One day in the spring of 1838, 13 year old Joseph Hunter left the family croft (one of seven crofts on the site) at Northhouse of Weisdale in Mainland Shetland, and walked to Lerwick. There he almost certainly lied about his age, got on a boat, and pitched up, like many Shetlanders in the nineteenth century, in the north east of England, where he signed up to an apprenticeship in the coastal trade. Five years later he married and raised a family. I am one of his descendants.

After Joseph departed from Weisdale the numerous members of the extended family he left behind were among the 318 people estimated to have been removed from their crofts in the valley in the early 1850s, by David Dakers Black, Brechin Town Clerk and a man with numerous business interests. He seems to have bought much land in Weisdale when the Ogilvy family of Quarff in Shetland (the previous owners) encountered serious financial difficulties when their bank failed. They had been squeezing their tenants for years before then. Shortly after his eviction, Joseph’s father (another Joseph) was caught stealing from a shop on Yell, where he was now working on the roads and he spent 60 days in Lerwick prison as a consequence. He died nine years later on board a Greenland whaling ship.

I console myself with the thought that however hard the lives of my ancestors (who suffered grinding poverty and hardship that I can scarcely imagine from the comfort of my 21st century life) they lived in a beautiful landscape, from Weisdale Voe, up through the fertile lower valley, to the wild and untouched upper reaches of the dale.

Plus ca change

Fast forward to the early 21st century, and the residents of Weisdale face another challenge imposed on them by outsiders with numerous business interests. Viking Energy, the developer of Viking Wind Farm, was (as its website states) a business partnership between Viking Energy Shetland LLP (itself owned 90% by Shetland Charitable Trust and 10% by Viking Wind Limited) and SSE Viking Limited. I am informed that Shetland Charitable Trust decided in 2019 to invest no more money in Viking Wind Farm and it is SSE who are now putting up the money, and SSE who may have much to gain although there are risks involved. Those risks were presumably the reason for the Charitable Trust discontinuing their investment. SSE are hoping to make a successful bid in the next Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction to lessen the risks involved in their investment.

Fair Shares?

I don’t know how much money SSE anticipates making from the Viking Wind Farm development (which covers a not insignificant area of the central Shetland Mainland) but I think it’s safe to assume that it will be substantial. Given the devastation currently being caused to Shetland’s wilderness, peat and wildlife, to say nothing of the blight on the lives of local residents, one might assume that when they signed the Busta House Agreement in 2007 (the terms of which have never been disclosed, due to the confidentiality associated with a commercial agreement), Shetland’s representatives (councillors from the Shetland Islands Council) would drive a hard bargain.

It was certainly up to them to do so, since SSE doesn’t seem much interested in the needs and views of the local people whose lives have been adversely affected by the wind farm development at Kergord. The SSE plc annual report for 2020 has a large section headed “Working for and with our stakeholders”. Stakeholders seem to include rather a lot of people – shareholders and debt providers; employees; energy customers; suppliers, contractors, and partners; Government and regulators; and NGOS, communities and civil society.

That last one must cover it, I thought. Here’s what they say about it:

How we engaged in 2019/20

SSE held a number of community consultation events throughout the year to gather feedback on projects and business plans, and progressed partnerships with NGOs which deliver additional social and environmental benefits for the communities in which it operates.

Oh, that’s all right, then.

Later on, they say:

SSE believes it is crucial that necessary investment in decarbonisation is secured and in doing so also seeks to ensure that…communities in the areas in which energy assets are located or planned are regarded as key stakeholders with comprehensive engagement on all key issues…”.

It’s a moot point whether the people affected by the wind farm development feel that they “are regarded as key stakeholders with comprehensive engagement on all key issues”.

SSE plc says it also:

…seeks to be an active contributor to the communities of which it is a part, and has an ongoing commitment to sharing value directly where it has been created, consistent with its strategic goal of creating value for shareholders and society…”.

So, how much is it sharing with the people of Shetland? On 9th December 2020 the Renewable Energy Foundation posted its assessment of Viking Wind Farm here:

https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/366-the-shetland-islands-renewables-and-corporate-interests

It is well worth a read in its own right, but this section is relevant to the question of whether or not financial gains are being shared fairly with the people adversely affected by the development:

The publicity material for Viking Energy claims large economic benefits for the Shetland Islands. Tracking down the real payments is more difficult. There is a commitment to pay £2.2 million in community benefit per year. Viking Energy suggests that it will have 35 employees in Shetland, amounting to about £1 million per year in take-home pay. Beyond that almost everything will be imported or arise outside Shetland.

On the most generous estimate the likely economic benefit in Shetland will be less than £5 million per year. That may sound generous, but cool reason suggests otherwise since that sum amounts to only £220/Shetlander per year.

The major beneficiary of the scheme seems likely to be SSE’s transmission business – SSEN Transmission (formerly SHET). Irrespective of the economics of the Viking wind farm itself, SSEN’s regulatory asset base – i.e. the permitted assets for which Ofgem, the regulator, allows the company to charge consumers – will increase by nearly 20% directly as a result of this project. Perhaps even more important, its investments in other transmission assets such as the subsea cable from Caithness to Moray and transmission lines down from the North of Scotland will be underwritten by adding additional power generation for transmission.”

Robbing Peat To Pay…

I first visited Weisdale in 2018, before work had begun on the wind farm development. As a lover of the great outdoors and of wild unspoilt places I was delighted by what I saw. Nothing could prepare me for the shock of what I encountered in upper Weisdale three years later. The picture forming the backdrop to this article heading was taken by me from the main road running from Lerwick to Brae, and shows just one small part of the works, in the form of an access road in to the top of the dale and the main development. Elsewhere there are quarries (euphemistically called “borrow pits”) and other new roads slashed across the peat, all clearly visible to the public travelling on existing roads. The main works are shielded (for now) from public view, so the devastation readily in sight is only a small part of the whole. Once more than one hundred 155m turbines are installed on hills that are generally around only 250-300 metres high (around 70 of them within two kilometres of locals’ housing), however, they will be all too visible.

Near where the picture was taken, a peat slide is highly visible from the main road. It was nothing to do with the works associated with the wind turbine development, but it does highlight the vulnerability of the peat in this area, and the risk of ongoing damage to the peat as a result of those works. So vulnerable is this land, that on a single day (19th September 2003) at least 20 significant peat slides and 15 smaller ones were triggered on Shetland as a result of extreme rainfall. The largest covered an area of 7.3 hectares. As a 2008 article by Dykes and Warburton, investigating the slides, says:

The morphological features included large areas (up to 0.5 ha) of intact peat that moved without breaking up, linear compression and thrust features and unusual occurrences of mineral debris. These features suggest peat of high tensile strength throughout its depth and the generation of high and sometimes artesian water pressures at the base of the peat during the event. However, the variations between peat slides highlight some of the difficulties of trying to assess the susceptibility of blanket peat to failure without full knowledge of the local peat geotechnical properties and structural features within the peat mass.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised, then, to learn that a further peat slide has occurred at Scalla Field, a little over two months ago, since work commenced on the wind farm development. This is in an area planned to accommodate eight turbines. The slip occurred during a period of dry weather, so rain cannot be blamed for the occurrence.

Against that background, it is worth noting that Shetland Amenity Trust has established a Peatland Restoration Project. As their website says:

Over half of the area of Shetland is covered in peat which has been accumulating at a rate of about 1mm a year for at least 3000 years.

Once damaged, however, peatland cannot deliver the same range of benefits and peatland that has been drained and is drying out or eroding, will actually be releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Fortunately there are some fairly simple management measures that can be undertaken to restore peatlands, with funding available for projects such as the Amenity Trust’s, through the Peatland Action Fund administered by Scottish Natural Heritage.”

Appropriately Scottish Natural Heritage opposed the Viking Wind Farm, as did the John Muir Trust and the RSPB, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, Shetland Amenity Trust and Shetland Bird Club, and initially SEPA (though SEPA eventually withdrew its objection, subject to conditions), as well as many local residents. And yet, and yet….Shetland Amenity Trust, as its website makes clear, is partially funded by Shetland Charitable Trust. Yes, that’s right. Shetland Charitable Trust, the 90% owner of Viking Energy Shetland LLP, which funds the organisation which recognises the value and vulnerability of Shetland’s peat (which opposed the wind farm development), was a business partner in the wind farm development that is actively damaging it.

Habitat Management Plan

Viking Energy’s website acknowledges that environmental damage will be caused by the development of the wind farm, but offers up its HMP (an unfortunate acronym, shared with Her Majesty’s Prisons) in mitigation.

First, the sensitive issue of peat. The website deals with this rather blandly, and in short order, though in fairness it offers a link to the detailed report produced on their behalf by BMT Cordah Limited. The reduction in the number of turbines from 150 to 103 is offered up as a significant reduction of the impact it will have on the peat, not least as there will no longer be turbines on areas of pristine peat bog in the Voe and Collafirth areas. That’s jolly decent of them, isn’t it? And then they claim that two thirds of the peat that will be disturbed is in any event degraded and exposed, so it’s emitting CO2 already. And anyway, they’ll try to re-use it. The detailed submission from BMT Cordah Limited suggests a CO2 pay-back in less than a year, which to my inexpert eye seems remarkably optimistic. Of course, their job is to put the best spin possible on the situation, but some of the wording in the report seemed less than convincing to me:

Certain elements of the infrastructure such as turbine bases and access roads will likely be left in situ; it is expected that the site will re-establish equilibrium provided drains are blocked on decommissioning where necessary. Attempting to remove turbine foundations would likely cause more damage to the surrounding peat environments.”

This doesn’t sound like a terribly firm or long-standing commitment:

The HMP proposes an initial pilot area for habitat measures, to be implemented over a period of approximately five years, with successful measures then rolled out across the whole study area where possible”.

A table summarising “Peatland vegetation and carbon flux rate” is offered up with the following qualification:

It should be noted that the values assigned to the table reflect the carbon flux rates of peatlands in England, and that the situation in Shetland is different, not least due to the difference in ambient meteorological conditions. For the purposes of the study, therefore, it was assumed that non-pristine peat has no carbon fixing potential i.e. a carbon flux rate of zero, whilst only undamaged blanket bog and hagged and gullied bog have carbon fixing potential…”.

Forgive me for being unconvinced.

Next, birds, and this is a very sensitive subject too, given the vital importance of the Shetland Isles to many of the country’s rare bird species, and concerns raised by, inter alia, the RSPB, regarding the impact of the wind farm development on breeding birds in the site area, which include red-throated diver, whimbrel and merlin. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 885 tells us that:

Red-throated divers have a high wing loading and small tail, so fly fast but with low manoeuvrability. They may be at risk of collision with terrestrial wind turbines if a wind farm lies on their commuting routes between breeding lochs and marine foraging habitat.”

In fairness, Viking Energy’s HMP seeks to restore degraded lochans to provide more breeding-grounds for the divers, an admirable aim. And, very responsibly:

A peat slide risk assessment will be carried out for each of the lochans where the waterlevels will be raised and if there is a significant risk of a peat slide being generated as a result of the increased water burden in the lochan then the raising of the water-level will not be carried out.”

I can’t help thinking that with all these problems and issues, it would have been better simply to leave the wilderness in its undisturbed state.

Whimbrel are another rare bird species which relies greatly on its Shetland habitat. Its potentially declining numbers are such a cause for concern that a national whimbrel survey is being carried out this year by the RSPB Rare Breeding Birds Panel. Viking Energy’s HMP does show great understanding of the issues affecting whimbrel and measures that might be taken to improve breeding numbers. One of the suggestions is the funding of a research project to investigate the breeding requirements of whimbrel on Shetland, and Viking Energy are offering to fund or co-fund a research studentship (PhD) at a British University to this end. It is, however, more than a little concerning (to me at least) that the fourth of the suggested questions to be asked and investigated is:

Are whimbrel significantly affected by wind turbines?”

Shouldn’t this question have been answered before the wind farm development commenced?

And merlin, Scotland’s smallest breeding falcon. The HMP proposes to improve the height of heather for nesting by fencing areas off to protect them from over-grazing, but I should have thought a bigger problem was the prospect of them being killed by the turbine blades.

Finally, water, and water quality. The Viking Energy website says that stringent measures will be put in place to ensure that sediment created during construction does not flow into burns and lochs in and around the project site. An admirable objective. Sadly, however, during my recent visit to Shetland I heard lots of anecdotal evidence suggesting that that local water courses might already be suffering from the construction works.

Conclusion

There is an argument that the clearance of the crofters from Weisdale in the 1850s was a necessary act, on the basis that their way of life was unsustainable – mired in poverty, permanently in debt to their landlords, and with no prospects of a better future. Few if any, however, argue that it was done in a sensitive, decent, or respectful way, and the motives of those outsiders who were responsible, are generally assumed to have been more to do with making money than with improving the lot of the displaced crofters.

Today some argue that the installation of wind turbines is a necessary act, on the basis that continued reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable. Whether in this instance it has been done in a sensitive, decent, or respectful way, and what motivates the developers, I leave you to judge.

When writing about the Scottish exploits of his father-in-law, Agricola, Tacitus famously put imaginary words in to the mouth of Calgacus, a Pictish leader standing up to the might of Rome. The Latin, for those with a classical education, is:

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium, atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.”

Various translations have been offered, but I quite like this one:

They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

I’m not accusing anyone (other than Joseph Hunter senior) of theft, (although what amounts to taxation without representation comes perilously close in my opinion). Other than that, those words seem to offer an appropriate ending to what is in my view a very sorry saga.

27 Comments

  1. Thank you Barbara. Would you like me to edit your comment to remove your phone number (and address) from public gaze, or are you happy for it/them to be there?

    Like

  2. “Climate / Offshore wind plan a ‘step closer to reality’ after first project partner named”

    https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/06/30/offshore-wind-plan-a-step-closer-to-reality-after-first-project-partner-named/

    “THE FIRST company which would be involved in plans for a floating wind farm to the west of Shetland has been named.

    Developer Cerulean Winds said global firm NOV would provide floating and mooring systems.

    It described NOV as one of the largest providers of marine equipment and wind vessel designs in the world.

    Earlier this month Cerulean Winds revealed plans to install a total of 200 wind turbines west of Shetland and in the central North Sea, which would power a hydrogen plant at Sullom Voe.

    A key focus of the £10bn project – which would not connect to the national grid – would be to power oil platforms using wind energy, assisting the industry towards its goal of becoming net zero in the next couple of decades….

    …Cerulean continues to say that timing in relation to the possible approval of the project is critical.

    It has submitted a formal request to Marine Scotland for seabed leases, and these must be granted by quarter three in 2021 to target financial close in the first quarter of 2022.

    It aims to have the infrastructure in place by 2024-26.

    To support this, Cerulean is calling on the Scottish and UK governments to make an “exceptional” case to deliver an “extraordinary” outcome for the economy and the environment.

    Jackson said if “assets don’t reduce their CO2 emissions by the mid-2020s, increased emissions penalties through carbon taxes will see many North Sea fields become uneconomical and move them towards decommissioning by the end of the decade at the cost of thousands of jobs”.

    Cerulean says it has undertaken the necessary infrastructure planning for the scheme to ensure the required level of “project readiness”.

    The company is being advised by Société Générale, one of the leading European financial services groups, and Piper Sandler, corporate finance advisors to the energy industry.”

    2 observations from me:

    1. Lots of financial institutions seem to be making a lot of money out of all this.

    2. I think it’s worrying that the rush to “net zero” is being used as an excuse to seek to be made and “exceptional” case. What does that mean in practice? Waiving timescales? Brushing aside objections, or not allowing objections time to be made? Giving special support? None of this should be necessary. The “climate crisis” isn’t remotely as urgent as a real crisis, like coronavirus where, rightly or wrongly, an argument was successfully made for such things as rushing through consents for vaccines. And even if I’m wrong about that, nothing in the UK can make a blind bit of difference to the “climate crisis” so long as most of the rest of the world doesn’t join us in our headlong rush to commit environmental and financial suicide.

    Like

  3. “‘Shetland tariff’ hoped to bring cheaper energy prices when Viking Energy windfarm goes online in 2024”

    https://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2021/06/30/shetland-tariff-hoped-to-bring-cheaper-energy-prices-by-the-time-viking-energy-windfarm-goes-online-in-2024

    Worth a read to see the fantasy land inhabited by some people.

    Astonishing also to see it headed with a photograph of environmental destruction, as though it’s a badge of merit, used in support of a positive-sounding article in connection with the wind farm development.

    “A Shetland tariff offering reduced electricity prices to tackle fuel poverty is hoped to be achieved by the time the Viking Energy windfarm goes online.

    The SIC’s director of infrastructure John Smith outlined the desired timetable for delivering the much sought after tariff at the council’s policy and resources committee on Tuesday.

    The council has been campaigning for reduced energy prices for consumers, arguing it should be available as a trade off for hosting what is set to become one of the most productive onshore windfarms in the world.

    While no agreement has yet been reached, Mr Smith said the council was seeking to make progress by the time the windfarm is operational in 2024 – and “quicker if possible”.

    Mr Smith said the Viking project would produce far more green electricity than can be used locally.

    “Most will be going down south, some might be going wholesale to some big industrial customers,” he said.

    “That would be the opportune point to make sure the Shetland tariff was in place.”.

    Again, two comments from me.

    First, why raise this at such a late stage, now that SSE plc has its planning permission in place and holds all the cards? Shouldn’t this have been raised at the planning stage, when the Busta House Agreement was signed?

    Secondly, the Scottish government boasts that Scottish electricity is pretty much all generated by “renewable” energy these days (there are lots of arguments that this claim is inaccurate in the details, but nevertheless the claim is made). If “renewables” are so cheap, and so dominant in Scotland, then how does this situation arise?:

    “Mr Smith’s comments were made during a discussion about fuel poverty as part of a report on climate change.

    Shetland South member Allison Duncan had questioned what was being done to tackle the problem, which is more keenly felt in Shetland due to the higher energy costs.

    The latest statics show 31 per cent of Shetland households are in fuel poverty with 22 per cent living in extreme fuel poverty.”

    I loved this:

    “The SIC’s environment and estate manager Carl Symons said a cross departmental team had been set up to “improve the fuel poverty journey” for Shetland residents.”

    A “fuel poverty journey”! I think that’s a journey all UK residents can look forward to unless the madness is stopped.

    “Presenting the report on climate change, Mr Symons said the council had “deployed significant resources” as part of its route map to net zero.”

    I suggest that if those “significant resources” had been deployed instead towards doing something about fuel poverty, then it needn’t be at such dreadful levels on Shetland. And Shetland is a cold and windy place with long hours of darkness in winter. Fuel poverty there is no laughing matter.

    Like

  4. Mark, how do you think your ancestors kept their crofts warm or cooked their food? Might they also have supplemented their protein intake by eating some of the bird species you now value?

    It’s all a matter of scale.

    I had this impressed on me during a student field trip to Dartmoor which I co-led with an eminent environmental political scientist. The National Park authorities have opposed land extensions for quarries across the Park so that now over most of the area quarrying has ceased. The students were all in favour of this. Before I could get my point across, I was astounded to hear my co-leader explain that he thought the Park authorities were wrong. They had failed to honour part of the historical heritage of the Moor because quarrying was part of that heritage. Later I showed the effects of this effective quarrying ban: ancient buildings unable to be repaired with local stone. Some were repaired with Millstone Grit from the Pennines and looked decidedly out of place and changed the scenery. No doubt those on the Park Authority complain the loudest when Caen stone is replaced by Portland Stone on London buildings they treasure.

    But as I wrote before it’s all a matter of scale. But I am sorry Mark that you have lost some landscape that you prize so much.

    Like

  5. About half of Viking Energy’s wind turbines will be in the parish of Nesting, whose name comes from Nes, meaning ‘spit’ or ‘promontory’, plus Ting, which signified an area with its own law-court and gallows.

    There’s a ting. Innit.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The Scottish Wind Power Assessment Project (http://www.swap.org.uk) published three reports on the destruction of peatland associated with wind-power development back in 2005-2007 and a fourth, “A guide to calculating the CO2 debt and payback time for wind farms” in collaboration with Dr Mike Hall, then of REF. You might find them of interest.

    See also “The Politics of Peat”, a fifteen-minute film of the 2003 peat slide at Derrybrien, Co Galway which you can find at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6UMUW4IIrc

    HTH

    Like

  7. ryelands, thanks for the info and for the links. I eventually found my way to this one, which I thought was most germane:

    Click to access PeatGuide-1808.pdf

    The CO2 payback period for a wind farm analysed in Cumbria was calculated in the report to be 3.5 years. Viking claim less than one year payback, but I believe that referred only to the CO2 released by damage to peat, whereas the Whinash Cumbria calculation included all CO2 released in connection with the entire project (roads, manufacture of turbines, concrete etc). I’m guessing that if a similar calculation were applied to the Viking Energy project in Shetland, a similar result (3.5 years payback) might be likely.

    Like

  8. Alan, as you say, it’s a matter of scale. On a small hill overlooking Lerwick there is a small wind farm, involving a small number of turbines of relatively modest height. Personally I would prefer it if they weren’t there, but in the scheme of things, I imagine they have caused relatively little damage to ecosystems, and they aren’t too offensive on the eye. Nor can they be seen from far away.

    The Viking Wind Farm, by contrast, is massive. At 155m high, the turbines will tower above the landscape in serried ranks. Locals will be able to comment better than I can, but my take on it is that will almost certainly be visible from most of Mainland Shetland, will probably be visible from adjacent islands (such as Mousa, Bressay, Noss, Papa Stour, Muckle Roe, Whalsay, Fetlar, Yell, even Unst), and may well be visible from the outlying isles, such as Out Skerries, Fair Isle and Foula. The impact on the ecology of Shetland, and the sheer physical impression created, will, IMO, be massive.

    Shetland people have burned peat from time immemorial, and some still do on a small scale. Again, scale is the difference. Local use of peat is a pinprick compared to the scale of the wind farm development. The other aspect of the argument is one of economic necessity. Shetlanders in the past hunted whales. It was a matter of economic necessity. Now they don’t because they don’t need to, and I’m glad of that. In fact, whale hunting is one of the rare examples of me being on the same side as Greenpeace. Others may disagree, but I am satisfied that, just as there is no longer any economic need for whale hunting (though some rogue states still pursue it) there is no need for the wind farm. I am also satisfied that the bulk of locals oppose it and are greatly saddened by it (though I have to acknowledge that the community is divided, and some – a minority, I believe – support it).

    The article was long enough – possibly too long – by the time I concluded it. There are other issues I could have tried to draw out. One is the place of planning agreements in the planning process. I first negotiated a planning agreement in my capacity as a solicitor in connection with the redevelopment of the Royal Hotel, Bristol almost a third of a century ago (if memory serves me right, part of the project involved work on College Green, subsequently, and ironically, trashed by St Greta’s faithful just as covid struck). Even then, as a young solicitor, although I could understand the motivation that had led politicians to build a role for planning agreements in to the planning process, I was highly sceptical as to how they worked in practice. Nothing that I have seen since has led me to change my mind. I remain of the view that although if handled well they can lead to a win-win solution for the developer and the local community, too often it looks suspiciously to me as though an inappropriate planning application can achieve approval as a result of promises made and/or cash changing hands. I am not alleging anything sinister – it is all “above board” and in accordance with the law. I just think the law is wrong, and too often, IMO, the planning process stinks.

    I could go on, but I won’t. I think my views are clear enough by now!

    Like

  9. “I eventually found my way to this one, which I thought was most germane”

    Have you a link for that?

    NB that the “CO2 payback time” for a wind farm constructed on peatland compared to one built on mineral soils is probably an order of magnitude longer. For details of the argument, see e.g. Lyndsay & Bragg’s report on the Derrybrien incident: https://repository.uel.ac.uk/item/867×7

    Like

  10. “Shetland people have burned peat from time immemorial, and some still do on a small scale. Again, scale is the difference. Local use of peat is a pinprick compared to the scale of the wind farm development.”

    There used to be commercial peat extraction until, I think, the late 60s or early 70s. What killed it was the introduction of legislation which specified the depth of tread on lorry tyres. When the peat was taken from the hill any lorry that was used had its normal tyres replace by a set of old almost worn out ones, because the peat roads were rough and stony and new tyres could be cut and ruined. So the new tyre rules and a special interest in peat lorries by the polis stopped the practice.

    Like

  11. Ryelands – sorry for the delay. I’ve been out all day, up some Galloway hills (well away from wind turbines, though sadly with a view to some of the many spoiling the landscape there – I drove past quite a few banners protesting about them). Anyway, if you go back to my “most germane” comment, the link is included in it.

    Bill Bedford, thank you for the info – I confess I didn’t know that. Was commercial peat extraction large-scale or more family-business size? I’m guessing, though I don’t know, that the Viking Energy wind farm will damage more peat than would be extracted in several decades of the former commercial peat extraction that took place. Do you have any more info or links that I can use to follow up, please? Many thanks.

    Like

  12. It just keeps coming from Shetland Islands Council:

    “Council / Clean energy project keen to engage with marine industry
    Members of the full council informed of progress on the ORION project – although Moraig Lyall believes it is a ‘huge gamble’”

    https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/07/01/clean-energy-project-keen-to-engage-with-marine-industry/

    “THE IMPORTANCE of engaging with the fishing and marine sectors as the ORION clean energy project progresses has been stressed at a council meeting.

    Development committee chairman Alastair Cooper said fishermen are “somewhat sceptical” about the plans for activity in marine water around Shetland.

    This is particularly relevant for proposal of offshore wind farms.

    But the team behind the ORION project – which aims to enable the transition from fossil fuels – says they are doing what they can to engage with the industry that is vital to the local economy….

    …ORION is a multi-partner project which aims to “transform Shetland into a clean energy island”.

    Among its aims is to produce hydrogen energy in Shetland and also electrify oil and gas assets, helping the transition to net zero while potentially reducing fuel poverty. Onshore and offshore wind is a vital part of that strategy….

    But some are less than impressed:

    “Shetland Fishermen’s Association (SFA) policy officer Sheila Keith said: “The Shetland fishing industry is very keen to understand the process of change in the energy, fuels and propulsion sectors, which could have a massive impact on the operating costs of the local industry and on access to traditional fishing grounds.

    “We need to get behind the headlines to reach the details of changing energy technology, the end results, the full environmental impacts and potential access restrictions.

    “We do live in a changing world but the health of our marine environment cannot be put at risk in any ill-considered rush to offshore development. Shetland, the UK and Scottish governments should also place a high value on fishing, which remains Shetland’s most important industry.”

    Cooper said at Wednesday’s meeting that some in the industry were left “less than impressed” after a recent meeting with SSE over its plans for a subsea cable between Yell and the mainland through a scallop fishing ground.

    He did not want a similar result happening when discussions are held over ORION.”

    What a shame that the Council has so little internal opposition:

    “Shetland Central member Moraig Lyall, though, was a somewhat lone voice in raising concern around the ORION project when she said the plans made her anxious.

    She believed it represented a “huge gamble in crystal ball gazing”.

    The ORION team continues to say that what Shetland’s exact role in energy transition will look like remains to be finalised.

    “I really struggle to see how such a huge overarching suite of projects can fit into what is a relatively small community,” Lyall said.”

    Like

  13. The climate skepticists have to prove their case before the scientific community at large. There must be SOME reason climate change is on all the news channels. Is it a false consensus? A conspiracy? If so, it seems strange that no one has broken a story about the scientists being on the take.

    — Catxman

    http://www.catxman.wordpress.com

    Like

  14. Catxman, I think that’s a rather simplistic view. It lumps sceptics in to a single camp, when in reality there’s a range from those who deny any human input in to climate change (I’m not in that group) to those who (like me) draw attention to the damage caused by the political response to climate change hysteria, and a whole range in-between.

    Secondly, how do you define “on the take”? I’m pretty sure it’s a lot easier to obtain a funding grant for a project if you link it to climate change than if you don’t. Making that link in an application is self-reinforcing in terms of the hysteria, but doing so is common sense if you’re looking for funding – it doesn’t mean you’re “on the take” as most people would understand that phrase.

    I’m in the false consensus camp rather than in the conspiracy camp. It’s like all religions, so far as I’m concerned, complete with priesthood and enforcers and brainwashing of children, to catch them young and turn them into life-long zealots. You don’t have to look beyond the imminent advent of COP 26 to understand the current ramping up of publicity, which is not a conspiracy, but which IMO is clearly co-ordinated.

    There’s much more I could say, but I won’t, because it’s not what this thread is about.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Catxman,

    Try not to think of our position as a certitude that flies in the face of a scientific truth, so much as an incertitude regarding decisions that are being made under uncertainty.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. @Bill Bedford – sorry for the delay in answering.

    I should have added to my comment – when you say “any lorry that was used had its normal tyres replace by a set of old almost worn out ones, because the peat roads were rough and stony and new tyres could be cut and ruined”

    but surely “old almost worn out ones” would be cut and ruined easier & the lorry would be bogged down ? (pardon the pun 🙂

    Like

  17. The hill roads have long been stripped of their peat and are usually stony rather than boggy. Old tyres were kept for use when collecting peat because there was little cost in having one damaged, while if a newish one was damaged it represented a cast of maybe many months of use. The thinking was a bit like dressing in your oldest clothes to do a particularly dirty job, rather than wearing your Sunday Best.

    Like

  18. “Nimbys are not selfish. We’re just trying to stop the destruction of nature
    Ros Coward
    Developers use this laden word when they want to obliterate wildlife and its habitats, to demonise anyone who objects”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/04/nimbys-nature-destruction-wildlife-developers

    I agree with a lot in this article, for instance:

    “If there’s one word in the English language that I’d like to get rid of, it’s nimby. The acronym – for “not in my back yard” – is often used by developers and politicians to deride local protesters who stand up to housebuilding. “Nimbys”, they claim, are self-interested, live in nice houses, in nice places and want to deny these privileges to newcomers. In my opinion, the word is a spectacular example of how language can stand reality on its head: developers are not champions of the people and those who oppose them are certainly not selfish.”

    And

    “Dismissing anyone who opposes this as a nimby allows developers to present themselves as holding the moral high ground. Nimbys are anti-progress refuseniks, they say, while developers are good for the economy, bringing improved infrastructure and even environmental gains. Yet anyone who has been involved in a local campaign will tell you how rarely developers contribute to local infrastructure, and how frequently finished developments can differ from original plans.”

    And

    “As for biodiversity benefits, the country is littered with housing developments with failed gestures towards habitat creation – dried-up ponds and dead saplings in plastic tubes. In a campaign I am involved with to save York Gardens in Wandsworth, the developer’s plans initially retained a magnificent, protected mature black poplar tree. But once local consultees had dispersed, thinking their beloved tree was safe, developer Taylor Wimpey returned to the planning committee insisting that the route they now needed for their cables involved felling the tree.

    My involvement in this campaign is symptomatic of what really motivates us so-called nimbys. Although York Gardens is in my borough, it’s not in my immediate backyard. Its fate does not affect me directly. But I care passionately that mature trees in established parks should be worked around, not destroyed by development companies. I also care when biodiversity is sacrificed for luxury developments. I feel the same when I hear of other environmental threats, whether it’s urban parks such as south-east London’s Peckham Green, which Southwark council wants to build on, areas of ancient woodland destroyed by HS2’s carnage, or farmland in Thanet in Kent where skylarks nest, threatened by several massive housing developments around Birchington, Westgate-on-Sea and Garlinge. What I care about is not my back yard, but the nature that belongs to all of us.”

    “Fundamentally, these campaigns are about the wider issue of biodiversity protection. What matters to each of them is the protection of everyday nature – those undesignated green spaces and natural resources that attract visitors, which support wildlife and help combat climate change. Many of these sites are worryingly vulnerable. They have no formal protection, there’s often no data on the wildlife there, and developers often regard them as vacant lots. Wildlife legislation and environmental protection is remarkably weak when confronted with what one campaigner called “greed-motivated ecocide”. It’s a perception shared by the parliamentary environmental audit committee, which last week reported that the government’s green policies were “toothless” in addressing the “catastrophic” loss of wildlife.”

    Sadly, this being the Guardian, wind farm developments nowhere get a mention. The nearest they come to criticising the environmental devastation caused by “renewables” is this sole sentence:

    ” Say No to Sunnica in Suffolk, protesting against a massive industrial-scale solar plant”. And that’s it. A sad failure to join the dots in an otherwise decent article.

    Like

  19. Mark, it has always struck me as perfectly rational to be a NIMBY. Where else are you supposed to care about if not the place you see every day? You are far more likely to be aware of a new development in your back yard than one in someone else’s back yard. Development somewhere else is at least partly abstract if you have never seen/will never see the plot in question.

    Like

  20. Having lived for some time in remote places, here’s my take on Nimbies.

    1. They are mostly, but not entirely, all in-comers.
    2. The shorter the time they have lived in their chosen place, the more vociferous their objections to any change can be. I’ve heard, many times, the idea that these people want to ‘pull up a drawbridge’ after their arrival.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Bill

    I have a slightly different take on that. I think some outsiders move in and are delighted with where they live, and fit in well with the local community. They don’t try to change anything, because they like it as it is. Others miss something (or maybe miss quite a lot) that they’ve left behind and try to change the place they’ve moved to, usually managing to upset the locals in the process.

    At what point the good guys (the ones who fit in, and don’t feel the need to try to change the place) become the bad guys, because they refuse to accept any change, even change which might be for the better, I’m not sure. As ever, shades of grey…..

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.