Windfarm policy (1)
I make absolutely no apology for returning to this topic again, as the coming election is the key time for all the local voters to make their views known and to determine our future for the coming decades.
But, I am now going to try to lay out - over the next few days - a coherent policy that I hope everyone can sign up to. I was asked to do this a long time ago, so it is not spur of the moment, but as those who asked me then didn't want to hear the answer, I haven't given sceptics a full chance to dismantle/destroy my ideas.
Criticism is therefore welcome, nay, demanded.
Policy 1a: A public inquiry is a bad idea. The Comhairle will have to pay for it, and forget any change out of £250,000 (that's £27 on the Council Tax). Moreover, any Public Inquiry will consider the process only and not the principles behind the decision. As the Chief Planner for Scotland has already said that the process was exemplary, the realistic prospect of any flaw being found is negligible.
Policy 1b: A time-limited public inquiry is unknown in Scots Law, and appears to be totally contrary to the legislation. For the reasons given above, any Public Inquiry is a Bad Idea.
Policy 2: A referendum is a bad idea. Who sets the question? The Comhairle?? Who is able to vote (Ness only, or the entire Western Isles)? What other decisions of Councils are to be removed from public democratic control? Why should a planner from Edinburgh tell us what is best for us.
Policy 3: The Scottish Executive should urgently determine a Scottish Energy Policy. They should "redline" areas for protection and designate areas for windfarm development. This latter area should be subject to very significant compensatory measures for the affected areas.
So endeth part 1. I'm going to post part 2 shortly, and I really would welcome constructive criticism of my attempt to find a majority position. Supporting or opposing the above statements won't commit you to supporting or opposing the final complete version, but I am trying to clarify the main issues step by step, by looking at the components before considering the whole.
I know there will be some (a lot) of doubt about my motives, but please do treat it as an absolutely open attempt to find common ground.
15 comments:
Policy 2: completely disagree. There should have been / should still be a referendum. What's so difficult about the question? Do the people in Lewis and Harris (those most directly affected by the 3 windfarms) want to be frowned over by nearly 300 turbines, each 450 to 500 feet tall, for which they stand to gain only paltry compensation?
Policy 1: A public inquiry will at least establish whether the due process really was followed. I don't care what the chief planner said.
Anon - can you specify a more neutral question for any referendum? Can you identify exactly who would be able to vote?
Are you confusing a public inquiry into the principal consultees with a judicial review of any decision taken by the planning authority, the Scottish Executive? The latter is what would look at the due process of the entire decision.
I'll bite (unlike you and my other halfs ginger cake :-)
1) Forget that, so long as you have 2).
2) A referendum is a bad idea.
No. It is purer democracy.
Who sets the question? The Comhairle??
Trivial:
Should the developments in proposal XXX/YYY be permitted? YES or NO.
Job done. The Comhairle now owes me a big fat consultancy cheque, but in the spirit of community help, I'll waive it.
Who is able to vote (Ness only, or the entire Western Isles)?
All council wards, and only those council wards, covered by the developments in proposals XXX/YYY. People in other council wards do not have the significant adverse effects of living within the development.
What other decisions of Councils are to be removed from public democratic control?
Irrelevant; muddying the waters. You are discussing windfarms so stick to them.
Why should a planner from Edinburgh tell us what is best for us.
Irrelevant; muddying again.
3) This latter area should be subject to very significant compensatory measures for the affected areas.
Yes. The developments effectively mean that people who previously lived in a rural area will be living within an industrial factory.
Compensation should take two forms.
a) People in the areas covered by proposal XXX/YYY suffer extreme planning blight. They don't even have the option of moving to another area as buyers are put off from buying their property. Effectively trapped, and zero percent their fault. Compensatory measures should fill the shortfall in their property value as to what they would have got should they have sold unaffected by proposal XXX/YYY. It's still a subtle form of "highland clearance" but at least there would then be a fair compensation.
b) For people living and staying there, there has to be compensation for effectively being forced to live inside an un-ignorable industrial factory. Putting compensation into community projects isn't effective, as most of the benefit will then go to building contractors and not to residents. Local example: church quoted 14,000 pounds for railings for disabled access (what are these, gold plated??). Who directly benefits?
Also, a fixed level of annual compensation, based on proximity to turbine(s), will also act as an incentive to people to move into the area - the repopulation that the Comhairle wants. These people who occasionally write letters saying they like turbines, and have no problem with them will then have extra incentive to move to these areas.
If the windfarms are as bountiful as the developer say they are, then the compensation for a) and b) should be a mere fraction of the profits.
Shiona Baird (North East Scotland) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive how many representations it received in respect of the Lewis Wind Power application for a wind farm on Lewis (a) during the formal consultation period and (b) in total and, of these, how many were (i) in support of and (ii) opposed to the application.
(S2W-32389)
Allan Wilson: In addition to the Lewis Wind Power application, there were two addenda submitted by the developer. These attracted 10,234 representations in total, up to the last consultation date of 5 February 2007
An overall total of 11,456 representations have been received so far, including 1,222 representations received after the 5 February deadline.
From the total number of representations received, 59 were recorded in support and 11,397 against the development.
Policy 1a: Is this really a 'bad' option? I imagine that if the vote had gone against windfarm development, there would be an inquiry (at least, that's the way things have played out elsewhere in Scotland). Short of getting Edinburgh out of the picture, it seems to me that inquiries are a necessary protection for both sides when a decision goes against them.
"Policy 2: A referendum is a bad idea."
It's a great idea. The problem that many British citizens see is not that 'the people have too much say in public affairs'; quite the contrary. Windfarms (and other major decisions) are often undertaken despite the most vehement, widespread opposition, leading the citizenry to assume that their views mean nothing whatsoever, and that centralized government planning, paternalistic in nature, will do what it wants regardless.
A referendum mechanism would return some power to those most directly affected by these decisions. When all is said, it should be up to the local citizens to decide the pros and cons of windfarms (or any other undertaking); as things stand, they are basically told 'government will prioritise for you; you really aren't responsible enough, or farsighted enough, to do so on your own account'.
A referendum would place responsibility where it should rest--on the citizenry.
"What other decisions of Councils are to be removed from public democratic control?"
That's just the point: the control is neither public, nor democratic, in the truest sense of the word. When councils repeatedly act against the expressed wishes of their constituents (in any area of policy-making) then they are not representing those constituents at all; it is simply an elective oligarchy.
If you prefer, I would suggest that a 'recall' mechanism be used instead of referenda: councillors could vote as they pleased, but their constituents could at any time initiate a petition to 'recall' that person. If the petition amassed enough signatures (say, 75% of the registered voters in the constituency), the official would have to defend his seat in a snap election (ie, held within a month or two of the petition's conclusion).
This works quite well in the States, I believe, and does make officials tend to reflect their constituents' views a bit more accurately.
"Why should a planner from Edinburgh tell us what is best for us."
But that happens all the time; ask anyone who's fought windfarms elsewhere in Scotland: 'reporters' routinely decide in favor of windfarms. That's the way it's done, at present. Now, if you prefer the 'referendum' and/or 'recall' approach as being more conducive to democratic legitimacy in decision-making, I too would be happy to see Edinburgh totally removed from the process (and Westminster too, come to think).
"Policy 3: The Scottish Executive should urgently determine a Scottish Energy Policy. They should "redline" areas for protection and designate areas for windfarm development. This latter area should be subject to very significant compensatory measures for the affected areas."
I agree; however, the damage has already been done, in a literal stampede by speculators eager to feed at the public subsidy trough. Stable doors and fleeing horses spring to mind :)
So I'd advocate 'more decision-making power' to the citizen body--perhaps a referendum could be triggered by use of petition: if a given petition amongst the locals were signed by 50%, a referendum would be required on policy X. This would help to avoid having to hold referenda on every single topic--only those of pressing interest to a majority of voters would be liable to referenda action.
Also: get Edinburgh out of decision-making. Holyrood's role should be, as you indicate, to establish clearly defined guidelines for a given policy--but implementation of that policy (or not) should rest with the local councils and their citizens.
machaseo: I saw this, but I'm a bit confused.
Peat bogs are a carbon sink, except around polluted cities, where they they are emitters.
Peat bogs should be preserved as a key to preventing global warming.
Peat bogs are under threat from global warming.
How to stop global warming? This is exactly the dilemma we faced on the Comhairle. The peat bogs will almost certainly disappear if we do nothing, but what to do? Doing nothing is not the answer.
sorry to have to ask this of Eric and John - but what ever made you believe that more democratic=more fair?! Hitler came to power by a democratic vote... yes Germany then became less than democratic. but if you get all the peanuts to vote - and the democratic process has been lead by an unfair and biased media in favour of monkeys.... then that is what you get - monkeys... and you know what monkeys do to peanuts!
"Peat bogs are a carbon sink, except around polluted cities, where they they are emitters."
That's true; peat bogs are a carbon sink, IF left undisturbed.
If torn up, eg by putting windfarms on them, they become CO2 emitters--large-scale emitters, in fact.
"Peat bogs should be preserved as a key to preventing global warming."
Since global temperature change is a natural phenomenon--this current trend correlates nearly perfectly with increased solar luminosity, and warming has been seen on Mars, Jupiter's moons, and even Pluto--I'm not sure that peat bog preservation will do anything to 'stop global warming'. OTOH, if you truly believe that global warming is anthropogenic, then we should be preserving such biospheres, not building on them.
"Peat bogs are under threat from global warming."
They're under even more threat from human activity--drainage, for one; and building on them, for another.
"How to stop global warming?"
Unless we can somehow reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation, there's not a lot we can or should do. Climate change is entirely normal--we don't live on a static planet.
Eric,
The clear implication of your argument would seem to be that the Lewis Peat bogs will dry out due to global warming as a natural event and they will then become emitters.
Anonymous:
"...sorry to have to ask this of Eric and John - but what ever made you believe that more democratic=more fair?!"
Wrong question: it's not a matter of 'fairness', but of ensuring that governments are accountable to those whom they govern. The less accountable they are, the less democratic legitimacy they enjoy.
Certainly democracies carry some major flaws; anything made by humans does. But the fact remains that healthy democracies are the least likely of all governments to indulge in repression, tyranny, and war.
And why? Precisely because the 'People', as the source of government power, are the ultimate arbiters (a uniquely British political philosophy, btw). If any politician were to go crazy and suggest something totally at odds with the will of the population, in a true democracy he'd be tossed out post-haste before he could do much harm.
The problem with the Weimar Republic wasn't the fact that it was a 'democracy', but that its population were not intellectually equipped to act as citizens of a free nation (an omission deliberately rectified by the post-WWII 'Basic Law' of modern Germany). Which, btw, indicates why a broad-based, complete education in the duties of citizenship is a prerequisite for any democracy--and a healthy involvement in the daily operations of fivic life.
I submit that the centralization of government control has led many Britons to feel that their vote is pointless, and so we have a very bad situation in which citizens are 'opting out' of civic life altogether.
So: democracy tends to hold those in power more accountable than other forms of government; and the more mechanisms that can be deployed to hold goverment accountable, the better. Monarchies, dictatorships and theocracies are, by no accident, far more likely to engage in repressive activities than any democracy.
In the Internet Age the media no longer have a monopoly in forming public opinion. The real problem in the UK is public apathy, and the sense that 'government will do whatever it wants anyway, so why bother participating?'
THAT, I would think, is a more serious threat to the health of British democracy than anything else--and that is exactly why I advocate MORE, not less, citizen say in decision-making.
Angus wrote:
"The clear implication of your argument would seem to be that the Lewis Peat bogs will dry out due to global warming as a natural event and they will then become emitters."
That is quite correct; in fact, peat bogs throughout the world show historic evidence of repeated warming/cooling cycles. Like anything else, peat bogs are dynamic systems; they grow, evolve and die as climate (or other factors) change.
In this case, I don't know that the Lewis bogs, eg, would necessarily dry out during the current warming trend. They appear to have survived both the medieval warm period, and the warm period during the period AD1 to about AD 400, when temperatures were warm enough that the Alps' treeline was several hundred feet higher than it is today, and vineyards were present in Britain (up to at least Northumberland) and into modern Holland.
The more I've researched the data, the clearer the correlation is between solar luminosity and temperature change--which makes a lot of sense, actually.
So I have no idea whether this current trend will dry out the peatlands, or not. However, the current bout of increased luminosity is settling down, and according to the boffins we should begin to see a cooling period from 2012/15 on, lasting approximately 50 years. Russian and Ukraine believe this is going to happen, and plan to launch a joint space probe to research the possible effect on their agriculture.
IOW, we should know within the next 10 years, at most, whether this warming trend is due to end. If it does--and I have no reason to believe otherwise--then the peatlands should actually do quite well.
Machaseo: the RSPB expert claimed that the peat bogs were extremely resilient, and could withstand everything man was throwing at them, but regardless that we shouldn't disturb them at all.
I'm trying to tease out if they are resilient, fragile, endangered or just something we can exploit mercilessly. BTW, I don't think the fourth choice is realistic.
"[t]he RSPB expert claimed that the peat bogs were extremely resilient, and could withstand everything man was throwing at them, but regardless that we shouldn't disturb them at all.
I'm trying to tease out if they are resilient, fragile, endangered or just something we can exploit mercilessly. BTW, I don't think the fourth choice is realistic."
I agree that choice (4) isn't realistic; and you could fairly say that about most ecosystems.
I offer that 'peatlands/peat bogs' ARE very resilient against 'natural phenomena'; the very fact that they are around, and have been for thousands of years, shows that peat areas can survive all sorts of climatic changes (short of having another ice age, of course).
However, mankind can affect local environments far more severely and far more quickly than any amount of 'natural process'.
I'm glad you brought up the issue of peat bogs/peatlands, because it allows me to babble on...er, I mean of course 'write articulately' about this:
Any natural landscape can be utterly destroyed by man, given a sufficient input of energy. Give me a free hand, and I can tear down mountains, drain swamps, pave over farmland, etc, etc.--it's merely a matter of time, resources and will. So peat areas are just as vulnerable, and because they don't present the same challenges as, say, slicing off a mountain top, one can in fact create havoc with nothing more exciting than some bulldozers, excavators and front-end loaders to disrupt the chemical and biological balances--quite unique--which allow peat areas to form. In that sense, peat areas are more fragile than, say, a typical lowland meadow, which exist in abundance. Change drainage patterns, remove peat layers, or modify the chemical composition of the soils in a peat area, and you will see major changes in short order.
However, such large-scale changes don't generally occur in nature, except in the event of a major natural event. A major landslide, for example, can cut off freshwater sources that supply a swamp--and the swamp dries up, quickly. But that's probably not an issue on the Isles.
So, since humanity can affect any local environment far more drastically than Nature's typical processes, we should in fact exercise care when planning any building or other modification.
One of today's biggest ironies is that, while the latest fad worries about the ecosystem on a scale so large we cannot really comprehend it--the entire planet--and maintains that anthropogenic CO2 is 'changing the climate'--there is a curious indifference to local environmental damage.
If, after all, we are (supposedly) affecting the entire planet with our activities, how much more must we affect local ecosystems by our actions? By the logic of the 'climate change' movement itself, should we not be even more careful about how we affect local environments? That, at least, is something over which we have control.
Given the near perfect correlation between solar radiance and global climate trends, it's doubly ironic that in an attempt to control what is very likely a normal cyclical phenomenon, we are prepared to tear up sensitive environments by, of all things, building large-scale industrial estates which don't actually save on emissions to any significant degree.
This, I must say, smacks of a 'mania', and of crass opportunism by developers who will play the 'global warming' card for all it's worth, rather like those of an earlier age tried to sell 'snake oil' as a cure for all manner of ailments.
A more feasible solution, and one which would actually help the Isles instead of benefitting remote companies, would probably involve tidal generation and offshore wind.
Machaseo: I spoke to the journalist who wrote this article (who on earth proof read it???).
I'm currently reading the SHETL submission, and intended to comment in much more detail early next week.
I could facetiously say it is one of the "known unknowns". But more accurately, the proposals are dynamic, and we are working only on the latest iteration.
Hi Angus:
Interesting article over the weekend (in Stornoway Today 29/03/07); the Executive reveals that they've received over 11,000 representations against the Lewis wind farm (ie, the big AMEC development) and only 60 or so in favor.
I've referred to some mechanisms for ensuring that the popular will is heeded; numbers like this seem to bear out my point that nobody wants this development except, perhaps, a few people on the Council.
That being so, what we're seeing is a serious dearth of democratic accountability. Councillors aren't elected to 'follow their own consciences' and to disregard the people whom they're elected to represent--though that attitude is so typical of councils throughout the country that the average citizen is extremely cynical and disengaged from politics these days.
I submit that councils in general (across the UK) would regain the popular legitimacy they've lost simply by accurately representing their constituents' sentiments, especially on issues as contentious as this. Otherwise--if councillors are just going to 'do their own thing' regardless how vehement opposition to a given proposal may be--why then even bother with 'elections'? What's the point in electing 'representatives' who aren't? Why not just have some sort of 'appointment/job application' process, or even some sort of 'random selection' in which X number of citizens (political views unknown) are selected from the electoral rolls each year or two, to serve for that time as councillors?
I think these latest statistics reveal that there's a huge problem--not just over the Lewis wind farm issue, but more generally over 'accountability by government to the people'.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment