Well, well. Great Britain’s largest bird conservation group, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, is building a 100-meter-tall wind turbine at its headquarters in Bedfordshire. Well, technically, it’s being built by the British green-energy firm Ecotricity, but you get my drift.
Shocking, I know. Those good-hearted folks at the RSPB have succumbed to “climate change” bushwah, and they’re gonna build themselves an “icon to worship,” in the immortal words of Rob Roper. And soon, if the Windies are to be believed, there’ll be a large and growing pile of avian corpses at the RSPB’s doorstep.
Er, maybe not.
Both Ecotricity and the RSPB say they have undertaken thorough environmental assessments of the site, and they are confident that there will not be a significant impact on either local wildlife or the surrounding community.
The RSPB does call for care in siting wind farms; you don’t want turbines in prime raptor habitat, or in places that rare species call home. But…
…the charity insists that cutting carbon emissions has to be an urgent priority for any organization concerned about the survival of wildlife.
RSPB director Paul Forecast notes that “We can already see the impact that climate change is having on our countryside with salt marsh and mudflats declining at a rate of 100 hectares per year in England.” Which is the point I’ve tried to make in previous diaries on this blog: if we don’t make a strong commitment to renewable energy, then our environment is going to change drastically. If we try to preserve Vermont exactly as it is, it’ll change in dramatic and unpredictable ways. I’d rather have some sensibly-sited ridgeline wind farms, myself.
But I’ll give Paul Forecast the last word:
“We hope that by installing a wind turbine at our UK headquarters, we will demonstrate to others that, with a thorough environmental assessment, the correct planning and location, renewable energy and a healthy, thriving environment can go hand in hand.”
I think we can all agree on that.
There’s been a lot of talking past one another in the wind debate; among people who are otherwise more-or-less on the same page.
Everyone may not agree on the appropriateness of a single siting; but that is why a process is being developed to evaluate each planned installation on its individual merits or faults.
I rather think most Vermonters can agree that wind is an important component of the renewable energy picture, and that every effort must be made to protect the fragile natural environment while finding appropriate places to site wind installations of differing scales.
It has never been more important than in this conversation to address concerns regarding sitings respectfully, thoughtfully and proactively.
On the other hand, those with the concerns must keep an open mind and be prepared for the likelihood that no siting can be expected to be 100% impact-free.
them setting an example. Perhaps they will have some better recommendations for siting. Hopefully this will remove the stigma of wind turbines being a prevailing threat to bird populations.
“We hope that by installing a wind turbine at our UK headquarters, we will demonstrate to others that, with a thorough environmental assessment, the correct planning and location, renewable energy and a healthy, thriving environment can go hand in hand.”
John I’m re-engaging you in this conversation because I’d like to see all Vermonters dispense with polarizing ridicule in order to reach a constructive consensus on this subject. It appears we both agree with the above statement, so I thought this might be a good opportunity to bridge some gaps. We could begin by reviewing that statement with an apples to apples comparison.
Wikipedia reports Bedfordshire, England’s population at over 80,000 in the 2005 census versus. Bedfordshire sits not too far off the M1, a major highway between the population centers of London and Birmingham, in a relatively flat area of England. It is situated 278 feet above sea level. It now has one 328 foot tall wind tower.
Lowell, Vermont, with a population of just under 800, is surrounded by mountains that feature a wide range of avian populations, including predator habitat. Directly in the path of the thermals upon which those birds thrive, there are now twenty-one almost 500 foot towers (counting blade tips). They sit atop Lowell Mountain, which is 2,119 feet above sea level.
I don’t think you meant to imply the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds favors industrial wind to battle climate change over its concern for avian populations. I prefer to believe we both think the Society has a good handle on how to strike a proper balance for our environment by doing renewables right.
The Society calls for a “thorough environmental assessment,” something we “windies” have been asking for all along. Vermonters have a right to know whether a proposed renewable tool actually has an impact on climate change. We also have a right to understand the impact on our avian population, which is substantially different than the one found in Bedfordshire.
The Society also demands “correct planning and location,” which Vermont is now working hard to define. Interestingly, by installing their tower in a densely populated and flat area, the Society has demonstrated there’s no reason Vermont’s more densely populated areas can’t host this renewable tool. Since that’s where the demand for electricity is highest, why haven’t we tried that? I suspect the Society would rather prefer that to placing them in locations that threaten the very habitat of those species the Society is charged with protecting.
I’ll close by saying it is nice to see we agree that “renewable energy and a healthy, thriving environment can go hand in hand.” Slowly, but surely, we all seem to be heading in the same direction. With a little more work at listening to each other, perhaps the planet has a chance after all.