Wild Land News no 65, Winter 2005/2006

COMMENT - Future energy - choices or meltdown Article

Our politicians are failing to recognise the value of our landscapes in the drive towards energy generation. David Jarman reports.

A Member in Beauly has alerted us to a consultation by The Highland Council on this strategy, to which we have to respond by 13 January. She tells us that a Working Party involving HIE, SNH, VisitScotland etc has been meeting all year. In April she attended a forum of groups (mostly local and anti-windfarm) as a local Ramblers Group rep - and was the only delegate to raise 'wild land' issues all afternoon. In November, she went to one of the half-dozen public meetings advertised in local papers, in Inverness, to find only 30 people there that evening.

What our diligent member is stressing is first, that a consultation on a matter of the widest interest is effectively confined to local people (because national bodies are either not invited or find it hard to attend at distant venues), and second, that Highland Council will have the impression that hardly anyone is bothered by the landscape impact of renewable developments.

Indeed Highland's leaflet is heavily biased in favour of renewables, with a diagram of scales in which the pros decisively outweigh the cons :

PROS (in green)

Reduced CO2 emissions
Reduced wider energy pollution
Dispersed energy source
Secure energy source
New economic activity
Opportunities for local ownership

CONS (in red)

Localised disturbance to wildlife
Localised neighbour interactions
Changes to landscape
New infrastructure needs

Likewise, in their 'vision for renewables' nine plus-factors are set out, including retention of associated wealth by local communities. They do give one space to "retention of the regional diversity, scenic qualities, and local distinctiveness of landscape".

Clearly, the big issue is onshore wind, which they expect to meet 3200 MW of the 2020 target of 6700 MW - almost half. A map of development zones appears at first glance to 'save' the vast majority of the Highlands with a 'presumption against development'. Preferred development areas are

the Monadhliath
around Glenmoriston
around Ben Wyvis
SE Sutherland
NE Sutherland
Caithness hills

These beads are on the string of the existing national grid line from Dounreay-Beauly-Drumochter-Denny. If several big windfarms go ahead in each of these areas, there will hardly be a group of Munros on or east of the main watershed from which mega-industrial intrusions into the landscape will not be visible on a clear day.

But beyond these 'preferred areas' (where we are to have no chance of resisting anything) there are swathes of 'possible areas' which the fine print says are almost as good except they are further from the existing grid, or ought to be more diffuse in grouping (yes, let's spread the pain widely). Possible areas are thickly scattered around Ben Alder, Creag Meagaidh, Loch lochy, Appin, Morvern, Ardnamurchan, Loch Eil, Glenelg (yes, that hideous powerline to Skye), SE Skye, NW Skye, Applecross, and NW Sutherland coast from Kylesku to Kinlochbervie. And there are fingers in from the east coast up Conon, Oykell, and Shin.

The 'presumption against' is really just the areas where it would be too costly to develop - pretty much anywhere the industry wants it is an open door.

How can one possibly respond ? How about:

THIS IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE WILDNESS OF THE HIGHLANDS BY CIVILISED SOCIETY, EVER

Yes, even bigger than the hydro schemes for which we sacrificed nearly every major river catchment and many a fine glen, and which will never be rewilded. And :

WE HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT AT UK, SCOTTISH OR LOCAL LEVELS TO RECOGNISE THIS PRICELESS AND IRREPLACEABLE ASSET, LET ALONE GIVE IT ANY EFFECTIVE PROTECTION

We entirely support efforts to minimise fossil fuel burning, but

reducing energy consumption is by far the best way forward
electricity generation must be near main centres of demand, to minimise transmission losses and pylon blight
Scotland should not sacrifice its world-class scenery just so England can enjoy its local landscapes
within Scotland, priority should be to biomass, offshore wind (east coast), marine hydro (east and north coast), local and micro wind and solar, and onshore wind in and around the Central Belt - in that order, with new grid capacity installed as far as possible undersea and linking to east coast grid connections.

Sadly, it will only be once much almost irreparable damage has been done to the wild terrain (with access roads and deep foundations, shifting peat and blasting rock) and to wild and distant views that people will shake their heads and say that was a foolish short-sighted thing to have done, for the sake of a few jobs and handouts, and for a quick fix that upsets as few voters as possible.