Winds of Change
Over the last five years or so the prospect of Wind Turbines being imposed on the Orkney landscape has been growing as some would say an inevitable part of the now established and institutionalised fight against “Climate Change”.
The truth of this is now mired in a horrible obfuscation intertwining poor scientific understanding with week minded politicians and driven by that basic and primary force, Greed.
It is important to be unequivocal in this discussion. I am a committed environmentalist and am putting my money where my mouth is. I have just completed building a highly ecologically-sound dwelling and am about to start on the next, East Heddle. I have planted 3000 trees and am actively managing 11 acres as a wildlife sanctuary and bird reserve.
The knee-jerk reaction of the ill-informed, self-interested or simple wind turbine enthusiast is to accuse anyone campaigning against these machines as a parochial NIMBY. Actually my personal backyard is pretty well protected as we live on the boundary of the WHS ZVI, (World Heritage Site Zone of Visual Influence).
What is happening here is of course a microcosm of what is happening around the globe. Finding an effective solution to the Power and Pollution Equation is rapidly becoming the single most important issue facing both the developed and under-developed world in the 21st Century.
My problem with land based industrial wind energy generation is twofold. Firstly the facts surrounding the technology simply don’t hold up and secondly, they are in my and many other opinion, vast and ungainly industrialised blots on the landscape.
Again. I must be precise. Not on all Landscapes, some can embrace wind turbines, like the Horse Hollow Site in Texas now at 735 MW the largest wind energy site in the world.
Orkney would probably fit inside this wind farm. Certainly Europe can fit inside Texas. Huge scales can cope with huge scales, it is the way of things. In comparison of course any wind production from Orkney would be risible, and the visual damage relative to that production is out of any comparative proportion. The Wind Industry and Renewables people might dispute the statements above, or rather greatly emphasise all the positives. If it were a reasoned and balanced playing field this would be fine, a civilised rational debate would ensue.
But it is not.
The whole concept of energy generation policy in the UK is at best incompetent and irrational, at worst corrupt and self-interested. It is unreasonable to blame local Landowners who are suddenly shown the possibility of hundreds of thousands of pounds, or even the developers who are simply pursuing the best interests of their shareholders.
You can blame the system that seems to have become a plaything of corporate capitalist excess, with very little primacy given to the actual needs of the people. The rules of the game are simply not good enough.
So where does this leave Orkney ?
In the past five years this topic has been approaching like the elephant in the room that no one mentions. It was observably certain as far back as the turn of the century that this issue required reasoned and detailed, comprehensive and transparent public consultation, but that never occurred. Rather the administrators have allowed the issue to drift, finally producing some kind of policy documentation this year.
This documentation is supposed to look at Renewables but in fact simply deals with the siting of on-shore turbines. Together with a pitiful lack of genuine vision it is woefully late in production and utterly fails to question any of the underlying factors concerning the true viability, or sustainability of the monstrous darts themselves.
In December of 2004 a Public enquiry was held into the Gruf Hill turbine application and in January of 2008 a further Public enquiry was held into the Merren Blo turbine application.
I am probably unique in being the only member of the public who attended both of these enquiries.
Separated by time perhaps, details of course individual to each case, but writ large, the same enquiry.
For both were absolute evidence of the utter and complete stupidity of the applicants and the councillors who appoved the application. In the case of the councillors going against the advice of the officials in both cases the evidence could be construed as wilful malfeasance. The Gruf Hill enquiry lasted about 10 minutes and was padded out to last a couple of days and resulted in the Council paying cost of £17,000 to SNH.
The Merren Blo enquiry lasted two weeks and is yet to be completed but will result in a similar humiliation, regardless of the outstanding excellence of the QC employed by the applicants.
I do not believe that the individuals concerned are endemic idiots or enjoy paying out £2000 a day for legal aid. The conclusion is they thought they could win, which is extra-ordinary given the nature of both cases. Gruf Hill imposed on a SPA, the highest level of habitat protection, any development prohibited by European Law.
Merren Blo imposed on the World Heritage Site, against profound and severe objection from the entire Scottish, British and International archaeological establishment. Indeed, if an off-world group of antiquarians existed they would have objected too. An interesting document showing this concern at UK government level can be found here, Orkney.
The conclusion is deeply concerning, even if the result was (will be) correct. If such sacrosanct sites are considered to be in play then what hope is there for less venerated locations ? The recent horrifying if perhaps disingenuous announcements by Dennis Gowland of Fairwind Statkraft and the raft of current private applications and announcements is perhaps a strong indicator.
The most positive effect of the Merren Blo application was to generate enough local worry to cause the creation of a local pressure group, Orkney Skyline Concern. From its beginnings in November 2007 as a vehicle for Colin Kirpatrick to voice his personal reservations over the Merren Blo application this organisation now has in excess of 300 members. Hopefully it will grow further and become a significant voice in the debate as time goes by.
Standing back for a moment the imposition of turbines on the Orcadian landscape appears even more obtuse. We have a material archaeological and cultural heritage second to none. We have an environment of great natural beauty and genuine international importance.
These are the primary drivers behind the growth in tourism that has long since become the most important economic factor in both the private sector employment and investment market. Tens of millions of pounds has been invested by individuals in providing holiday accomodation and simply thousands of jobs rely on visitors either directly or indirectly.
You might think that protecting this investment and these jobs would be sacrosanct. The turbine industry offers in comparison no jobs of any significance and very often highly limited financial benefit, with the vast majority of the profits immediately leaving the islands. Only a handful of landowners and developers will directly benefit. With most proposals when they describe community benefit they are usually thinly disguising a straightforward bribe of a few thousand pounds per annum to the local parish.
You might expect at the very least that prior to making any such potentially disastrous decisions that some independent professional research would be commissioned. Recently (March 08) a report into the effects of turbine development on Scottish tourism from the executive was published by Glasgow University.
The clearest finding for Orkney is that more research is needed. Views of Scotland used available data to produce a similar if less well funded report some time ago, Wind-turbines and rural tourism.
What should be done here is very straightforward. The council should commission an independent research agency to produce an Orkney specific visitor survey into Wind turbine placements with the design and structure of the methodology as transparent and fairly constructed as possible. Following analysis of the data a reasonable estimate could be made on the cost-benefit of allowing Orkney to become a pin-cushion for the renewables sector. With so much at stake surely this is a prudent and sensible course of action ?
