|
|
|
|||||
|
Countryside Jobs Service |
||||||
|
CJS Discussion Board - Wind Farms |
||||||
|
You are here> Info > Main Board> Wind Farms |
||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Topic on 31/1/05: Wind Farms [This is along similar lines but is a distinctly different tack, CJS] DR in Inverness says: I feel that if the government is totally committed to reducing greenhouse emissions then it has to take more radical initiatives like, for instance, making it law that all new buildings erected from a particular date in the future should have solar heating/power whilst also pump money into off-shore renewable wave power research/facilities. By doing this much of the debate around wind farms and scenic areas would become academic. (Ref: WF) 27/10/03 - British Wildlife Law KP says: I live in the lovely Loch Awe valley in Argyll. We have the prospect of being surrounded by banks of wind turbines in every direction if various developers have their way. The effect on tourism, a vital industry in these remote areas, will be tremendous. Turbines are known to kill internationally protected birds such as eagles, ospreys, falcons, harriers, etc. The Wildlife & Countryside Act (Scotland) states quite categorically that to intentionally kill or disturb such Schedule 1 protected birds, without having a licence to do so, carries special penalties including imprisonment. It also states that anyone who knowingly allows such an act to be carried out and takes no measures to prevent it will be equally as guilty as the person committing the act. If an Environmental Statement on any development shows that it will kill a protected species it is admitting intent (in my view) if it then goes ahead. Councillors, local and national government officials, site developers, land-owners and laymen, - all are duty bound to obey the law. I have been told that planning law is a 'Grey Area' regarding wildlife protection matters, I can assure the people who make such a statement - The Wildlife and Countryside Acts are 'Black and White'. Various 'Conservation Organisations' encourage their members and the general public to report the finding of any dead protected species of birds to the police. I, also, would encourage them to do likewise. In fact I would encourage them to make a detour when passing any Windfarm where access is allowed and search beneath every tower for such evidence. It is high time that some 'Green Energy' supporters realised that in encouraging some wind-power stations they are contributing to the demise of endangered species and country-life in general. It is also time that the officials and politicians who 'rubber stamp' some of these 'Eco Friendly' constructions were brought to book and made to explain their decisions in a court of Law. The Environment and Rural Development Committee (ERDC) of the Scottish Parliament is currently considering the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. I trust that when it is finalised, the new legislation will not be used to enable some multi-national organisations to continue to slaughter our wildlife with impunity. Interested parties have until the 10th November 03 to contact the ERDC (www.scottish.parliament.uk) and make their views known. (ref: BWL) Replies:►DH of Wiltshire replies: The rarer birds that have been spotted being killed tend to be carrion eaters, so are bound to be more at risk. The windfarms are creating higher levels of food availability for such species -just as Motorways are favoured by Crows. If you really want to test the act, try it on a new road scheme, something which delivers little in the way of wildlife benefit. Don't forget the Fallen Livestock instrument recently introduced now makes it illegal for carrion food (=dead sheep)to be available and poses a real threat to such species. When wildlife law relates to just a species and not an ecosystem it often creates an imbalance. The badger act, and the ragwort bill being to English examples. I worry that some of us fail to distinguish between wildlife law and flourishing wildlife. At the recent GAP conference it was discussed that management restrictions on SAC's prevent innovative land management. At the Oosvaderplassen in Holland, wild cattle, ponies and deer were introduced to an area of Zuider zee, and one of Europe's most fantastic reserves was created. All manner of birdlife flourish (e.g Corncrakes without Hay Meadows). Wildlife has done so well it is now an SAC, and introducing something radical like big herbivores would not now be allowed. Perhaps we should conserve the wood and not the trees. (Ref: BWL-R1)
►AL from Dumfriesshire says: I have a longstanding commitment to the conservation of the natural world. However having said that, I have read what KP has to say about wind farms and cannot leave her/his views unchallenged. The two main points about which KP has written, are assertions which involve emotive and wildly exaggerated claims, but this does not make them true, no matter how passionately she/he may feel about this issue. The Loch Awe area is well known to me and there is no doubt that it has scenic attraction, although I would not put it anywhere near the top of my favourite Scottish landscape list. However, KP should understand that there are many people who see wind turbines as graceful and indeed elegant structures. Provided they are sited in a sensitive way and are not too visually intrusive, there is no reason to suppose that they will have any effect whatsoever on the local tourist trade. It might even be that additional people will come to the area because they want to see them. KP then makes another baseless claim that "Turbines are known to kill internationally protected birds". This is just more irresponsible scaremongering and is the mantra which anti wind farm campaigners are accustomed to chant, in order to resist these essential renewable energy developments. As far as I know there is no evidence of any significant bird kills by turbines and all interested bodies are merely keeping the situation under review. Perhaps KP would prefer to have a nice shiny new nuclear power station built nearby instead!!! I wonder if KP uses electricity at home and at work!!! The plain fact is that we are confronted with the inexorable increasing pressures of climate change and we must urgently learn to harness all possible sources of non-polluting renewable energy, if we are to maintain a lifestyle similar to that which we currently enjoy. The "business-as-usual" approach is simply not an option any more. There must be changes, we must be prepared to accept that and we must ALL play our part. I suggest that KP should learn to see wind turbines as beautiful, because of the clean energy they produce and not see them through "luddite" eyes, as merely just another industrial development. KP's "not-in-my-back-yard" attitude is about as up-to-date as the dinosaur. No-one's backyard should be out of bounds now!!! (ref: BWL-R2) ► On 30/8/04 Original Contributor returns with: Well AL! It looks as if Loch Awe is getting nearer to becoming a contender for your favourite Scottish Landscape list? I have just been informed that a 'Scoping' report for a 63 turbine development has been lodged with the Scottish executive. It is just South-West of the 24 turbine site due to be built behind my village. Another 'farm' application is for just a few miles to the North of the one planned for opposite the village. I don't know how many turbines are planned as yet. I'm sure that you will be pleased for all of us and looking forward to your next holiday up here? Or will you be going to Lewis, Ardnamurchan, Mull or Skye, to enjoy the views of their coming new attractions? (Ref: BWL-R2A) ► On 22/9/04: JM says: I am writing from Wales to say that here is one tourist who will avoid any area where there are wind turbines; we have too much experience here of the affect they have on the peace and beauty of the landscape, let alone their devastating affect on the habitat they are placed on and its component wildlife. AL suggests that it 'might even be that additional people will come to the area because they want to see them'. In your dreams, AL! When turbines go up people may come ONCE - never again. That is about as useful for a tourist industry as wind turbines are at reducing CO2. If the desires of the commercial wind lobby go ahead, wild places without wind turbines will be as rare as intact flocks of migrants; and those places without turbines will be the few areas left where tourism flourishes. Anyone with experience of wind turbines can only view them as colossal money-making machines - thanks to the ROCs system and other hidden subsidies - for the benefit of a few landowners and international businesses, intent on ignoring the environment and wildlife, wishes and well-being of local people, and long-term security of our electricity supply. The concentration on wind has delayed the development of more acceptable renewables actually capable of providing constant energy which will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. And don't tell me, AL, that it is a case of wind power OR nuclear energy. Whatever happens, it will always be wind power PLUS something else. (Ref: BWL-R2B)
►KP replies: So, I take it from the comments furnished by DH (thank you for your polite reply) and AL (you need to do some homework re bird kills and cumulative effect - attack can be a rather flawed means of defence!) :- We should ignore wildlife protection and let anarchy rule? I can think of a lot of people who would welcome that idea! Sparrow hawks at bird tables, harriers on grouse moors, badgers near dairy herds, pine martens around chicken runs, eagles in sheep country, etc, etc.. But think of all the tax payer's money we will save! No need for SNH Officials & Regional Council Planners (some of their recommendations have been dismissed by the Scottish Executive anyway) and Wildlife Liaison Officers. We can divert the tax savings through staff cuts into the Subsidy Coffers for the windfarm companies, that should enable me to afford electricity for a few more years! Goodbye RSPB you aren't required any more (rent your land to the developers!), RSPCA can concentrate on looking after the interests of domestic animals again, fishery managers your problems can be easily solved! Hunting supporters - carry on! I can't wait for the windfarm visitors to pour into my area and improve my parlous lot as a tourist guide. Do you think we ought to start a Turbine Spotters Association? Why - we could even start a museum and set up a few next to that graceful (but inefficient) beast Concord! Personally, I'm going to put my faith and hopes into Tidal Power Generation, even that old dinosaur King Canute knew that the tide runs dependably - Each And Every Day! Incidentally, can anyone suggest a use for Thousands of redundant wind turbines, without adding to the greenhouse effect gasses? Answers on a postcard please to KP c/o CJS. [discussion board, please!] (Ref: BWL-R3) DH replies: I returned to this debate with interest. But disappointed that KP did not pick up my suggestion that there may be more damaging developments to test the Wildlife & Countryside Act (Scotland). We can debate how good or bad wind turbines are, and they may be a growing threat, but they cannot be considered the biggest threat to UK wildlife. That of course is not even a development, it is modern agricultural practices. Lets all focus on that and more clearly damaging impacts such as greenhouse emissions and motorways our energies can save more wildlife for less effort that way. And please don't quote a laissez faire american professors with little or no reputation in the UK without highlighting who funds his research, chair, college etc. I guess with the "right subsidies" anyone could be employed to trot out Oil Baron propaganda, masquerading as Scientific /Economic Policy research. (ref: BWL-R3a) Reply to BWL-R3a. I welcome DH's return to this issue. I'm trying to avoid getting side-lined into focusing on other issues. The law states that anyone who knowingly allows the use of electrical devices to indiscriminately kill protected species is equally guilty of the offence, unless they do something about it. It's plain and simple, I'm obeying the law. I do agree with you that there "may be" more damaging developments that the law might deal with, if I come across them I will make representations in the same manner. If you already know of any, you might do something about it? Try writing to our statutory protection agencies, you probably won't get a direct reply to a simple straight question, at least - I didn't! (I like to think that a correct answer might have embarrassed them!). But, then you can try opening a 'new subject', here. At least our CJS professionals will be aware that there is a problem, you never know - it might just filter through to government circles! I've long thought that copies of CJS 'Discussion Board' should be lodged in our Parliamentary libraries. The idea that some wildlife crimes are more criminal than others cuts no ice as far as I am concerned. 'Cherry picking' by way of magnitude of offences has no part in protecting threatened populations of wildlife. An eagle chopped to death, or poisoned, is still a dead eagle. I stood by a newly constructed silage pit some thirty years ago, my conservationist farmer friend said wryly - "main protein content, chopped skylarks, partridges, hares and possibly a corncrake or two!" I will never forget those words, just look at what has happened to the populations of those species during the intervening years. I look on wind turbines as the newly created 'forage harvesters' of the sky, I'm convinced that yet another tranche is going to be taken out of our endangered species. I am, along with a great many others, trying to do something to prevent it happening. You certainly won't be able to accuse us of being laissez-faire! Regards, KP. (Ref: BWL-R3b)
►Dear CJS Discussion Board, Having read KP's reply, I note the clear implication that I am being accused of being impolite to her/him in my last letter. If KP cannot either distinguish between rudeness and robust debate, or is of too delicate a disposition to take an opposing opinion, then she/he should avoid involvement in exchanges such as this. Unfortunately, KP then devalues her/his credibility by indulging in a lengthy diatribe of exaggeration and sarcasm, none of which materially advances the discussion. The fact remains that the world's economies still depend far too much on non-renewable resources, all of which contribute to climate change which is probably the greatest environmental threat now confronting us all, including birds and tourists!! If KP cares to read my letter again, she/he will note that I wrote "Provided they are sited in a sensitive way and are not too visually intrusive, there is to reason to suppose that they will have any effect whatsoever on the tourist trade." I am convinced that we need to pursue a variety of renewable sources of power (certainly including tidal and wave) and as far as windfarms are concerned, sensitive siting is absolutely essential. Off-shore positions should probably be more fully explored, but we must be prepared to harness this power source as much as reasonably possible. However, we could perhaps learn much from the Danish approach, especially since they are acknowledged leaders in wind turbine technology. All along the west coast of Jutland, many small rural communities have "their own" windfarm and there was no significant level of objection. Perhaps this is because these developments were set up so that the local community received their electricity at a lower cost, the surplus electricity produced was "sold" to the national grid and the proceeds were returned to the community to be autonomously spent on local community projects. Furthermore, from my personal knowledge of Danish society, I can confidently vouch for their environmental awareness and wildlife concern. These windfarms were not constructed without proper environmental impact assessments. This debate could continue for many weeks, without any prospect of agreement, but full marks to CJS for providing this platform for discussion on such a vital topic. Yours sincerely, AL, Dumfriesshire. (Ref: BWL-R4) ► Reply To: AL, Dumfriesshire. From: KP, Argyll. If you, like many others before you (ranging downwards from Chief Executives of two Government Organisations), persist in trying to sidetrack the discussion to avoid the ‘nub’ of the question – Should Our Wildlife Protection Laws Be Disregarded? – Then I am happy to engage you in robust, considered, argument, for as long as it takes YOU, to come up with the EVIDENCE, that will make ME, change MY mind. Something which I am capable of doing! Your last statement seems to show that you are not? As one who helped to get planning permission through for one of the first set of turbines erected in the UK (I have a letter of thanks from Friends of the Earth to prove it). Also, as one who was exposed to an unquantified amount of radiation from an insecure container carried in the hold of a civil aircraft, when travelling from Amsterdam to London - I find your remarks regarding my capability of addressing the subject - Facile, Bigoted and Downright Impolite!!! (note the number of exclamation marks, you seem to find them ‘robust’). But full marks for trying to use character assassination as a means of defence! You state that you are not aware of significant bird kills? Perhaps you should make yourself aware? I have lodged a few (of many) documents with CJS which you might care to access [we will make these available via the Discussion Board once we have permission to publish from the various authors – CJS], also, others dealing with tourism effects, etc. These have been gathered from around the World, UK to Australia, in both directions – Some Backyard! Tell us all – just how many bird kills do you consider to be significant? Ten out of a flock of redwings? Two out of a nesting pair of eagles? Twenty out of a string of sixty whooper swans? I think that you should tell us! Bear in mind that (in this area to date) ‘monitoring’ applies to individual sites, cumulative effect is not a part of the ‘monitoring’- At The Moment. Also, just what happens when ‘monitoring’ has finished, and our eagles, ospreys, etc. are dead? Until twelve months ago I was very supportive of wind power, then I found out, quite by chance, ONE DAY before the plans were lodged, that a company intended putting a huge array of 302ft high turbines on Top Of The 1,800ft Ridge opposite my home. A spot where eagles hunt, red throated divers nest, and Very Close to an osprey nest site. To say I was shocked is a great understatement. I then began intensive research into bird kills, this led to other matters. What I have found is very worrying. Do you know (or care) what is the tonnage per sq Km of carbon based gas released from a peat bed when it is broken open to enable roads and foundations to be constructed? Do you know what conventional ‘Spinning Reserve’ is required for when the wind is not blowing or blowing too strongly? Don’t talk to me about learning to love the ‘grace and beauty’ of what is planned to be put around me, I can spot a ‘Ringer’ when I see one. If the Scottish Parliament had not imposed a requirement (without debate) on electricity suppliers to buy ‘Green Energy’ from windfarm operators (The Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order) most of these plans would not have got off the drawing board! The ‘Green Energy Bonus’ period was extended by the Scottish Executive for an extra five years last week (until 2015-16), in the hope of stopping investors getting ‘cold feet’. For ‘Bonus’ read Tax or Consumer Cost Increase. As for your Denmark scenario? (Look at my earlier submissions, you might just see that I used the word ‘some’ on occasions). I would welcome a small turbine close to this village, with such obvious benefits to our community, as long as it is not going to damage our tourism and biodiversity. But, on the same theme, look up which country in Europe has the most expensive electricity? I understand that it is Denmark? Also, I understand that not so long ago, that country came very close to complete ‘blackout’ (as against a recent American ‘brownout’) due to a storm causing havoc with the generating supply systems. Unless you are already aware of the fact (which I doubt, though you may be more aware of these issues than you have so far admitted?), when a site is completed it can well fall into the frame for applications for expansion. I know of at least one site in the Borders that is being considered at the present time (I see from my map that all of Dumfriesshire is earmarked for about half the number of ‘Farms’ compared to the relatively small Loch Awe area). To meet the present commitment will require Thousands of turbines, are you and your friends and neighbours ready to say ‘put them here! ? I wouldn’t if I were you! Now TRY! to give an answer to my question – Should Our Wildlife Laws Be Disregarded? Yes or No! Yours respectfully, KP. Argyll. PS. I feel that I must warn you that this conversation is being monitored in Australia and possibly other countries. (ref: BWL-R4a)
AL replies: Dear CJS Discussion Board, I have read the latest letter from KP and as this is a busy time of year, I shall try to respond to the salient points as comprehensively but also as briefly as possible. Firstly let me confirm that I am capable of changing my mind and KP must not deduce otherwise, from the final paragraph of my last letter. I was merely implying that it is a perfectly honourable outcome that people may agree to differ. KP claims that Denmark has the most expensive electricity in Europe. I have no idea whether that is true or not. However, as it is a country which has no indigenous coal, oil or hydro-power resources and has only very recently acquired a small gas field, it has to import virtually all of its energy requirements. In such circumstances, it would not be surprising if energy costs are high and the Danes are trying to maximise their production of renewable energy. In my last letter, I expressed the opinion that climate change is by far the greatest environmental threat currently facing all plant, invertebrate, bird and animal (not excluding human) life, especially if the rate of change continues to accelerate as at present. All the food chains and food webs which we take for granted and on which all life depends, will be dislocated with consequences which are exceedingly hard to predict. Now I will firmly state that I yield to no-one in my commitment to conservation of the natural world, but in this potentially extreme context of climate change, I feel there is a "big picture", of which we must not lose sight. If birds are being killed by turbine blades, then of course this is tragic, but in the long term, the lives of all manner of wildlife are going to be destroyed in far greater numbers, if the food chains on which they all depend are no longer viable. The climate change threat must therefore be addressed urgently, by all possible means. Now to the direct question which KP poses. "Should our wildlife laws be disregarded? Yes or no?" Well, I would love to be able to reply in this unambiguous way, but I fear it may not be so simple. What I do know is that all law is subject to interpretation and whilst one party may feel utterly convinced as to the meaning of a particular aspect of legislation, another may be equally confident in an opposing view. Ultimately, it is only a judge sitting in a case which hinges on such a disputed interpretation, who can hand down a definitive understanding and that then becomes the accepted position until it is changed by a higher court. I'm not trying to duck the question. I'm simply saying that like most lay persons, I don't know the answer. I do not feel that I can add anything more to this correspondence, beyond that which I have already written. If others wish to continue the debate, I shall be happy to observe with interest. Yours sincerely, AL (ref: BWL-R4b) I thank you for your polite reply. I certainly look forward to the first (probably of many) court case(s) to test this subject. (I can do with a rest too!). Regards KP Argyll. (Ref: BWL-R4bc) Under the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Reform Agreement it was decided that the new format for farm subsidies would be subject to cross-compliance rules. A farmer will receive subsidies based on good land management rather than on production. However if any legislation rules are broken regarding environmental or wildlife protection matters, the farmer can lose part, or all, of the subsidy payment, as well as suffering prosecution and fines for breaking the law. Killing a common species such as a sparrow-hawk is subject to stiff penalties under our wildlife laws. There has been much discussion in the press of late regarding the possibility of legally protected birds, such as eagles and red kites, being killed by wind-turbines. Concerned bird lovers fear many such protected species will lose their lives. On the other hand, windfarm promoters and at least one wildlife charity say such fears are groundless, as they ensure turbines are situated away from areas where protected birds nest. They rarely express much interest in wandering immature, migrating, or wintering birds, so far as I can establish. As one of the persons concerned for the rule of law regarding the welfare of ALL protected birds, also to use a phrase beloved by many of today’s politicians – "let me make this perfectly clear" - I have put forward this suggestion to our government :- Regarding any windfarm site, on-land or off-shore. For every incident of a protected bird being killed by ‘turbine strike’ on one of those 'declared environmentally friendly' sites :- The operator should be prosecuted with the full force of the law for the offence. Furthermore, they should be obliged, on an incremental basis, to cede a substantial part of their earnings under the Renewables Obligation Certificate scheme (ROCs) for that year, say one quarter for the first offence? The charge exacted should not be 'made up' by passing on the loss to the consumer, I assume that a farmer will not be able to do so under the CAP scheme? I believe this method of ensuring responsible environmental conservation management has great potential? Such regulations will concentrate the attention of developers wonderfully regarding just how ‘bird-safe’ their sites will be! It matters not whether it is Mynydd Gwrhyd, Ben Aketil, Inverliever Forest Ridge or Alexandra Palace Hill (now that would be a good place for a windfarm, I was there recently, saw a protected species, a black bird)! - If a 'pigeon -fancier' is not to be allowed to catch a sparrow-hawk raiding his pigeon loft, then a 'wind-farmer' should not be allowed to kill an eagle or red kite. Protected status is for an individual bird, not just ‘significant numbers of’, which seems to be a phrase commonly used in abdicating responsibility for breaking the law. I would welcome any comments from subscribers to CJS 'discussion board', this issue is as important as 'fox hunting'! KP. Argyll. (ref: BWL-R5) PC of Leeds says: Regarding the wind question, I believe there is too much of an attitude that we must use wind power simply because it a sustainable power source, rather than it actually being the optimum choice for an area. The UK is a windy country and thus it would seem overall that there is a place for windpower here. However, it seems (to me!) that most of the areas where wind could be best harnessed is the hills of the north and west where unfortunately the worst aesthetic damage would also occur. Perhaps an alternative in sensitive areas would be to plant native woodlands instead, which generally aid aesthetics and wildlife, and collect a sustainable timber harvest to be used in local woodfuel power plants (as they do in much of the continent!) (Ref: BWL-R6) Does anyone have any data as to how many protected species are directly killed by power stations? - I'm guessing peat-fired facilities would cause the most damage. Details supplied (Ref: BWL-R6A) Your query raises other questions. What does "directly killed" mean? Killed by construction / operation / pollution / infra-structure (e.g. pylons and cables)? Do you consider a ridge covered in wind-turbines to be a power station? Are migrants, attracted to lights at night, or colliding with windows during the day, deemed to be "directly killed"? There is a lot of study done by various organisations throughout the world, who have an interest in these matters. One study that would be very revealing (I feel) would be shore-line searches down-wind / sea-current of off-shore wind-turbines, in places like Yarmouth or the Solway Estuary. If my suspicions are correct, these should prove most rewarding at main migration times. Perhaps such searches could be introduced as part of educational visits by schools when they are taken to see the wonders of 'green energy'? Incidentally, I am trying to get information regarding a dead peregrine falcon that was found in September 04 under a turbine near Ardrossan, North-Ayrshire. A bird-watcher made the discovery and reported it to an RSPB Warden (my informant tells me). Does anyone have any precise details as to the date or if the proper authorities were informed (Police / SNH)? Regards, KP.Argyll. (Ref: BWL-R6AA)
►New Thread: JM in Central Scotland says: First of all I haven't read all of the posts regarding this topic but I shall add a good blast of windy O2 fuel to the fire. I work for a tree surgery company that also carries out site clearance work (wasteland in industrial estates etc) and we currently have a contract to clear an area of land in the central belt of Scotland for a large windfarm (the turbines are going to be 200m tall). We have a mulcher which in conjunction with a few other companies (including harvesters, forwaders and other mulchers) have the duty to flatten a large area of coniferous woodland. Onto the point, I understand the negative implications of largescale monocultures of plantation, but to create a sustainable source of electricity they are wiping out most trees on the site, having to sink the foundations of the turbines 14 metres down into the peat (to hit bedrock). Our machine uses over 300 litres of diesel a day to flatten the smaller trees and mulch the harvested stumps. all this for a power source which I have heard claims that it only generates 15% of the power it is claimed to. I hope this makes sense. (Ref: BWL-R7)
If having read the complete arguments on this subject you want more info there is a Scottish protest group website with more details, have a look at their site too. It is www.saveourhills.org
I want to add a piece / comment -
The views contained on this page are not necessary those held by CJS. |
