A conservationist case against wind farms

07 August 2004

Labour is investing in renewable energy sources - like on-shore wind turbines - as part of its commitment to the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Tories believe that investment in energy efficiency and cleaner transport technologies might be a better way forward.

A panel of scientists sponsored by more than 150 nations has agreed that the burning of coal, oil and gas is contributing to global warming. Britain is part of a majority coalition of nations committed to reducing man’s impact on the climate. The Labour Government is relying on wind energy to help ensure that 15% of Britain’s energy needs are met by renewable energy by 2015. It is thought that this increased use of renewable forms of energy will also help Britain to cope with the expected depletion of fossil fuel reserves and reduce our dependence on energy imports.

The Conservatives* – supported by popular botanist David Bellamy – have expressed concern that the environmental and economic costs of wind energy have been underestimated. Conservatives believe that local communities should be empowered to resist wind farm sitings in their localities. Greater investment in ’combined heat and power’*, energy efficiency and cleaner transport technologies may provide better ways of meeting Britain’s environmental objectives.

The USA argues that climate change goals embodied in the Kyoto Treaty* will hardly impact the environment and the economic and social costs of those goals are therefore unjustifiable.

’Yes2Wind’* – an organisation supported by Friends of the Earth*, Greenpeace* and the Worldwide Fund for Nature* – strongly support the Government’s intention to use energy from the wind, waves, sun and biomass to generate 10% of Britain’s electricity by 2010 and 15% by 2015. Confident in the science that blames fossil fuels for climate change this coalition rejects nuclear energy because of the afterlife of nuclear waste and the terrorist target that nuclear power stations represent. This view of nuclear power has been challenged by Professor James Lovelock – the inspiration behind the Gaia movement*. Lovelock has written*:

“I hope that it is not too late for the world to emulate France and make nuclear power our principal source of energy. There is at present no other safe, practical and economic substitute for the dangerous practice of burning carbon fuels”.

Yes2Wind, however, points to government statistical projections that suggest that all wind power will become cheaper than nuclear power by 2020. The conventional environmental lobby also remains supportive of wind energy because once turbines are active they do not generate waste and Britain’s exposed western coastline provides wind throughout the year – particularly during the winter months when electricity is needed most.

The economic costs of wind farms are hotly disputed. The British Wind Energy Association* puts the cost of onshore wind farms at 2.5p per kilowatt-hour but the Royal Academy of Engineering thinks the real cost is about 50% more – 3.7p per kilowatt-hour. This price compares to close to 2-2.5p for coal, gas and nuclear. Currently, says The Economist, windfarms get three times as much subsidy as revenue from energy sales. Environmental campaigner David Bellamy calls this subsidy ‘dough for blow’. Advances in wind turbine technologies may overturn this price premium in coming years.

Part of David Bellamy’s opposition to wind farms is rooted in his resistance to what he calls the “industrialisation” of the British landscape. The National Trust and the Council for the Protection of Rural England have expressed concerns about spoiling the intrinsic value of the countryside. Wind farms – requiring exposed countryside to operate – can be seen for up eight to twelve miles. Some people think the turbines beautify the landscape but most local communities appear to disagree – disliking the drone they generate and the way they can depress house prices.

Because turbines are located in exposed areas they also require transmission lines and pylons to integrate them with the national grid. Holes the size of two double decker buses need to be excavated for every turbine.

Offshore wind farms would not provoke such local opposition but they are currently at least 50% more expensive than onshore wind farms. Denmark – which generates 20% of its electricity from wind – has cited cost considerations for abandoning plans for three major coastal energy schemes. Britain’s offshore oil industry may have many of the talents, however, to engineer suitable offshore plants that could become cheaper over time.

Tidal power is also more reliable than onshore wind. The Royal Academy of Engineering has estimated that wind turbines could only be relied upon to generate 30% of their capacity because wind is often too light or strong. Conventional energy sources would need to provide backup for this unreliability of supply.

The United States has earnt the wrath of the world’s environmentalists because of its refusal to implement the Kyoto Treaty. But does Bush's stance have merits?

Dr Sallie Baliunas, a Senior Scientist at the George C Marshall Institute* and co-host of TechCentralStation.com* has argued* that Kyoto will deliver nothing that justifies its costs. Whilst also disputing the very idea of “catastrophic human-made global warming”, Dr Baliunas quotes evidence from Britain’s Meteorological Office that suggests that Kyoto will not achieve a statistically significant reduction in global average temperatures. She quotes British research that suggests that forty Kyoto-scale cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would be required to achieve temperature stability.

Resisting the precautionary principle American politicians are reluctant to limit job-creating forms of economic activity in order to meet Kyoto’s ‘pointless’ targets.

US opposition to Kyoto is but one more recent example of US exceptionalism. America’s conservative movement is also driving exceptional positions on international war crimes, the war on terror and the need to encourage abstinence in defeating AIDS.

Conservatives are accused of ‘NIMBYism’ (Not In My Back Yard) for promising to help local communities fight wind farm developments. Michael Howard is fighting a wind farm development on the beautiful Romney Marsh - in his own Kentish backyard. But at least there is a consistency to the Conservative position. The Tory policy on wind farms also fits with help for local communities to resist unwanted housing developments. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity warns that local communities will become weak if their powers are taken from them. School choice and genuine community involvement in local regeneration projects are other illustrations of the rediscovered Conservative belief in localism and local control.

The Tory launch of the wind farms policy was helped by the support it received from environmental campaigner David Bellamy*. With politicians and newspapers so distrusted by the public the Conservative Party should work much harder to secure third party endorsements. Mr Bellamy gives the Tory policy credibility – particularly when it is opposed by the majority of the green establishment. The Bush White House runs a special liaison unit to ensure the most important religious, charitable, industrial and academic stakeholders in its agenda feel part of its work. The Conservative Party has not yet invested in long-term relationship-building of this kind. Too often relationships with third parties die when a spokesman makes the all too frequent moves to another portfolio. This lack of relationism in policy development must change.

Links for further research

DEFINITION: Smart growth

DEFINITION: Green taxation