In light of recent discussions, I have decided to re-post to Newsnight:
Are domestic wind turbines an eco-con?
I very much appreciate these blog posts because, between the inevitable extremes of opinion, there are some smart cookies who do seem to know what they are talking about and can share some worthwhile facts.
Hence I have revisited after quite a while, as a consequence of a BBC news report this morning, the content accuracy (or at least diligence to put PR in context) of which rang a few bells in my mind.
My main concern was that the claim was made that a new windfarm would supply half of Scotland.
I raised some doubts on my blog - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/talking-heads.html - and it seems they MAY be founded, but so far those involved in the discussion would be the first to admit we don't know.
Should anyone who does revisit these pages some answers would be appreciated.
I fear that my faith in objective reporting, even my our premier national news channel, is being seriously eroded as it becomes more and more of a PR-patsy for government and other organisations who wish to be seen to be doing 'good' in pushing their agendas.
My only concern is delivering genuine enviro-ROI from initiatives that will improve my kids' futures, and not some pol's career, activist's pension plan fund or commercial interest's lobby pot.
Or, for that matter, some unconcerned journalist/editor/producer's desire just to fill a slot under the name of 'news'.
And just for fun, I have written to the editor:
More Ethical Man territory (I've posted on his piece on the matter as well), but this does extend to other issues you have raised, such as the programme's and indeed BBC's role in sharing objective information. My main area of concern is how we are being driven in the area of environmental good practice, and what I perceive as a poor level of context and objectivity on many issues that surely demand as much as reasonably possible before people commit their money, votes and kids' futures, based on what is often little more than agenda-driven, target-based, career/empire-enhancing or profit-generating PR.
From pieces on electric cars that 'don't pollute' (they do, it's just the exhaust pipe is in a different place) to a slot on wind-farm generation today that frankly didn't add up, I'd be much more inclined to enthusiastically embrace all these planet-saving initiatives if I didn't feel I was being conned, and not very well, by all those with the most to gain... in the short term. It's as shame that I feel the media I should trust most are complicit in taking me along for the ride.
1 comment:
I don't question the motives of the greens but some of their efforts are being misdirected because green initiatives are being subverted by big money.
When one child dies every 5 seconds from hunger related illness, I conclude for all the $trillions of credit and wealth we generate and $hundreds of billions that will be spent on green initiatives, we are misdirecting efforts at a real and horrendous cost. Industrial wind offers a false promise. On account of generous subsidies, many industrial wind farms are being built in locations that aren’t efficient and impact adversely on the environment. So we end up having to build fossil fuel plants to back up the inefficient wind farms. The oil and gas companies are investing in wind projects because wind commits us to burning fossil fuels. Meanwhile we end up wasting precious resources that can be put to better use to arrest global warming. We should support conservation, micro wind, solar and biomass, third world development aid vs. big grid power projects. Also the economic model needs to be overhauled to STOP needles human activity that is stressing the planet, e.g., inefficient wind farms.
The Germans have found that it is costly to get just 6% of their energy from wind. They are building clean coal. Britain's gas and electricity regulator now wants Britain’s Renewables Obligation scheme scrapped because it has cost consumers $billions and "Worse still, the emissions savings delivered are small and almost unbelievably expensive."
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article2192850.ece
Has anybody taken a big picture look at fossil fuel consumption for electricity, transportation, industry, residential heating combined to say that wind is the best way to achieve the needed GHG cuts in the long term considering the environment, costs and energy security?
Post a Comment