Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?

Before I attempt to answer the question posed by this latest Blog entry, I think I need to sketch out a little bit of background first in order to help you understand where I'm coming from!

---

Whenever I hear a generic Conservative politician, barmy Republican Presidential candidate or Climate Change Denier say they find Wind Farms ugly (or even £150,000-a-year BBC Arts Editors for that matter*), I despair.

Not necessarily because they are wrong (I think they ARE wrong by the way, but beauty is subjective and they are entitled to their opinion)...  but more because I believe they think (a) everyone must think the same, (b) that it is simply a given FACT... and (c) that that in someway then helps strengthen an argument they might be in the middle of making as to why we don't need them in general.

I disagree with that side of things more than with any insignificant artistic debate!

Wind Farms undeniably take up space, and by their nature are also very visible, so therefore they are hard to hide. But that does not necessarily mean they "ruin views" or are eyesores as a result. It befuddles me that some people seem to think turbines are ugly, but the rape fields in front of them are acceptable. Or that we must not build these things simply because they devalue the views... but electricity pylons or mobile phone masts are more tolerable because they are arguably indispensable.

I often wonder what such people would have thought of windmills when they first started appearing in the countryside, buildings that people NOW concede can (and do) add value to a landscape.

And so, there is conflict here. People who say they love the countryside taking issue with modern machinery that has to be placed in the more wild areas we have in order to function. They often ask (fence sitting) people things like: "would you want to live underneath a windmill then?" and so on.

But I say that such people have selective memories... or, rather, cherry pick when to attack something and when to keep quiet.

Here's a quick fact to consider then: mobile phones, televisions, washing machines, showers, trains, whatever... need (expendable) energy in order to function. And that energy has to come from either a finite or renewable source. A battery, the mains, whatever. If you want to use electricity, you must sacrifice something along the line to make it.

For example, if people say electric trains are 'cleaner' than diesel ones, they might be right... but we must still not forget that the power that propels said clean trains still has to come from somewhere... i.e. a power station. And if that power station belches out just as much (or more) fumes than the former diesel trains did, have these trains actually been improved?**

But most people don't live near power stations and so "out of sight, out of mind" creeps into the debate. So all we see if we don't think about it, are new electric trains moving along cleanly, without the spewing out of ugly smells, dirty liquids and dangerous fumes of before.

----

So... with all this in mind, I am still going to declare my love for the powering of all things in a renewable fashion... and I think that such people who argue against such an approach, from whatever angle, can be easily countered!

This renewable energy must be produced using natural sources, namely: wind, sun and water.*** Each has its own resulting type of  power "station"... but regardless of their scale or footprint, I would argue that they are in no way worse than the nuclear or fossil fuel power stations they might replace, regardless of whether you don't happen to like how they look, or the noises they make and so on.

BUT...

I believe there is another possible conflict here. And one that is harder to pick sides on or argue for a definitive solution. And this question (finally!) is the one I proposed as the title of this latest Blog entry...

Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?

I see this conflict as between those renewable power stations/installations and the wildlife they might even be said to help protect.

Taking each of the three standard renewable energy sources, we have three potential types of power station:-

1. Wind Farms (of turbines)
2. Solar (Power) Farms (of solar panels)
3. Hydro-electric power (either by river damming OR by tidal power)

And, bearing in mind the above example above about the electric trains, and things often being "out of sight and therefore out of mind", this results in three potential (and different) conflicts with 'nature' and the wildlife that it imbues...

These conflicts are usually direct: obvious and on view... rather than being something more subtle that is harder to detect at first, or further down the line before it takes impact.

These are undeniable problems:-

1. Wind Farms kill birds.
2. Solar Power Farms take up a lot of space.
3. (Freshwater) Dams prevent fish movement and (Estuary-based) Dams affect the feeding grounds of wading birds.

I think some pro-renewable energy fans keep quiet about this in just the same way as those people who hate wind farms mentioned above do... and that is a problem.

In order to continue the push towards moving over to renewable sources (or rather, moving AWAY from non-renewable sources), we must acknowledge the problems and consider them in all cases.

I think that, in the grand scheme of things, we may reach a point where we have to admit that renewable/sustainable energy sources are not heavenly solutions... without sin. They are not. They are merely the lesser of two evils.

When we are able to say that, and admit its truth. we may then move on to the, arguably better, task in hand... and that is not using more renewable energy at all - and actually simple using less energy full stop. That is, even, knowing when not to use it AT ALL.

This is a harder test, but it is arguably easier to achieve!

For example, instead of wearing uncomfortable office clothes in summer, managers could consider allowing their staff to wear less and switching off the expensive air conditioning.

Or, in winter, not putting on the heating when putting on a jumper will suffice.

It doesn't matter to some people whether the energy heating their rooms comes from the sun or from coal... as long as it does the job. So, how do we encourage this moral duty without making energy so expensive that it forces peoples' hands?

To be honest, I don't know! I fear it will only happen when we've run out of fossil fuels completely and are in the process of a forced conversion of all energy-hungry equipment to more renewable sources. At this point, people might start thinking that saving energy starts in the home... and not at the power station that you can, or maybe cannot actually see.

Cheers,
ZeeOx

N.B. This is a first draft... I'll tidy it up (typos, interesting links, etc.) in due course!

*I saw Will Gompertz, former media director at the Tate group of museums, and BBC's chief Arts Editor say on Have I got News for You that Wind farms are undeniably ugly. 1. How can someone who thinks Damien Hirst is "one of the greatest exponents of creative thinking today” be listened to? And 2. How can someone be so old-fashioned in their view of something very modern in design and presence? Shouldn't they, rather, be right up his street? (Or hedgerow.)

**Yes, they probably still have, but that's a separate argument!

***I know that wave power, biofuels, biomass, geothermal methods, etc. produce energy too and could also be added to this division, but we'll ignore all these for now too!

Austerity versus Conservation

The differences between words such as 'conserve' and 'preserve', 'frugal' and 'abstain' are merely down to semantics.

They exist in a rich seam of the wonderful English language that, despite such close relationships of meaning, helps provide subtle nuances of interpretation that result in them being categorised separately... and prevents them from ever being aggregated together into a singular dictonary entry.

But... in more simple languages, and indeed, if we employed more plain talking in our own everyday speech and correspondance, they do effectively mean the same thing. And no doubt such words would have been easily targetted in the first edition of the Newspeak Dictionary from Orwell's '1984'.

N.B. I am not proposing that we start thinning down the dictionary for this blog entry by the way!

Anyway, so: to be careful with the way one uses money or careful with the way how one looks after the 'environment' is surely connected?

To continue the dictionary angle for one final paragraph, the word 'environment' is simply defined in some books as 'surroundings' or 'atmosphere' (and in others, as 'the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates')... so surely, if you don't help look after your own surroundings, you put yourself in big trouble, regardless of how solvent you are?

There are certain situations, regardless of happiness, that money cannot not buy you out of.

----

Nowadays, in terms of politics and the media, we tend to capitalise the word and only use it in conjunction with all things 'Green'... and especially alongside the other common word and term: 'conservation'.

As a result, and as these times that we find ourselves in are, without a doubt, 'hard', we can then find it easier to dismiss them in terms of their importance... as we have to consider the more pressing financial matters at hand.

Many people think that the ideology of Green politics at this moment in time, is a luxury we can simply not afford to apply to our everyday concerns.

However, it makes sense to be careful with natural resources if we wish to also be careful with what finances we have left. And if our future governments, regardless of their political leanings, were aware of this (or worked harder to achieve it), then surely it would be the closest one could be to being conservative... with a small 'c'? The clue is in the title!

Why, in this time when all the world's economies are suffering, do the leaders of the richer western powers, such as in my home country, not take a lead and be genuinely more frugal and forward thinking at the same time? Anticipating the inevitable problems we will face in the future is a good thing as we can then help prepare to deal with them more effectively now rather than later!

Making cuts to various budgets is fine... but money is just an abstract concept. It literally doesn't grow on trees!
 
When people are finding it hard to make ends meet, all they are interested in, quite rightly, is in ensuring financial security for themselves, their family and their business.

But... that is why we have governments. They can think of the bigger picture and be less selfish in order to help with the greater good. What could be better than if we had a government that openly admitted that times are always going to get tougher in the future, not better, and that pressure on our resources (financial and physical) is going to increase as we continue to overpopulate this world and use up those physical materials that have a finite lifepsan and can never be replaced?

Regarding energy, not only can we/must we heavily invest what spare cash we have left into
alternative/renewable energies such as anaerobic digestion, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, tidal and wind power, but we must also avoid thinking we have cheap and easy short term get-out clauses in things like 'fraccing' (aka: hydraulic fracturing) or imported natural shale gas.

In addition, we must also support the subsidary industries and businesses that spin-off such concepts as: cogeneration, energy efficiency, green building, microgeneration, passive solar and the 'Organic Rankine cycle'.

If you asked the average person on the street if they would be happy if their future energy bills were to be reduced by, say, 75%, or, indeed, that they might even get money back from selling on the excess energy that they create, then surely they would be saying: 'of course!' and then: 'who do I vote for that offers that?'

If all our new houses were carbon neutral, and older houses re-fitted as to be more energy efficient, not only would we have less overheads, but we would have more jobs.

It has been proved many a time that large-scale house building is the best method of re-igniting a slumped national economy... so why don't we do it with these environmental'/'conservation'/'sustainable' (WHATEVER!!!) concepts in mind from the off? It's a 'no-brainer' as far as I'm concerned.

If we were ever to do this, then not only are we more genuinely 'austere' by definition, but we would also safeguard our economy, build the hundreds of thousands of houses we desperately need... and create many new jobs in new, innovative industries.

We then lead the world by example, and show everyone how it can be done... and thus, eventually, the whole planet benefits.

Looking after our 'cash under the mattress' AND our natural resources CAN be done at the same time... and by being a bit more sensible and temperant for the good of all will not only help our economy right now... but will also reduce the hardships faced by our progeny in the future.