data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bac03/bac03cc030f3737a5e6a71187a1dfdce36734b1f" alt=""
Thanks to Graham Lang for this contribution, sent to us from Fife in Scotland.
You can read about him on www.artistsagainstwindfarms.com at this page
and see also the www.cadeap.org website
We are fighting to save beautiful countryside and wild places all around the world from needless industrialization. This photo was taken from the Unesco Biosphere Reserve of Braunton Burrows, North Devon, looking towards the unspoilt hills that are to become the Fullabrook Down Wind Power Station.
He finally received the documents the day after a government planning inspector gave the green light to the development.
Think about it..."In the calculus of beauty, I would pit the hills of Cumbria, the coast of Devon and Cornwall, the Pennine uplands and the mountains of Wales against any Constable, Gainsborough or Stubbs. .." read more here
David Cocks QC appeared for the Rural Exmoor Alliance, an opposition group formed by the Exmoor Society, the CPRE and the Two Moors group of local protestors. Summarising the evidence heard over six weeks he said that the admittedly minute contribution that these two wind farms would make to the global warming issue was not a reason in itself for refusing planning permission. However the extraordinary inaccuracy of the developers’ claims certainly did need to be taken into account. The emissions savings from each had been shown to have been exaggerated by nearly three times. The amount of electricity to be produced had also been exaggerated; it would not apparently be more than 25% of the turbines’ capacity, or even less according to the type of turbine used.
Such uncertainties were characteristic of most of the developers’ evidence.
All the landscape experts had agreed that the Exmoor Fringe and moorland countryside of the sites were of high quality and value, open, remote and tranquil. All had agreed that the effects of the turbines on the views, from and towards the Exmoor National Park, would be significant and in many cases major. Yet the developers’ experts had then tried to argue, for instance, that only within 3 km of a turbine would this matter, or that the landscape “could absorb” them. The Bickham report had ignored the issue of tranquillity altogether.
The Inquiry spent much time on the extent to which the noise from turbines can be predicted. The science is inexact and government guidelines on limits were drawn up when turbines were half the height of those proposed. Wind speeds are different at 100 m from those at ground level and the distance between the turbines themselves can also affect the noise produced. Background noise has to be measured to calculate the impact of the noise being added. Cross examination of the developers’ experts showed defective data in all these areas; the implication, said Mr Cocks, was a massive non-compliance with government limits.
On tourism, the developers had argued there would be no adverse effects. This was based on a survey of businesses, conducted by telephone. No visuals of the sites had been shown to the interviewees and no record kept of what was said. More astonishing was the absence of any information on the size of the 55 businesses interviewed; did this represent 55 jobs or 550? Not a single tourist had been asked their opinion. On ecology, one bat survey had been based on the wrong turbine lay out and none had covered the whole year.
Finally, Mr Cocks suggested, a new pattern is emerging in policy on renewable energy and carbon emissions. On shore wind farms like these are looking less fashionable, and the huge subsidies they require from consumers will inevitably be redirected towards more effective technologies. The evidence called by the developers throughout the Inquiry had shown how difficult it is to support a misguided and fading technology. The small benefit that would be gained would be a terrible cost to the landscape, and both appeals should be refused.
"He actually came close to admitting that turbines, with their "intermittent wind" (this sounded like a much-loved but elderly dog that lies in front of the fire turning the air in the sitting room foul) were a waste of time and money."
There's more... go to the above link to read it in full.
The End of the Line for Open Net Cage Salmon Farming?
New film premieres around the world during next week’s Global Week of Action
A new short documentary produced by Canadian film-maker Damien Gillis lifts the lid on the problems caused by open net cage salmon farms worldwide. “Farmed Salmon Exposed: The Global Reach of the Norwegian Salmon Farming Industry” reveals the pervasive nature of the issues plaguing salmon aquaculture and features testimonials by witnesses discussing the environmental and socio-economic damage caused by poorly managed salmon farms.
The film features ghillie Brian Fraser from Scotland; John Mulcahy from Save The Swilly in Ireland; Orri Vigfusson from the North Atlantic Salmon Fund in Iceland; Alexandra Morton and Dr Daniel Pauly from British Columbia; Dr Matthias Gorny from Oceana in Chile as well as Sven Helge Pedersen, King Harald and Vegard Heggem in Norway.
Premieres will take place in Edinburgh (9th), Dundonnell (10th) and Oban (11th) in Scotland; Dublin (12th) in Ireland; Santiago (11th) in Chile; Washington DC (12th) in the United States; Vancouver (12th) in Canada; and Oslo (13th) and Bergen (16th) in Norway. Further screenings in Orkney, Shetland, Arran , London , Las Vegas , Santa Cruz , Puerto Varas, Ancud and on Vancouver Island are planned later in November.
A 3 minute excerpt is online now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eggrGn0V0fg
"In the calculus of beauty, I would pit the hills of Cumbria, the coast of Devon and Cornwall, the Pennine uplands and the mountains of Wales against any Constable, Gainsborough or Stubbs. They are no less fragile, and currently far more vulnerable. I would not burn a Constable if I were told it might help to save fossil fuel, if only because the benefit would be vastly outweighed by the loss. Nor would I sacrifice the landscapes that Ms Hewitt plans to destroy for so trivial a donation to the cause of global cooling as a few hundred wind turbines.
The Government's thesis that the countryside of upland and coastal Britain is "worth sacrificing to save the planet" is an insult to science, economics and politics. But the greatest insult is to aesthetics. The trouble is that aesthetics has no way of answering back. "