The saying, Not In My Back Yard, has spawned the acronym NIMBY, which in turn is generally used as a term of disapprobation, if not of actual abuse.
Disapprobation may be justified where NIMBYs are hypocritical about developments, approving of them elsewhere, but claiming special reasons why they shouldn’t have to put up with them in their neighbourhood. However, so long as not accompanied by justified charges of hypocrisy, then I think NIMBYism is actually rather laudable. After all, who is better-placed than locals to understand their own area and to defend it against the depredations of Big Green?
Which brings us to recent big news on the BBC website:
Stars say Suffolk wind farm plans ‘anything but green’
Some rather well-known NIMBYs have found themselves the subject of the articlei with the above heading, due to their opposition to plans for a wind farm in their metaphorical back yard. Of the three signatories who signed, only Griff Rhys Jones lives nearby, to the best of my knowledge; I assume Dame Joanna has been moved to write due to the impact onBenjamin Britten’s Snape Maltings Concert Hall, and that Ralph Fiennes is concerned both because he was born in Ipswich and following his involvement with the recent film about Sutton Hoo (The Dig).
Dame Joanna Lumley has warned that the creation of two windfarms off the Suffolk coast could see the area “disappear under a sea of concrete”.
The actress is one of 17 people, including actor Ralph Fiennes and comedian Griff Rhys Jones, who signed a letter stating the windfarms were “anything but green”…
…The letter, published in The Times, said the plans for the sites, named East Anglia One North and East Anglia Two, were “destructive”.
The main concerns presented in the letter were about the building of onshore substations and the running of underground cables to transport the electricity from turbines.
It stated there would be “six further towering structures, sacrificing land at Snape, close to the 6th Century Anglo-Saxon cemetery and home of Benjamin Britten’s Snape Maltings Concert Hall”
The story continues:
The letter said the plans “threaten fragile ecosystems, diverse wildlife, Aldeburgh and the thriving local tourist economy”.
“Planned industrialisation on this scale is a national issue and anything but green,” it said.
And of course they are right. Those words sum up the situation regarding wind farms on- and off-shore all over and around the British Isles.
I’m not going to criticise Dame Joanna for hypocrisy, given the gushing blurb for her ITV programme called “Joanna Lumley and the Human Swan”ii, at which point she seemd to be in favour of off-shore wind farms:
As Sacha heads further north, Joanna catches up with her on the North Yorkshire coast at the site of one of the 40 offshore wind farms in the UK. They take a boat to get up close to one of the turbines and learn that, in 2020, for the first time Britain generated more electricity from renewables than from fossil fuels.
No, metaphorically, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous ones who do not need to repent.iii
Griff Rhys Jones, on the other hand, has always been on the side of the righteous:
Griff Rhys Jones attacks green energy ‘desecration’ of countryside
That was the heading to an article in the Guardian from as long ago as 22nd May 2013iv, and I can’t improve on his words, which form the sub-heading to the article: “The comedian says renewable energy projects are subsidy-hunting free enterprise, despoiling ‘pristine landscapes’.”
If it’s one cheer for Dame Joanna (whose position on the proposed development is very welcome) then it’s three cheers for Griff:
“[The] government is hiding behind subsidy-hunting free enterprise. The result of this has been and is random desecration, with little or no accountability,” he said of windfarms that he felt were badly sited. He also suggested the intermittent nature of renewable energy undermined its environmental credentials. “How can we effect [sic] to be green, when we use gas from uncertain fossil fuel driven sources as back up? It is logical to ask why we are assaulting our shrinking countryside in the name of this apparent hypocrisy.”
A “distorted” planning system was failing to protect green spaces, he added, but “aiding and abetting an exponential grab at the countryside.”
Instead of solar power, which “doesn’t operate” at night, he said he would like to see more nuclear power, such as two new planned reactors at Sizewell in Suffolk, because it would cut carbon emissions, provide more power than solar and had a small physical footprint. “I am not a climate change sceptic. I am a solution sceptic,” he said.
Perhaps if the powers-that-be had listened to him then, we wouldn’t be facing our current energy plight. Hilariously, by the way, that Guardian article from almost nine years ago ended thus:
Jeremy Leggett, whose comment article in the Guardian Jones was responding to, said: “I’m glad that Griff’s whole belief system on energy is out in the open now. It’s more useful to have these kinds of debates in a holistic context. Let’s see how his case fares in reversing the opinion polls that show big majorities of people favouring ‘scattered whirly-gigs, and glinting solar panels’, and believing – as the Germans are showing every day – that in fact they do a rather good job of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.”
As for Ralph Fiennes, I can find no record of him making public pronouncements with regard to climate change or wind farms before he signed the recent letter of opposition. Two cheers, I think.
Conclusion
Opposition to environmentally destructive industrial scale developments is always to be welcomed. It would be particularly welcome if Griff Rhys-Jones’ co-signatories looked beyond Suffolk and objected also to the great environmental damage being caused all over the UK in the misguided belief that trashing the UK’s environment is a price worth paying because by reducing (actually, exporting) our greenhouse gas emissions, we can prevent dangerous climate change. We can’t. Surely in this week of all weeks, geopolitical reality must be starting to dawn on those who seem determined to ruin this country’s environment and energy security.
In the meantime, let’s hear it for the NIMBYs.
Endnotes
i https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60560313
ii https://www.itv.com/presscentre/sites/default/files/jl_human_swan_press_pack_.pdf
iii Luke 15:7
iv https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/22/griff-rhys-jones-green-energy
Climate Scepticism 
Renewable development is a subject with the power to change minds. But offshore farms have an innate advantage in that they are mostly specks on the horizon if they are visible at all from shore. So they probably don’t generate as much opposition as they ought. We have seen here that on-land structures, which are hardly troubling at all objectively once complete, seem to be the focus of attention. Never mind the birds that will die.
I have recently spent quite a long time trying to “audit” the collision risk monitoring for the Bhlaraidh extension, in attempting to match the developer’s ornithologists’ estimate of golden eagles killed. So far I can’t replicate their numbers, but I dunno if it is because I am doing something wrong or they are. Needless to say the death of a single goldie on the green altar would be a disgrace. I could be wrong, but I doubt whether there is much opposition to Bhlaraidh: in the middle of the Highlands, it is not in many people’s back yards.
As Jones says, we need nukes. And rather than one at a time, with each a completely different design, we need to bang them out to a pattern.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder if we can coin a rival mnemonic for NIMBY, one that mentions the birds, including the amazing golden eagles, who are the continuous, innocent victims. Not In The Birds’ Air or Not In Our Birds Air? The ‘Our’ intended as a loving possessive like ‘our Mary’ up north, in other words the opposite of the current non-ownership that nevertheless feels it has the right to destroy. The result isn’t as snappy as NIMBY but it seems worth some thought.
LikeLike
Jit: Good luck with tracking the collision risk. It’s no surprise that you can’t match the auditors results: they will have been paid to find little or no risk.
However I have to disagree with: “We have seen here that on-land structures, which are hardly troubling at all objectively once complete, seem to be the focus of attention.” Whenever I have been in sight of wind turbines, I have always found them very distracting and intrusive, much more so than fixed structures like pylons. The eye is drawn to movement which makes it hard to look at a piece of landscape without being distracted.
I’ve read that it is now a challenge to find views in Scotland that are not polluted by whirling blades.
LikeLike
Bird’s Air Really Not Yours (or BARNY)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah Mark you are a heartless soul!
The Crown Estates have only collected £200 million so far from licencing offshore windmills.
In this era of “Necessarily Sky Rocketing” to quote the great President ( sorry ex President) of the Us when he said the Climate has stopped warming today on his inauguration, our poor sovereign needs extra income.
What with all those houses to heat, giant SUV’s to fuel and extra family legal costs to pay, Come on Man.
LikeLike
Thank goodness for NIMBYs (especially in Suffolk, just now, as it happens) – this sounds like a monstrous planned development on a massive industrial scale:
“Giant Suffolk solar farm plan is substandard says council”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60580070
“An application to build a giant solar farm has been described as “substandard” by a council.
Energy firm Sunnica wants to build the project which would span 1,130 hectares (2,792 acres) around several villages in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.
But Suffolk County Council said it would “permanently change a really unique setting”.
Sunnica said the solar farm would help contribute to government’s target of net zero by 2050….
…Several villagers and local groups are opposed to the solar farm.
Dr Catherine Judkins from Say No to Sunnica said the plans would use “highly productive arable farmland”.
“It produces potatoes, it produces carrots, it produces wheat, with the current situation in the world it’s not just the energy supply that is at risk here, it’s a food security issue as well,” she said.
John James, from Brookside Stud, near Chippenham, said: “Our biggest concern is the huge size of the batteries, it’s 45 acres which is bigger than my stud and it’s three storeys high.
“The amount of power that will be stored in there, the biggest danger is if one of those erupts the whole thing will go up and we’ll go up with it.”
Conservative councillor Richard Rout from Suffolk County Council said: “The application from Sunnica is substandard on so many levels.
“When these renewable schemes come forward they can’t come forward at any costs.
“This is unique landscape shaped by agriculture and horse racing and it’s a vast scheme.”
The leader of the opposition group of Greens, Liberal Democrats and independents on the county council, Andrew Stringer, said sadly there were many shortcomings to the application, the Local Democracy Report Service said….”.
My word, when even Green and Lib Dem councillors oppose it, then there really must be issues.
LikeLike
More on the monstrous plans for a solar farm in Suffolk that would cover almost 2,800 acres. I’ll write that again – 2,800 acres!
“Light … or blight? Anger rises at plan for Britain’s biggest solar farm
£600m project is one of 900 in planning pipeline to provide green energy”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/05/light-or-blight-anger-rises-at-plan-for-britains-biggest-solar-farm
“A proposed new £600m solar farm in eastern England – covering an area eight times bigger than Hyde Park in central London – faces opposition over claims it would be a “blight” on the countryside.”
When things like this can appear in the Guardian of all places, is the worm beginning to turn?
LikeLike
“Suffolk: Angry scenes at meeting about giant solar farm”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60693030
“There were angry scenes as more than 100 people listened to the firm behind a giant solar farm outline its plans.
Energy firm Sunnica wants to build the project which would span 1,130 hectares (2,792 acres) around several villages in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.
Residents said they were concerned about the size of the site, the location and the use of arable land.
Sunnica told the meeting the project was essential if the UK was to meet its net zero greenhouse gas target by 2050.
The meeting on Wednesday evening took place in Red Lodge in Suffolk, one of the villages affected by the development.
The room was so full that some people stood outside in the cold for the two hour meeting.
Audience members became increasingly exasperated as the company, Sunnica, struggled to answer many of their questions, claiming that a lot of the details were still to be worked out.
Other members of the audience were worried about the impact on the countryside and the loss of farmland amid concerns about food security.
Sunnica said most of the land was low-grade agricultural land and it would be decontaminated and returned to its original use when the project came to an end in 40 years’ time.
There was also anger at the lack of consultation to date by the company, which it blamed in part on the pandemic….”.
Once again, let’s hear it for NIMBYs. Somebody has to make a stand.
LikeLike
“MPs join march against Sunnica solar farm in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60812728
“About 200 protesters including MPs Matt Hancock and Lucy Frazer have marched against plans for a large solar farm that could power 172,000 homes.
Energy firm Sunnica wants to build the project that would span 1,130 hectares (2,792 acres) around several villages in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.
The protest started in Mildenhall before heading to Worlington.
In its application, Sunnica said the plans helped to meet the “national need for new, renewable means of energy”.
West Suffolk Council’s cabinet agreed to object to the proposals in its response to a consultation this week.
Residents have said they were concerned about the size of the site, the location and the use of arable land.
The affected villages would be Mildenhall, Freckenham, Worlington, Barton Mills and Red Lodge in Suffolk; and Chippenham, Snailwell, Fordham and Burwell in Cambridgeshire.”
Good for the NIMBYs. Keep it up!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Solar farms: Can expansion overcome Tory MPs’ concerns?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60878403
“The government badly needs to generate more renewable energy to meet its emission targets and make the UK more energy independent.
But some of its own MPs are among those lining up against projects that could power hundreds of thousands of homes.
At least 20 have publicly spoken out against solar or wind projects in their own constituencies in the past two years.
Many of them say they fully support increasing energy from renewables.
But building wind turbines and solar panel farms can be deeply unpopular in constituencies.
Cabinet ministers know this too – and have even been debating giving people who live near wind farms energy bill discounts to sweeten the pill.”
LikeLike
Is there no end to these gargantuan, industrial-scale development plans? Will we have any part of our green and pleasant land left in an unindustrialised state?
“Norfolk solar farm the size of 65 football pitches proposed”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-60901624
“A large solar farm – the size of about 65 football pitches – could provide power for 12,500 homes and a vertical farm, its developers have said.
Plans for the farm have been submitted to South Norfolk Council for farmland near Colton, west of Norwich.
Developer Pathfinder Clean Energy said its solar site would be built on land the owner said was difficult to farm.
Concerns have been raised about a possible fire risk, solar glare, and the site being too visible.”
LikeLike
Even celebrity NIMBYs fail – what chance do the rest of us have?
“Two windfarms off Suffolk coast given planning permission”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60949049
“Permission to build two windfarms off the Suffolk coast has been granted by the government.
The development will have 142 turbines which ScottishPower Renewables said could power about 1.4 million homes.
Some, including Dame Joanna Lumley, said the onshore infrastructure in Suffolk meant the windfarms were “anything but green”.
But the government say the need for energy creation outweighed the negative aspects of the development.”
LikeLike
“Norfolk solar farm approved near Mulbarton and Newton Flotman”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-61987623
“Plans for one of the UK’s biggest solar farms have been given the green light.
Bloy’s Grove, a 200-acre (81-hectare) scheme which would generate enough energy to power 14,000 homes, was approved by South Norfolk district councillors on Wednesday.
Some criticism has been made about the loss of agricultural land for the project.
EDF Energy, which is behind the plans, said the site had been chosen to reduce the impact on the nearby community.
The scheme will be built off Brick Kiln Lane, between Mulbarton, Newton Flotman and Swainsthorpe in Norfolk.
At 49.9 megawatts (MW), it would be one of the biggest solar schemes in the country, just behind Wroughton Airfield Solar Park in Wiltshire, which is the fourth-largest and generates 50MW of energy, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
It would cover the equivalent of 133 football pitches and will operate for 35 years, and also includes a substation, fencing, an orchard and other trees planted to cover the development.”
That’s one heck of a lot of lost agricultural land:
“Glyn Frost, from Swainsthorpe Parish Council, said she was in support of increasing green energy but had “great reservations” about using currently productive agricultural land, especially while food production is of “high importance”.
Her concerns were echoed by committee member Florence Ellis, who said food supplies needed as much attention as energy production, and questioned the screening of the site.”
LikeLike
Seems like a strange number? Why not 50 MW? Because then the scheme would count as a “Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project” and there would then be considerably more hoops to jump through.
This is in my back yard (and Alan’s). Alas I have not been keeping up with planning, or I would have opposed it. (For a time I tried to keep up with local planning, but the web interfaces were utterly useless, almost as if they were designed to put the reader off. For some applications, there were hundreds of documents, and no way to sort them. So there were letters of support and opposition and letters clarifying irrelevant minor points, all in a huge unsorted list, hidden in which were the documents that you actually wanted to read. And that was if you actually knew of a development and were able to search for it (by knowing the application number – text searches invariably failed). If you casually went to the planning websites hoping to be alerted to significant developments: yet again you were confronted by an enormous unsorted list, most of which related to people wanting to put up a sign or change their windows.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another kind of Bit Rot.
LikeLike
Jit, well spotted regarding the 49.9Mw point.
As for the mess that is the planning website – conspiracy or cock-up?
LikeLike
Jit,
There are a number of techniques that are used to give the impression of openness without being open in any effective manner. One that I have witnessed first hand is the holding of public consultation workshops without advertising them properly in advance. As a consequence, the workshop is badly attended, which suits them fine, since only those who attended are then deemed interested stakeholders to be copied in on future bulletins. All the stakeholder management boxes are ticked without raising the profile dangerously. It didn’t quite work for the wind farm they proposed to erect near my home town but the same people have returned with proposals for a solar farm and the same tactics seem to be working this time.
LikeLike
John, indeed, it’s a tactic that those in positions of authority have turned into a fine art. Two observations from Cockermouth, Cumbria:
1. A few years ago the Council found itself in receipt of government largesse for local projects, and so had £1M+ burning a hole in its pockets. It decided to proceed with a crass refurbishment of the ancient Market Place, including horrible garishly-coloured plastic seating completely inappropriate for the location. At the public meeting hich they must have been shocked to see was well-attended, sentiment was almost universally hostile. They went ahead anyway. So much for consultation.
2. There is a big ongoing debate about what to do regarding nuclear waste. Because we have the misfortune to be the location for Sellafield, and to be relatively sparsely populated and a long way from London, Westminster politicians seem determined to site the “geological disposal facility” (aka nuclear dump) here. The first process failed because Cumbria County Council objected. Under the rules the Government put in place at the time, that should have been that, but not a bit of it. They’ve come back for a second go, and they have a newly-created body in charge of this round of “consultations”. Fancy leaflets have been pushed through doors, big adverts placed in the local press. I’ve written to them twice and never received so much as an acknowledgement, let alone a considered reply. So much for consultation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Suffolk’s Coast: when offshore wind comes ashore”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-64751780
LikeLike
Nicely balanced headline (!) from the BBC – no bias there, then. The report is more balanced:
“Climate change: Y Bryn wind farm aids net zero aim – developer”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65902606
LikeLike
At last! It has long been a mystery to me why people who claim to care about the environment are so keen to damage it:
“The Green Party politicians who oppose solar farms”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756
LikeLike
“Fears that Suffolk electricity substation could blight village”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-65929775
Indeed. Now upscale the logic, and apply it to wind farms.
LikeLike
For some reason many people (possibly mostly those who don’t have to live within sight of them) seem to be quite happy with industrial devastation of our countryside by bird and bat killing wind turbines. Yet super pylons seem to be a sticking point. Perhaps it’s because whereas wind farms are often a long way away from urban population centres, that power has to be brought to those urban population centres, and thus the super pylons will be seen by lots of people. Whatever the explanation, this could be the issue that brings the plans to make the grid net zero (by 2030 or by 2035) crashing to a halt. People really don’t like the pylons!
“East Anglia left out of £54bn energy network – MP Jerome Mayhew”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-66002762
By the way, that headline figure represents £2,000 per household. Just stop and think about that for a moment. This stuff is massively expensive, but very few people in positions of authority seem to care two hoots about that. But pylons get them going!
Can it be true? Green politicians finally caring about the environment (or do they just care about votes?).
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s something new Mark. To me, that is.
Don’t care which it is: the Overton Window is moving in the direction of good sense. (Starmer is truly astonishing and inept in not appearing to pick this up. But I’m backing the Greens!)
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I may, Mark, can I explain a bit more what I meant by “That’s something new” yesterday. We all I think recognise that energy policies purporting to tackle the non-existent climate crisis are completely mad. The mystery has been why so many ordinary people don’t seem to have risen up in protest. (In fact I’m sure many are already unhappy but not all expressing it.) NIMBYism in the countryside hasn’t been anything like strong enough. I never foresaw that the pylons would be the straw that broke the camel’s back. But if the Green Party are leading the charge … well, it’s very hopeful.
Meanwhile in the cities the campaigns against ULEZ extensions and related things (backed by Boris in Uxbridge before he fell on his sword) are I think the same. Rural and city. Overton Window shifting. That I didn’t predict.
LikeLike
Richard,
I didn’t see it coming either, but it’s an interesting and hopeful development. The wind turbines are bad enough, but as I mentioned earlier, most townies who aren’t interested in the countryside and the environment, don’t see them and don’t seem to care. But it’s now becoming apparent that the turbines are only part of the huge industrialisation of Britain (in the name of saving the planet) that is associated with renewables. Try this:
“Highland campaigners slam SSEN power line plans for Caithness, Sutherland, Ross-shire and Inverness-shire”
https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/major-power-line-and-substation-plans-spark-packed-highland-309769/
Now that it’s coming home to the south of England too, it seems to be having an impact. We can only hope. But it is extraordinary to see “Green” politicians starting to oppose this stuff. Have they better antennae than politicians associated with the bigger parties? Can they (pardon the pun) sense which way the electoral wind is blowing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“East Anglia pylons: Plan for 112-mile power line published”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-66023678
Worth a read. It ends with this innocuous sentence:
My money’s on that new substation being an enormous industrial eyesore. Here’s what Tendring District Council says:
Click to access A3%20Report%20-%20East%20Anglia%20Green%20Non%20Statutory%20Consultation.pdf
Let’s hear it for the NIMBYs!
LikeLike
“Sleaford MP demands action to halt spread of solar farms”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-66268615
It seems that some Tory MPs are waking up to the problem.
LikeLike
“Concerns expected over wind farm visual impact, Manx Utilities says”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-66269462
LikeLike
“Not in my backyard! No one wants to look at offshore wind turbines”
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/not-in-my-backyard-no-one-wants-to-look-at-offshore-wind-turbines/
LikeLike
I never thought I would read this in the Guardian, and it’s a pleasure that I have done so, but the disconnect from the massive damage caused to wild places by renewable energy to date (and ongoing) is somewhat unreal:
“Country diary: This is prime wild country – and should remain so
New Radnor, Powys: I reject in the strongest terms the idea that we must choose between building renewables and keeping our most precious land”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/09/country-diary-this-is-prime-wild-country-and-should-remain-so
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Government must reject £600m Sunnica Energy Farm – MP Matt Hancock”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-66883179
LikeLike
“Lincolnshire solar farms plans should be rejected – councillors”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-66978482
LikeLike
The fightback continues. Let’s hear it for the NIMBYs:
“Wind farm cable work in Braunton could be disastrous, say villagers”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-67211336
LikeLike
“Suffolk residents raise concerns about offshore Sea Link cable project”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67361063
LikeLike
“Concerns voiced at meeting about southern onshore wind farm plans”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-67571230
Dfhunter, what’s the mood over there?
LikeLike
“Kent campaigners call for new route of planned electricity line”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-67660322
LikeLike
“Housing policy in Britain is a chaotic shambles. Thank God for nimbys, I say
Simon Jenkins”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/14/housing-policy-britain-chaotic-shambles-green-belt-brownfield
Wise words from one of the few Guardian journalists I still have any time for:
Those words could easily be applied to renewable energy developments. Let’s give that last paragraph an alternative wording:
LikeLike
Hi Mark – Sorry for belated response to your 30 NOV comment above, have just noticed it.
Most locals that will be directly affected visually are against it as you would expect (nimby’s as your later comments expand on). But most IOM Islanders I know don’t seem to have an opinion.
Again the “Net Zero – green power” mantra is being rolled out as the reason it’s necessary.
Another concern is offshore wind farms impact for IOM to UK Ferry routes –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-63543520
Partial quote – “Plans to build two new offshore wind farms in the Irish Sea could disrupt Isle of Man ferry services, a Manx operator has warned.
Energy firms have proposed projects named Morgan and Morecambe in areas between the island and Lancashire.
The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company said the developments could cause navigation issues for its sailings to Liverpool and Heysham in bad weather.”
we have many “bad weather” cancellations on ferry crossings as it is, this would mean, stock up in the summer, just in case!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Eco developers want to ruin our very own little bit of the Peak District by building a giant solar farm the size of 120 football pitches – it’s a disgrace
Furious locals fear the vast solar farm in Leicestershire will ruin the countryside
The giant eco-power development is set to be built on a 200-acre greenbelt site
Angry residents have blasted the proposal and claim it will be a ‘terrible sight’ ”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12889043/eco-developers-ruin-peak-district-giant-solar-farm-disgrace.html
LikeLike
“Ralph Fiennes adds voice to campaign against 112-mile pylons route”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67925436
LikeLike
“Gwent Levels: Campaigners fight solar farm plan”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67945337
I’m pleased to see that we’re seeing much more of this sort of thing, i.e. opposition to environmental vandalism by greedy renewables developers who seem to care far more about profits than they do about the environment.
LikeLike
“Nimbyism will not save the countryside”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/nimbyism-will-not-save-the-countryside
LikeLike
It’s good to see that Ralph Fiennes is still campaigning:
“Ralph Fiennes labels Suffolk energy hub plans a ‘disaster'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68268652
LikeLike
“Protesters call on council to object to power-transportation proposals”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-68626998
“Campaigners have said they want a council to push back against energy-infrastructure plans for Suffolk.
Offshore wind, nuclear and solar-power projects are all planned for the county, with transportation of that new power an issue.
The proposals include the installation of offshore cables, pylons and large industrial sites.
Suffolk County Council said it had objected to plans it disagreed with and had given feedback to improve others.
Protesters gathered out the council’s headquarters in Ipswich on Thursday, with calls for an offshore grid to be built to minimise the impact on the coastline.”
LikeLike
“Lime Down Solar Park: ‘Biggest issue in 30-years'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmjmmg106gro
2,000 acres!
LikeLike
Miliband and Starmer are going to take on the Nimbys of the Shires. It’s going to be bloody:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/03/on-the-front-lines-of-ed-milibands-wind-turbine-invasion/
Whether or not this massive increase in onshore infrastructure gets the go-ahead and is built pronto depends on the strength and effectiveness of local and nationally coordinated opposition plus the effectiveness of Starmer’s plans to neuter that opposition. The future of the English countryside is at stake here.
LikeLike
The tearing up of planning rules “to promote development” seems to represent a profound misunderstanding of what the greats of the 1945 Labour government were doing when they introduced a nationwide planning regime for the first time. Dalton, Atlee, Bevan, Bevin et al must be turning in their graves when they see what the Labour Party has turned into.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: it also depends inter alia on the government having adequate funds, materials and skilled workers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear:
“Labour lifts Tories’ ‘absurd’ ban on onshore windfarms
Rachel Reeves says she will revise planning policy and decisions should be taken nationally, not locally”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/08/labour-lifts-ban-onshore-windfarms-planning-policy
…Labour also announced on Monday that it would go a step further and consult on whether to designate large windfarms as nationally significant infrastructure projects, meaning that the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, would sign them off and local councils would not have a say.
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced in a speech on Monday that she would end the “absurd” restriction on new windfarms and said decisions should be taken nationally, not locally.
In a policy statement, officials wrote: “Delivering our clean power mission will help boost Britain’s energy independence, save money on energy bills, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis.
“We are therefore committed to doubling onshore wind energy by 2030. That means immediately removing the de facto ban on onshore wind in England in place since 2015. We are revising planning policy to place onshore wind on the same footing as other energy development in the National Planning Policy Framework.”….
Big Sister knows best, it seems. Sod the locals who care about their precious local environment.
LikeLike
How many pristine natural landscapes are going to be blighted, how many lives are going to be blighted, how many birds and bats diced and sliced, before Labour is forced to retreat on Net Zero? Far too many I fear with Mr Looney Tunes in charge. Labour are proceeding full speed ahead to trash the environment in order to save the planet (and the British weather) from the ravages of an imaginary climate crisis dreamed up by the Guardian’s editorial team in 2019. Christ on a bike, it’s going to be a very trying 5 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes indeed, Jaime. I would like your comment, except that there’s nothing to like about the environmental vandalism about to be unleashed. Maybe we need some additional emoticons, such as tears or anger.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And one for deep, deep depression, combined with utter frustration and despair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Delivering our clean power mission will help boost Britain’s energy independence, save money on energy bills, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis.”
It’s not just the scale of environmental damage which is upsetting me but also the knowledge that the pretext for such wanton destruction is based upon a set of lies. I say ‘lies’ because I find it inconceivable that Reeves actually believes that Britain is in a position to tackle ‘the’ climate crisis through net zero. I just can’t understand how anyone could genuinely think this. It’s so self-evidently untrue as to qualify as denialism of the highest order.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John, you raise what for me is a very interesting and longstanding question, namely when and how, over time, does an initial error become a lie?
Wind power is both unreliable and very, very voracious of land compared to dispatchable fossil and nuclear fuels: if I recall correctly the figures are about 2MW/km^2 for wind compared to about 1000MW/km^2 for the others. So why does Labour want to gobble up so much land for so little power, and unreliable power at that? Possible answers include (but are not limited to) doctrine, bloody mindedness, bubble-protected ignorance, cock-up, and malice. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John, John,
It’s a bloody-minded, calculated, deliberate, malign, stupid, ignorant, herd mentality, conformist cock up, that’s what it is.
LikeLike
Yes to ‘stupid, ignorant, herd mentality, conformist‘.
No to ‘bloody-minded, calculated, deliberate, malign‘.
LikeLike
Robin,
What evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong about ‘bloody-minded, calculated, deliberate, malign‘ and definitely right about ‘stupid, ignorant, herd mentality, conformist‘? Or is no evidence acceptable?
I am always willing to change my mind and accept ‘stupid, ignorant, herd mentality, conformist‘ as the main or even sole explanation for the Net Zero debacle, if it can be demonstrated to me that that the considerable evidence for a ‘malign’ interpretation can be dismissed. But that has not happened. Remember, malign includes simple financial motivations, not just nefarious conspiracies to ration energy/exercise central control over the populace/deindustrialise western nations etc.
LikeLike
Jaime, to sake my interest, how many THOUGHTFUL supporters of Net Zero have you discussed the matter with (and for that matter also those deeply worried about climate change)? Because there are some. At UEA I met many, from undergraduates to full professors and eminent international visitors. I cannot really recall anyone I would call malign. Misguided perhaps but with genuine concerns.
LikeLike
Alan,
I cannot ever recall having come across any genuinely thoughtful advocates of Net Zero, either online or in person. If I had, then I am sure I would have been able to engage in a constructive conversation re. the pros and cons of such an enterprise, supposedly justified in order to urgently mitigate human-caused climate change and bad weather. No doubt there are many ‘deeply concerned’ individuals out there but if they were genuinely ‘thoughtful’ (i.e. full of thoughts), I strongly suggest that these thoughts would have led inevitably to them at least questioning the safety, effectiveness and necessity of Net Zero.
LikeLike
Jaime, might you have considered James Lovelock thoughtful? He was one of the most kind and thoughtful people I ever did meet. He was also adamant that climate change caused by our CO2 emissions was realistic and worrisome. I discussed this matter several times with him over coffees. I don’t believe Net Zero was an issue then, but perhaps he might have opposed it if GB were to attempt it alone.
LikeLike
Alan,
He was indeed thoughtful, but probably not philosophical or religious and he was a systems engineer at heart, which is where the concept of Gaia came from. I don’t know when you shared conversations with Lovelock but in 2012, observing that the planet had not warmed as predicted by the climate models, he admitted publicly that he had been ‘alarmist’ about climate change. But then, in his final years, he went back to being an alarmist about the use of fossil fuels and he appeared to reject the evidence for a lab origin of Covid (now irrefutable) in favour of supporting the zoonosis theory and linking this to the alleged ‘breakdown’ of the natural biosphere due to human influence. In the end, I’m sad to say, he revealed himself to have the same same Malthusian misanthropic instincts as Attenborough, Goodall and others.
LikeLike
Jaime: you know my views on this and I really don’t want to start debating them again.
LikeLike
Yes Robin, I do know your views, which is why you did not need to remind me of them at 7.09am!
LikeLike
7.09am! – must be love 🙂
ps – Mark over on Open Mike has a good link/read – The myth of cheap “Renewable” Power in the UK – edmhdotme (wpcomstaging.com)
LikeLike
Ends with – “The late Professor Sir David MacKay:
“The dependence on Weather-Dependent “Renewable Energy” to power a developed economy is an Appalling Delusion”.
“There’s so much delusion and I think it’s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have these delusions that they’re willing to not think carefully about the numbers and the realities, and the laws of physics and the realities of engineering… humanity really does need to pay attention to arithmetic, and the laws of physics.”
Arithmetic? Laws of physics? Engineering? These disciplines are all lost on politicians, to our incalculable cost. “
LikeLiked by 3 people
They have the audacity and hubris to call themselves Mission Control, but when Net Zero turns into Apollo 13, as it must, this Mission Control, staffed by Green ideologues and arts graduate politicians with not a day’s worth of real work experience between them is not going to bring us back to earth – unlike the brilliant scientists and engineers heading NASA mission control in 1970.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Labour told it will need to defeat ‘net-zero nimbys’ to decarbonise Britain
Opposition in wealthier areas is likely and overcoming it is essential, says Resolution Foundation”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/22/labour-decarbonise-britain-resolution-foundation-report-net-zero-nimbys
The government will need to “take on net-zero nimbys” and ramp up public investment to decarbonise Britain’s homes, transport and electricity system, a leading thinktank has said.
With Keir Starmer promising a rapid transition to decarbonise the power system by 2030, a report by the Resolution Foundation said achieving the target would require more government spending and private investment.
However, the thinktank said projects required to meet the goal – including new solar farms, battery storage, and onshore wind turbines – were likely to face resistance from local groups. It said many renewables projects would take place in wealthier parts of the country, and two-thirds of proposed solar projects would be in the richest 40% of neighbourhoods.
“Doing this effectively will require overcoming opposition to development from net-zero nimbys, who often live in wealthier parts of the country,” said Jonny Marshall, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation.
“The government must be prepared to win these battles, which won’t be popular with some voters but are vital for the country as a whole.”
The thinktank said options for dealing with the friction could include taking responsibility out of local hands to unblock development, or providing financial incentives to smooth opposition. Alternatively, allowing local opposition could “stymie decarbonisation”….
This is the Resolution Foundation:
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/about-us/mission/
The Resolution Foundation is an independent think-tank focused on improving the living standards of those on low-to-middle incomes. We work across a wide range of economic and social policy, combining our core purpose with a commitment to analytical rigour. These twin pillars of rigour and purpose underpin everything we do and make us the leading UK authority on securing widely-shared economic growth.…
And yet they want the new government to wreck the energy foundations of this country, inevitably further impoverishing the poorest in UK society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Labour (and the Cons before them) have initiated a class war which will affect the poorer working classes and ironically, the wealthier middle classes, but in different ways. Eventually though, the net result will be that we are all poorer and a lot more miserable. What we are witnessing is not so much a class war but a culture war – on the British way of life – and the middle classes are now on the sharp end of that war. Net Zero is also, absurdly and paradoxically, a war upon the British environment and its wildlife.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/21/insanity-of-net-zero-has-been-exposed-by-the-greens/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Campaigners oppose offshore windfarm substation plans”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng1y1g740o
Campaigners have opposed plans to build part of a windfarm in their village, claiming it would “devastate the environment”.
The Rampion 2 project team said the site chosen for its onshore electricity substation was in Bolney Road and Kent Street, in Cowfold, West Sussex.Rampion told the BBC it has minimised the impact of the project, which is yet to get the go-ahead from the Planning Inspectorate.
It said the windfarm will generate enough renewable energy to power more than one million homes, external and reduce carbon emissions by 1.8 million tonnes per year.
“We are not against green energy,” said Meera Smethurst from the campaign group Cowfold v Rampion.She claimed locals had not been properly consulted about plans for the 12-acre facility near their village.
She said it would lead to increased traffic and congestion on nearby roads during its years-long construction.
I suspect we will see a lot more opposition in the months and years ahead, as more of the “green” infrastructure affects more people directly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Locals object to Devon wind farm cable plans”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn879vn7v32o
Controversial plans to run cables for an off shore wind farm through a popular Devon resort have been voted against by local councillors.
Braunton Parish Council unanimously voted to object to a proposal to bring cables for the project onshore at Saunton Sands and build a new sub-station in East Yelland.
Councillors said they felt the plans would have a significant and detrimental impact on the area….
...Parish councillors said while they supported renewable energy, they felt the plans were not right for the area….
Having praised NIMBYs in my piece (who knows better than locals regarding the need to protect precious habitats?) I think it’s time objectors to proposals stopped saying that they support renewable energy, but not in their back yard. It reduces the credibility of their opposition that they are happy for somewhere else to be trashed by it. Still, the backlash seems to be gathering pace, so that’s a positive development.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s the Rubicon that has to be crossed Mark. How we all need that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“‘Put solar panels on warehouse roofs, not fields'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3d377z8eo
Sadly, while saying they are not NIMBYs, that’s what these campaigners sound like. As I said in an earlier comment, we won’t get anywhere until people stop saying “Campaigners said they understood the need for a solar farm but….” [just not here].
Juliet Jarvis, who lives in Grendon and is part of the Stop Green Hill Solar group, said: “This is not about not wanting it in our back yard.
“We want renewable power but there’s better places to put it…”
That’s as may be, Juliet, but we’ll only stop this vandalism by saying we don’t need it, and we don’t want it anywhere, other than (perhaps) small-scale and appropriate modest contributions to the grid that don’t destabilise it and that don’t cost us all an arm and a leg.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unfortunately dreamers like these have no idea of the scale of area required to produce meaningful power outputs from solar PV.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s the NIMBYs protesting ‘the wrong sort of renewables in the wrong place’ whilst ensuring that their shiny Green virtue remains polished and intact – along with their ignorance – who make my blood really boil. Intellectual and emotional cowards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, is it not WILFUL ignorance in many cases? Their hypocrisy staggers me; with few exceptions (now in prison?) they expect everybody else to Just Stop Fossil Fuels while, for example, gluing themselves to road surfaces using not flour and water but the highest of hi-tech products from the fossil-fueled world they claim to oppose.
And do these people not realise that they exhale many times more CO2 than they inhale? I suspect there is an insurmountable challenge in there somewhere for them.
Thus the challenge for us is to breakdown and then overcome these bizarre ideas.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
So much for the erstwhile human rights lawyer, determined to ride roughshod over human rights:
“PM vows to curb ‘Nimby’ legal blocks on infrastructure”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3l9jdy2q1o
Major infrastructure projects like nuclear power stations, railway lines and wind farms will be built faster under new planning rules, the government has pledged.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said Nimby (Not in My Back Yard) “blockers” of major infrastructure projects will have fewer chances “to frustrate growth” through repeated legal challenges.
And we still have a Uniparty. Do the Tories criticise this removal of human rights? No, they criticise Labour for stealing their ideas!
…Tory shadow levelling up secretary Kevin Hollinrake accused Labour of “taking forward Conservative initiatives”…
LikeLike
“Legal challenges to UK infrastructure projects to be blocked in push for growth
Keir Starmer hopes his plan to ‘take the brakes off Britain’ will send a message to business to build more”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/legal-challenges-to-infrastructure-projects-to-be-blocked-in-push-for-growth
Strange that Starmer had nothing to say about the repeated lawfare against oil and gas developments and coal mines. On the other hand, Sir Fliplop seems to be changing his mind about airport expansion:
...In February 2020, Starmer tweeted “congratulations to the climate campaigners” when plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport were ruled illegal by the court of appeal after a judicial review.
“There is no more important challenge than the climate emergency. That is why I voted against Heathrow expansion,” he said then….
LikeLike
I wrote the article at the head of this thread in praise of people who wish to protect their local environment from the insidious onwards march of renewables industrialisation. However, I am growing tired of people who claim to be in favour of renewable energy, but just not where they live. We keep hearing this sort of thing, and it really doesn’t play well, not least as it allows the government and the dev elopers to play the NIMBY card:
Sue Prosper, from Love Braunton, was one of the campaigners at the site.
She said the group was “pro-renewable energy but we are against this application”.
Ms Prosper added: “We believe this will be at the expense of an environment that is highly designated, is full of ecology and the proposed mitigation’s [sic] are not sufficient to protect it.“
But the problem, Sue, is that those words apply to renewable energy developments everywhere.
“Protest over power line plan for Devon beach”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vy2p7ypnwo
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
This is the problem: airheads who will just repeat the ‘clean energy is good – just not in my backyard’ mantra, either because they are cowards who don’t want to be labelled as ‘deniers’ or simply because they lack the intellectual capacity to come to the conclusion that renewables expansion per se, across the UK is a bad idea. They just can’t see that the pursuit of an environmentally, socially and economically catastrophic Net Zero dream, driven more by ideology than scientific evidence which, even if it miraculously succeeds, will do, can do, nothing to address the ‘problem’ which it purports to be solving, is insanity squared.
LikeLiked by 1 person