Archived press release

Local Authorities Reject Solutions to Climate Disaster

23 September 1996

Friends of the Earth today called on local authorities to strongly support renewable energy developments through the planning process in order to combat global climate change.

The call for action to local authorities comes as the British wind industry launches a new policy document asking for more support for wind power (1). Charles Secrett, Director of Friends of the Earth, spoke today at the British Wind Energy Association's press conference, and urged local authorities to take their commitment to sustainable development seriously by planning for the future and supporting sensitively developed wind power proposals.

Over the past year and a half, over 70% of wind power proposals have been refused planning permission (2). The vast majority of these proposed green energy developments had already been promised financial support from the Government via the non-fossil fuel obligation. However, local authorities consistently turn these down, frequently on grounds of visual intrusion, even though the impacts of climate change resulting from fossil-fuel based energy production will be catastrophic (3). The choices made against renewable energy developments will have global implications, both ecologically and socially (4), and directly contravene the UK's commitment to sustainable development.

Tricia Allen, renewable energy campaigner from Friends of the Earth said:

"We are faced with potentially the most catastrophic ecological disaster seen by humankind. If we don't take urgent action to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions, considerable economic, ecological, social and agricultural instability will result.

There are solutions to this problem - we have the ability to source 20% of our energy needs from renewable sources in just 30 years. As long as wind power proposals continue to be turned down as they have been recently across the country, we are committing ourselves to an environmental and social crisis of gigantic proportions."

The Government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 (5). However our current over-reliance on fossil fuels and the consistent refusal of wind power proposals at the planning stages is preventing Britain from finding long term solutions to the threat of global climate change (6).

NOTES TO EDITORS:

(1) The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) launched their policy statement 'Wind Energy - Power for a Sustainable Future' today at a press conference at the Royal Geographical Society. The policy statement coincides with the launch of the BWEA's 'Switch on to Wind Power' campaign.Both Charles Secrett and Jonathan Porritt attended the press conference to endorse the campaign.

(2) Over 70% of wind power proposals have been turned down for planning permission since 1995 - British Wind Energy Association, 1996.

(3) The impact of climate change in Britain will lead to droughts in the south, heavier rainfall in the north, and more freak weather events, causing considerable economic and social instability. A 200km northward shift in local climate has been predicted in just one generation, making Manchester the same temperature as Oxford in 30 years time. This will lead to associated wildlife and habitat loss as these climatic changes take hold too quickly for a natural migration response.
Department of the Environment, Review of the Potential Effects of Climate Change in the United Kingdom. HMSO, May 1996.

(4) Current energy production methods in Britain rely 98% on the fossil fuel and nuclear industry.

(5) At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, world leaders signed up to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), which commits nations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. There will be a further climate convention in Japan in December 1997 to set greenhouse gas emission targets for beyond the year 2000.

(6) Wind power proposals have been refused planning permission across the whole country, from as far afield as Cornwall, Devon, Pembrokeshire, Norfolk, Anglesey, Cumbria and Liverpool. The impacts on these areas if a renewable energy industry doesn't develop are outlined here in some case studies.

Impacts of Refusing Wind Power Developments - A Case Study

Case study 1 : Rising sea levels in Britain
One of the most worrying consequences of climate change is the associated sea level rise, which has been predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Working Group 2, Second Assessment Report, 1996). Globally, some 46 million people are currently at risk of flooding owing to storm surges - a 50cm sea level rise would increase this number to about 92 million. The Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office, a leading centre for climate prediction, recently provided predictions of sea level rise in relation to changing climate. If no major global policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are enacted, it is predicted that the global rise in sea level will be 5cm per decade. In Britain, this impact will be most exacerbated in Southern UK. The displacement that will result from land loss both in human terms and land use terms will have further effects on our ability to cope and adjust to the impacts of climate change.

But there are alternative choices to be made. Worthyvale wind farm in Cornwall was one such choice. If this wind farm had been built, it would have provided a renewable source of energy which doesn't emit damaging climate-changing greenhouse gases. Worthyvale wind farm was close to development, having been granted planning permission by North Cornwall District Council, when it was called in by John Gummer, Secretary of State for the Environment. This decision is in contradiction to the sentiment conveyed in his exemplary speech in Geneva at the Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (July 1996), in which he said that 'alarm bells ought to be ringing in every capital throughout the world'. As a consequence of this decision, this wind farm - clearly a positive solution to the threat of climate change - will not be built.

Case study 2 : Oil spills or windmills?
The Corston Farm wind farm proposal was for sixteen wind turbines which would have been able to produce electricity for 2,850 homes. Corston Farm is within 10 miles of Milford Haven docks. It was turned down on 5th March 1996. Just twenty days earlier the Sea Empress ran aground at St. Ann's Head, Milford Haven, spilling 72,000 tonnes of North Sea light crude oil and 3-500 tonnes of heavy fuel oil into the surrounding sea.

Oil tanker disasters are one of the most potent symbols of our current energy consumption patterns.For as long as we rely on oil as a source of power generation we carry the responsibility of oil disasters such as the Sea Empress. This disaster led to a total of 16-20,000 sea birds being killed,and has affected over 175 miles of coastline. This has led to the damage of 35 sites of special scientific interest, 20 National Trust properties, 1 Marine Nature Reserve, 1 Ramsar Site, and 19 other designated areas. The accident happened in a proposed Special Area of Conservation. There have been considerable economic impacts also as a result of the Sea Empress oil spill, with impacts on the fishing industry, sporting and tourism. There is no doubt that the Sea Empress wreck and the subsequent oil spill constitute a major regional disaster with long term environmental and socio-economic effects that will still be detectable well into the 21st Century.

It is ironic that the Corston Farm wind farm should be turned down at the same time as this oil spill happened, especially since one of the reasons for the refusal was that the wind farm would have had a visual impact. The visual impact of the Sea Empress oil spill could not be more dramatic, yet it is a clear illustration of the threats we face while we continue to rely on fossil fuels. The Sea Empress disaster could have been avoided, if choices were made in favour of clean and efficient energy production. Yet for as long as local authorities continue to turn down planning applications for windfarms such as the one at Corston Farm, we will continue to risk further oil spill disasters - at the expense of local economies and the environment.

Case study 3 : No radioactive risks from a wind farm
The wind farm at Pica in Cumbria was one of many windfarms turned down recently in Cumbria. One of the threats of conventional energy production methods, using fossil fuels, is the contribution to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. The nuclear industry claim that, since it emits no greenhouse gases, is it therefore a safe choice in the face of climate change. What such advocates fail to notice is that the risks posed by the nuclear power industry are considerably more far reaching and potentially more life-threatening than we can imagine.

Nuclear power is highly polluting. It produces large amounts of radioactive gases and liquids which

are routinely (and sometimes accidentally) discharged into the air and sea. It also produces many types of solid waste, ranging from contaminated pieces of equipment, paper, plastics and clothing to 'spent' (used) nuclear fuel - one of the most dangerous and long-lived types of radioactive waste.

It has clearly been demonstrated that the nuclear power industry is uneconomical, and as a result the Government plans to build no more nuclear power stations. Pound for pound, investment in energy efficiency can lead to twice as many jobs created as investment in nuclear power. And as the recent flotation of British Energy showed as share prices fell shortly after entering the stock market,confidence in the nuclear power industry to perform for the investor is low.

The choices available in Cumbria are clear. Supporting a renewable industry would mean supporting jobs for clean energy well into the future. The wind farm which was turned down at Pica would not have presented any health risks to the local community, and it would not have carried with it the legacy of a waste product which cannot yet be safely managed. For as long as planning permission is turned down for windfarms, we remain locked into our current unsustainable energy production methods, including nuclear power.

Case study 4 : Precious countryside threatened
The Lowick Beacon proposal in Cumbria was for three turbines to produce enough electricity to supply approximately 1200 homes, more than enough to supply the nearest six or seven parishes totalling 815 homes. If the development had gone ahead, the electricity produced would have directly reduced the need for energy from burning coal and could therefore have saved 3.73 million kg of CO2, and nearly 50,000kg of the sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide which causes acid rain. Cumbria contains nearly 40% of all the SSSI (sites of special scientific interest) land in the UK threatened by damage from acid rain.

Acid rain damage in the UK tends to be a local problem, and for many of the end users of electricity who live in urban areas it can be a case of 'out of site, out of mind.' For the county of Cumbria it is becoming a disaster. South Lakeland District, in which the Lowick Beacon site is located, contains over sixty SSSIs. At least twenty-three of these will be damaged by acid rain, even if the acid rain deposition rate is reduced to 20% of its 1980 levels by 2010, the most optimistic of government targets. The majority of these will be damaged across 80 -100% of their area. These SSSIs each represent a site of special importance in preserving the UK's rich diversity of species and we cannot afford to lose even one of them. Several of the threatened sites stand out however as areas of national significance, such as : Duddon Mosses - the second most important area of lowland mire in the country; Borrow Beck Meadows - in a national context a very rare habitat with only 3% or less remaining undamaged by intensive agricultural techniques; and Tarn Hows - a beautiful upland lake and nationally the best know example of this particularly diverse aquatic flora habitat.

The huge problem of acid rain damage to the South Lakeland District is largely due to the combustion of fossil fuels for energy, and highlights the urgent need for clean energy solutions. The Lowick Beacon proposal is a perfect example of just such a solution, providing a non-polluting source of electricity for the local community well into the next century. In addition, the money raise by the project is to be put back into the local environment, providing a trust fund for the environmental management of Lowick Beacon, and the protection of the medicinal leech, an internationally rare species. Much has been made of the potential visual impact of these three turbines, yet they will appear to be very small from the national park, and from closer distances will often be softened by tree cover or the lie of the land. The benefits to the local community are clear and significant, the drawbacks are more subjective and open to question. By endorsing this proposal South Lakeland would be sending out a clear message to other planning areas that the time to act is now if we are to safeguard these unique and beautiful areas.
[Index]

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust