Anti-Wind Farm Campaigner

This annoys me.

Plans to build one of Europe’s biggest wind farms on the Isle of Lewis are set to be turned down, BBC Scotland understands. The BBC’s Gaelic news service, Radio nan Gaidheal, has learned that Scottish Government ministers are “minded to refuse” the 181 turbine scheme. More than 5,000 letters of objection to the proposals were received by the Scottish Government.

It is believed environmental concerns are behind the decision.

Yeah, because there were no environmental concerns about the cost of not building these things. How much more coal and oil gets burned because this plan doesn’t go through? How many more fossil-fuel barons get fatter because people were worried about “visual impact” and busy roads.

We need energy. There’s no way back: we have to go with progress, embrace it. Slam on the anchors and we crash. There’s no return route to some idealised pastoralist Eden. We don’t want to die of pollution, and so we have to find ways of generating clean energy. Yet whenever I see a positive proposal for how to do this, I see moaning and complaining from a huge range of malcontents. Middle class Not In My Back Yards, Greenist zealots who would rather we all did with out those inessentials like light and warmth.

I’m inclined to think that Anti Wind Farm campaigners are essentially selfish buggers who can’t appreciate the aesthetics of a good windmill, and that anti-nuclear campaigners are sadly deluded hippies with no real wish for people to live happy lives in the real world. We need clean energy, people. Climb down from those towers and start helping us fix it.


3 Responses to “Anti-Wind Farm Campaigner”

  • Pete W Says:

    Ahmen brother, testify! tell it like is! Just means we have to build a couple more nuclear plants then…

  • Roy Belmont Says:

    “There’s no return route to some idealised pastoralist Eden.”
    And we’re on some kind of toll road, so we can’t go anywhere but straight ahead on the road we’re on because that’s progress and progress only goes one direction and we’re going in that direction already and any complaints are nostalgia for a way of life that’s gone now and we can’t go back to it because we’re on this road that has no exits and not turnarounds and no traffic in the other direction that’s for sure and here we go!
    Or not

  • Roy Belmont Says:

    Wendell Berry has spoken eloquently and precisely to the canard that anything other than techo-plutocracy and its mindless plunge into oblivion involves a “return” to some idealized misremembered past that was really awful once you got over how nice the views were.
    Citing the bicycle and its evolution into the 21 century we can posit the evolution of things like the horse-drawn plow into the 21st century. Some of us don’t want to do that because it wrecks our “progress at any price, because the alternative is nasty brutish short lives of filth and squalor” excitement, but too bad.
    The onwardness of things from now is a near infinite tree of possibilities. Including of course an ersatz “return” to an idealized past that never existed.
    Progress in its truest meaning, moving forward in time successfully, with increasing benefit and decreasing liablity, is not a one-way street, not a toll road, not an inevitable slide off a cliff.
    Calling the hunger for clean rain and rivers, for healthy unbroken environments that aren’t under human management and control, for health in the way we grow our food and harvest it and in the food itself, for ways of living that don’t make getting off the planet a necessity to survive instead of an option, calling that nostalgia, or utopian, or idealized or whatever, is like calling the desire for health in a sick man nostalgia, because it’s a hunger to return to the past. Well yes, and no. Since the contrast involves past and present of course it has that, the only reach he has toward health is when he last had it, but what he really wants is to be healthy now and in the future. That’s not nostalgia, it’s hope.
    We have to embrace change, but that doesn’t mean accepting whatever we’re offered by the masters of this particular way of living. They’re incompetent at best, the people that are running things, as becomes increasingly clear. Both the technophiles and the fundamentalists use each other for the same purpose, to pretend that the choice is binary, us or them, the future or the past, choose one.
    But in reality progress fans out from the immediate moment. We’re faced with innumerable futures. Some of them have healthy forests and oceans, some have no forests and dead oceans. We’re being told we have no choice in this by men who benefit greatly from the way things are, of course they want to pretend there’s no other way. But there is, there are.