It probably won’t have escaped your attention that we’ve been talking a lot about wind this week. I’ll be honest – it’s confused a few people. Some have called it a ‘change’ in the RSPB’s position. And some went as far as branding it a u-turn.
But I’ll let you in on a secret - we've never opposed the development of any windfarm that doesn't pose a threat to sensitive wildlife. And we're never going to stop opposing those that do.
Maybe you don’t really like the look of wind turbines. If you don’t, you’re in good company – some of our staff aren’t too keen on them either. You might question the efficiency of these structures, or their capacity to meet our energy demands. Some engineers do. And we won’t pretend that the energy industry hasn’t, in some cases, overhyped the benefits of wind energy. We know the technology is far from perfect. It's efficiency is heavily dependent upon where it's located, which is why we advocate it as part of a mix of renewables and not the sole component.
But here's a statement that I hope we can all agree on: climate change is the most significant threat to biodiversity on the planet. And it’s because of this we feel the need to make our position on wind energy clear. The RSPB believes wind energy has an important role to play in tackling climate change. Consequently we only oppose those windfarms that pose a significant threat to wildlife.
We’ve always supported taking power from the wind, waves, the tides, the ground, and anything else that can justifiably be labelled as a renewable energy source that doesn’t damage the environment.
But we know there are some proposals out there – like the recently defeated Lewis windfarm application, and the current proposal for a barrage from Cardiff to Weston across the river Severn – that don’t meet sensible environmental standards. Based on the available science, we believe they'd harm the environment. And for this reason, we’ll continue to challenge them robustly, and other developments like them. We’ll do what our members would expect of us – and what the natural world demands of us.
This is the crux of what we’ve been saying this week. If any renewable energy proposal threatens sensitive wildlife through its operation or construction, we’ll oppose it. But if it won’t have an adverse impact on the wildlife around it then – just as we always have – we won’t stand in its way. Indeed we should be encouraging it to go ahead.
Why? Because we can't afford not to. I don’t mean financially – although opposing stupid windfarms proposed for inappropriate locations can be very expensive and time-consuming – but because the planet cannot afford to.
For the foreseeable future, we need wind energy to combat climate change. If we are going to wean our planet off fossil-fuel based energy production before we reach the point when climate change can’t be stopped, we need dramatic action. We need to find a constructive way through the obstacles that are currently preventing this. If we don’t act now, we’re effectively condemning thousands of species of animals and plants to extinction. And threatening the lives of millions of people.
This position hasn’t changed. We’re passionate about the natural world around us. If something threatens that environment, whether it’s climate change or an inappropriately sited windfarm application, we’re duty bound to challenge it. Our members expect it of us.
So is this the wind of change? Well, no, actually, it’s not. But we think it is the wind of reason. And hopefully it carries on it the scent of a more secure future for the planet we all have to share, as rich in wildlife as it is today.
The RSPB has never opposed wind farm developments if they are located and designed to avoid damage to sensitive wildlife. Onshore wind is an important weapon in the battle against global climate change - a problem that, if left unchecked, will result in the extinction of millions of species of birds, plants and animals across the world, as well as costing the lives of millions of people. For this reason, the RSPB is proposing a fresh look at our planning system, to make sure that we get the wind energy we need, in the right places, and in time to tackle the climate crisis. We hope to work with the Government, planners, developers and other NGOs, to secure this outcome, and the future of the wildlife on our planet.
For further information about the RSPB's climate change policy see here.
On one of the main approaches to Schiphol airport, you are taken over the port and industrial areas where you can see several large wind turbines sited. This obviously makes sense as they fit in with the skyline of cooling towers, cranes etc.
It should surely be possible to site wind farms at coastal sites such as ports, power stations, petrochemical plants etc without upsetting anybody. Birds probably avoid these sited in any case. In addition, there is a use for the power at the sites, which is obviously very cost effective both financially and environmentally.
Whilst not all coastal sites will have the optimum wind conditions, most will prove to have acceptable conditions.
Even inland, petrochemical plants, factories, mines (both working and abandoned ) could surely be assessed as possible sites.
A quick look at a map of the UK shows several hundred sites which could be considered.
Thanks for that. There may well be potential in looking at some of these areas - where they are windy and won't harm wildlife. The key thing is we need a plan and we're pressing Government hard to lead on this.
Very interesting.
My wife and I have over the last few years sailed from Plymouth to the Baltic via Holland and Germany. There are large numbers of wind generators along this coast, especilly in Denmark. For us, they didn't ruin the area at all, indeed, they are far less unsightly than thermal power stations.
We were moored almost underneath a large wind-generator in Germany during a windy spell: the blades made a swishing noise but no bother to us at all. I think some older generators were excessively noisy, but we all want electricity, so we must accept some generators.
Peter Adam
I have lived with wind turbines here in Holland for the last 8 years and always supported them. This is the way forward for the future of clean energy. I work on a nature reserve and the wildlife casualties with birds and turbines are minimal if at all. I find the turbines quite interesting. They are far better than row upon row of electicity pylons, which I happened to come across last week in France.
I think the Brits have to go for change and stop moaning about the wind turbines. I find the idea to put them out at sea is a good one. We already do this in Holland along the North Holland coast. No-one seems to complain, the Dutch understand that wind is a good source of energy. So RSPB do keep supporting the project, I dont understand why the Brits are so against change when change is what is needed. We have to do this sooner rather than later. Everything is happening too slowly in combination with new technology. I feel we are struggling to keep up. Just do it for goodness sake, it works here in Holland why do you think it won't work for you?
Even if you don't think wind turbines are attractive (which I do), they are far better than some of the alternatives that we have lived with for too long. I grew up near the coast in an area that was very 'industrial'. The local landmarks were cooling towers, gas tanks, oil refineries and slag heaps - ugly, dirty, noisy, dangerous and smelly. The environment was nowhere on the local development agenda. It's beyond belief that people can put up with all of that but object to wind turbines because of their appearance or impact on the environment. Yes, it's pointless siting them where there is no wind. But on the whole the UK is a windy place, and urgently needs to speed up its investment in clean energy.