motives of the protesters. But he has chosen to ignore the majority of his constituents, and the needs of the nation at large, in order to defend the 'rights' of a tiny number of self-important, arrogant and anti-social property owners and developers.

This is no way to move forwards. Regardless of the fact that Duff's bill has approximately nil percent chance of becoming law, the local MP has given a clear signal as to where his priorities lie. The needs of the many (of society as a whole, future generations, millions in developing countries) are essentially irrelevant. What matters is those handful of Tory voters who live on the hill and are fighting a proposed windfarm.

If only the protesters had had better leadership from the start. Then, perhaps, Duff might have been able to help them.

Instead, he has entered a debate which has been hijacked by self-centred liars and dangerous bullies, and he has done so on their side. He has ignored the very basics of democracy to concentrate on the noisy demands of a privileged few. He has confused the idea of 'community' with those tantrum-throwers who always expect to get their own way, regardless of costs and who suffers.

Couldn't he have thought about this a bit more carefully?

Hmmnn ... maybe. But then, so could the protesters, if they'd wanted to. But they didn't.

*

P.S. - the Transition Towns initiative has been trying to draw Peter Luff's attention to a couple of undeniable facts.

Firstly, that inequality breeds inefficiency and a whole raft of social problems. Secondly, that communities need to become sustainable and to embrace the transition from an exploitative, inefficient consumer society to a low carbon local economy.

Sadly, however, it seems that the well-meaning Transition Towns people were wasting their breath. Luff still believes that inequality is valuable and vital (wealthy people shouldn't have to contribute anything at all to the problems we all face) and that sustainability doesn't really matter, compared with the views from a few wealthy people's bedroom windows.

Still, three cheers for Transition Towns Evesham for trying.

Monday, October 26, 2009

GEARING UP

It's pretty well a year since the news first broke that ScottishPower Renewables was investigating the area around Lenchwick as the potential site of a windfarm.

Instantly, the lies started. A small band of self-interested people thrust a bewildering raft of phoney facts and misrepresentative information down the throats of those around them.

Parish councils were assailed by nimbies en masse seeking to expel those councillors who were kindly disposed towards the windfarm plan and those who were committed to behaving according to the rules of parish councils. In Church Lench, the protesters were successful - the original parish council resigned, allowing nimbies to take over the parish council and to enter into a symbiotic relationship with the misguided protesters of Vale Villagers Against Science & Progress (VVASP). In Norton & Lenchwick, the nimby mob was markedly less successful.

The barrage of propaganda continued, fuelling crazy rumours and bizarre notions of what a windfarm actually is. The nimbies set out to frighten, to terrify, their neighbours with their looney claims. Anyone who expressed an alternative view was given an unambiguous message: 'Shut up, or else!'

This blog came into existence nearly six months ago, with the aim of countering VVASP's dishonest propaganda, relaying the misdeeds of the protesters (diverting parish council money, anyone?) and offering support to all those in the area who approve of the windfarm. The 'silent majority', in other words.

Six months, and nearly 100 blog posts later, and now we're anxiously waiting for the planning application for the windfarm to be submitted by ScottishPower Renewables (SPR). The moment it is, expect a massive clamour from some of the residents of three Lenches villages.

There will be demonstrations. There will be publicity stunts. There will be lies.

The nimbies have bent the ear of the local MP, fooling him into taking a token stand on behalf of a handful of wealthy individuals against the interests of the wider community - an interesting clue as to how an incoming Conservative government might operate.

(Please feel free to contact Peter Luff MP by post or email if you feel that his campaigning on behalf of a bunch of liars, bullies and property developers isn't really the way forward.)

The truth of the matter is that there is a continuency here, many of whom believe in the windfarm as a progressive step, as a tiny fraction of what is urgently needed and as an inspiring addition to the local scene. With their usual scattergun, never-mind-the-facts-just-scare-the-punters finesse, the nimbies shrieked that the windfarm would 'kill the Vale countryside'. Surely a contender for the Silliest Remark Ever Made prize.

But a large number of local people see the windfarm as rescuing the Vale countryside from the depradations of interlopers, agribusiness and monoculture and the terrifying consequences of climate change. In other words, if you want to save our countryside, vote windfarm. Typically, the VVASP spokespeople are out to the tune of 180 degrees (which you might expect when they're not really thinking about the countryside, only themselves). The windfarm won't, and couldn't, 'kill the Vale countryside'. Rather, it would help to protect the area.

What the anti-windfarm protests have shown is how much the relevant villages have changed in recent years. They have become insular, petty-minded suburban retreats attracting acquisitive investors who have no interest whatsoever in the community. Such people have no qualms about lying to and terrorising their new neighbours if they feel (wrongly, as it happens) that their financial interests are threatened.

So what do those who support the windfarms plans do? Well, it's quite simple. We need to flood Wychavon District Council with letters of support for Lenchwick Windfarm. That's all.

We just need to let the councillors and council officers know that there is huge support for the windfarm in the local villages, and that that support cannot be silenced, cannot be overruled or swept aside, by a small number of nasty nimbies.

Very soon - perhaps even as the 100th blogpost here - we shall be presenting a proposed letter which supporters of the windfarm need only sign and send in to the district council when the planning application has been received from SPR.

We'd be more than happy to hear from anybody who has some suggestions or ideas as to what this letter might include.

But we shall definitely be offering a standard latter of support for anyone to use. We want to make it as easy as possible for the many supporters of the windfarm to make their views known to the planning committee.

VVASP have made a huge amount of noise, pretty well all of which was based on myths and lies, on misquoted reports, on dubious science, on hysteria and blatant nimbyism.

They've had their day.

Let common sense and forward thinking prevail. You can help. All that's needed is a letter of support. The more, the merrier. And we here at Wind of Change will happily do all that we can to overcome the fascist tendencies of the protesters.

Do let your voice be heard - for the sake of future generations.

Friday, October 23, 2009

TORIES IN TATTERS

Much of the talk across the nation today might be about Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time last night, but there is a bigger political issue around at the moment.

Last week, senior Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell MP proclaimed that anyone who believes that climate change is happening is part of a "lunatic consensus".

This was a shocking statement. The world is facing the greatest crisis ever to affect humanity. Earlier this year, New Scientist magazine ran a piece which suggested that rising global temperatures could lead to a reduction in the human population of the planet to around 1 billion in ninety years time. That would mean that some six billion lives are to be wiped out during the remainder of this century. Mankind has never faced a catastrophe on that scale before.

Then, this week, shadow business secretary Ken Clarke MP announced that, in his view, onshore windfarms are "not suitable" for the UK.

By the following day, Clarke had been forced into an embarrassing climbdown. The Conservative Party insisted that it remained committed to expanding the onshore wind energy sector, and that Clarke's remarks had nothing whatever to do with Tory party policy.

Evidently, 'green' Dave Cameron has a problem on his hands. His party simply doesn't get it. The Conservative Party is still stuck in the 20th (or perhaps the 19th) century. Tory politicians have completely failed to grapple with scientific evidence and the growth of the low carbon economy.

Against the background of disarray in Tory ranks, Peter Luff's announcement that he intends to speak for 10 minutes in the House of Commons on his own proposals to limit the distance between wind turbines and peoples' homes makes perfect sense.

The likelihood of Peter Luff's bill getting anywhere is negligible. But with a scant disregard for evidence or the national need, Luff's plan cosies up to the maniacal nimbies. It's essentially a pointless gesture, but it has been designed to keep the nimby loudmouths satisfied.

No wonder that VVASP seems to imagine that a Tory government will release them from the spell of having a windfarm - a windfarm, of all things! - somewhere near their homes.

The reality of the VVASP protest is this. One man simply doesn't want to see a windfarm nearby. A handful of others are developing properties in the area. They have reacted to the windfarm proposals with a shocking display of selfishness. They don't want the windfarm because they think it will harm their investments (it won't - why should it?) or, in the case of one individual, they just don't want it to be able to see it. They have been prepared to lie, to mislead, to misinform, to bully and to bend the rules in order to have their own way.

Are these the sort of people Peter Luff really wants to champion? Is this what the UK needs right now - a party committed to promoting the interests of a few property developers and raging nimbies in the face of a looming global disaster (not to mention the national humiliation of electricity blackouts on the horizon)?

If the local MP were a tad more thoughtful he might have taken a moment to consider the many residents of the Lenches and surrounding villages who support the windfarm (or whose unhappiness with the proposed windfarm is as nothing compared with their disgust and outrage at the tactics employed by the VVASP nimbies). If Peter Luff only took time out to ask himself which is the majority - the handful of narrow-minded nimbies in the Lenches or those who would benefit, in a variety of ways, from the windfarm - he might give some consideration to what might be the best use of his valuable time. Does he represent the short-term interests of a few monied individuals or the majority of voters in his constituency? Are his interests the present desires of an irresponsible, unscrupulous, reckless group of self-interested bullies or the long-term needs of society?

A TV programme last night, entitled 'BNP Wives', showed hard-right activists spreading their sick propaganda on Britain's streets. Their attitudes, their tactics, their insane paranoia and their gross unreasonableness would have been instantly recognisable to anybody who has witnessed the anti-windfarm nimbies of VVASP at work.

Are these the sort of people Peter Luff wants to put first?

The great sadness here is that the current government of the UK has only recently begun to grapple in any meaningful way with the dire consequences of global climate change. Just in time, potentially, to lose control to a Tory party which is about as ignorant and unrealistic about these problems as the nimbies of Lench.

Naturally, an incoming Tory government will be forced to deal with reality. Maybe just at the moment a few MPs are queueing up to spout nimby nonsense on the stupid grounds that it's a 'vote-winner'. Again, we get the sense that the Tories aren't seeing the bigger picture, but the demands of government will force them to wake up. At which point, the nimbies might recognise that Peter Luff's posturing was simply that, and that Ken Clarke might not care much for windfarms but that's not going to stop them.

But it is disturbing to find that the party most likely to form the next British government is in such a mess over the biggest issue to threaten the 21st century.

Will they recognise that they don't just serve the interests of a privileged few? For that is simply what the VVASP protest is about. It's a tiny minority who think that their finances, their privileges, are threatened by the Lenchwick Windfarm development. They're wrong, but they don't care - they'll do anything to force their anti-social opinions down everybody's throats.

And unless Tory politicians get real and accept that the future belongs to all of us (not just an arrogant, intolerant few), that energy and climate change are the big issues of today (and tomorrow) and that the genuine needs of the many outweigh the selfish desires of the few, the UK will be going to hell in a handcart while the rest of the world takes steps to protect itself against catastrophe.

Let's hope and pray that common sense descends on the Tory party before it's too late.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

LOSING APPEAL

There was a bingo night in Harvington, last week. This event was advertised in the latest VVASP newsletter and on posters in the area.

One thing that these posters failed to disclose, though, was whether or not the bingo night was a VVASP fundraising event.

Now, this sort of thing is nothing unusual in the Lenches these days. Many people find that it's almost impossible to determine which village events are, covertly, VVASP events and which are, therefore, means of raising money for VVASP's anti-windfarm protest.

What was slightly unusual about the Harvington bingo evening was that this blurring of the line between village social and political fundraiser, so common of late in Church Lench, was now being exported to the surrounding villages.

Is it possible that people have gone to events like this, either in the Lenches or elsewhere, unaware that in so doing they were supporting the nimbies of VVASP?

Looking ahead, we have good reason to expect the planning application from ScottishPower Renewables for the Lenchwick Windfarm to be submitted to Wychavon District Council imminently. At which point, we can expect a re-run of the madness which descended over the immediate area when ScottishPower Renewables held their public information sessions in September.

The problem the nimbies have is that the planning guidelines offer no obvious legitimate grounds for the planning application to be turned down. The government has, of necessity, committed itself to renewables. The supposed downsides of windfarms are pretty well all in the protesters' heads. There will almost certainly be an astonishing display of spluttering anger at the relevant planning meeting, but councillors are getting a little peeved at being barracked by noisy nimbies. There is also a quiet, undemonstrative but pleasingly healthy degree of local support for the windfarm development.

VVASP have pledged to fight the windfarm till the bitter end. They half believe that if they can hold things up until the next general election, an incoming Tory government will be more amenable to their selfish cause. Which is unlikely.

Failing that, they seem to feel that simply delaying the arrival of the windfarm for as long as is possible would be an honourable result.

But if the windfarm is coming (which it is), what is the point of trying to postpone its appearance for a couple of years?

It's this kind of pig-headed exploitation of the planning system in order to delay developments which are in the national (and international) public good that has led the government to reconsider our rather ricketty planning system.

Pursuing their campaign through as many stages of the system as they can will cost VVASP a lot of money - which they're raising, in part at least, through events which don't exactly boast about their VVASP credentials.

It will also cost public money - tax-payers' money - every time VVASP delay the inevitable with another stalling tactic.

We can expect more events to take place locally which manage to be rather coy about their real purpose. That in itself is telling. Perhaps VVASP are struggling to maintain their support and finding it more effective not to mention their involvement in local events.

But each one coaxes more money out of local people to be devoted to a time-wasting exercise, and one which could cost each and every single one of us.

This kind of behaviour is costing us our national pride - the UK gets 40% of Europe's wind and yet lies second from bottom in the European renewables league table. It is also costing the future. As politicians the world over are beginning to realise, we all need binding commitments and urgent action now.

Surely if VVASP knew that they were fighting the good fight, and that there was some point in doing so, they wouldn't be quite so coy about their local fundraising activities.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

THE INVERSE SQUARE RULE

Windfarms are noisy.

They're not, of course, but this is what the nimbies keep telling us. They're noisy, so there.

But what happens when someone actually visits a windfarm, or stays near one, and discovers that they're remarkably, surprisingly quiet?

Each time that happens - each time somebody returns to the Shire with the news that it's possible to stand directly beneath the blades of a working wind turbine and still be surprised by how quiet they are - the nimbies are caught out. Telling porkies again. Windfarms aren't noisy at all.

So the nimbies have been employing a cunning new weapon. When it is pointed out that so-and-so actually stood directly beneath the blades of a turbine on a windy day and says they're not noisy, the nimby response will be:

'Of course. Sound travels outwards. Wind turbines get noisier the further you are from them!'

This claim has the appearance of science to support it. Soundwaves radiate outwards from a source. If you're right up against the source, the soundwaves will be heading outwards into the atmosphere above your head. You won't hear them, but somebody standing further away will.

Unfortunately for the nimbies, this argument is sheer cobblers.

Sound follows the inverse square rule. The volume of a sound diminishes rapidly as you move away from it.

This is why modern turbines can barely be heard 200 metres away. Up close, they're very quiet. Even that low level sound quickly disappears as you move away from the masts.

So, no - wind turbines do not get noisier the further you move away from them.

Science nails another nimby myth.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

Under the stewardship of Lord Turner, yesterday the government's Committee on Climate Change (CCC) published its first annual report.

The conclusions were inescapable. Britain needs to pull its finger out.

Amongst the recommendations of the report was a call for 23 gigawatts of new wind power generation in the UK by 2020. That equates to an extra 8,000 three megawatt turbines.

The Lenchwick Windfarm will comprise 5 turbines rated up to 2.3 MW each. That's a tiny fraction - less than a quarter of one per cent - of the total required.

Now, here's the rub. Every single one of those 8,000 additional wind turbines will be in the 'wrong' environment. It's not just a few locals in the Lenchwick area who don't want a brand new windfarm near them. Nimby groups spring up everywhere a new windfarm is proposed, and they all spout the same empty arguments: 'We're all in favour of renewables, but just not here!'

So we need a massive increase in the amount of wind power generated in the UK. But nimby groups are going to fight this every inch of the way.

Maybe VVASP really do believe that they are so special, so unique, that they can be exempted from this form of national service. The government and power companies are going to have to find sites for at least 8,000 turbines, but the Lenches feel that they have the right to oppose the five we've been offered.

And if everybody else feels the same way? If everybody takes up the nimby mantra, what then?

Perhaps it's time for the anti-windfarm protesters of the area to come to their senses. Not everywhere nominated for a windfarm can be an 'inappropriate' environment. There is a national need - nay, a looming national crisis - to be addressed. The message from scientists and advisers is clear: the UK is going to get a lot more windfarms and we'll be getting them soon. It's not a question of whether we like them or not.

What kind of example are we setting? The UK needs 8,000 new turbines. The nimbies of Lench are refusing to have five.

It would certainly help matters if groups like VVASP would stick to the facts about wind power, rather than constantly trading silly stories about windfarms. With such a massive increase in wind-generated energy on the cards, such behaviour is monumentally irresponsible and immoral.

We could wise up. Accept the fact that windfarms are going to be part of the British landscape. Acknowledge that the problems we face require answers that involve us all. Recognise that windfarms are quiet, clean and green and that opposing them is socially unacceptable.

Or we could waste large amounts of money and time in fighting the inevitable.