ALL areas of government policy require a balancing act. Needs are balanced
against costs. Ideals are balanced against practicality. Environmental
impact is balanced against jobs.
Nowhere is this need for balance more clearly evident than in provision of
our energy. What can be good for the nation can be bad for the local
community or, indeed, vice-versa. What can be good for clean power can be
bad for visual impact on the environment.
Yesterday, Keith Brown, the Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work,
approved plans for a 19-turbine wind farm near Cockburnspath, East Lothian.
The project has encountered opposition from local councils, community
councils and campaigners. And, as a diligent minister, Mr Brown will
undoubtedly have measured concerns against likely benefits.
In the end, for him, the balance swung in favour of a claimed £9.4 million
in community benefit, the creation of jobs, and the provision of power to
35,000 homes. The project also fitted the Scottish Government’s commitment
to renewables.
However, on the East Lothian-Borders boundary, many felt the Lammermuir
Hills already had too many turbines. The Aikengall IIa application alone
was adding 19 windmills to 16 already consented in 2009 and another 19 in
2013.
It was the wind energy dilemma in a nutshell: landscape intrusion versus
clean power. But, even as we aim for the latter, we still need a mix of
power sources for energy security, and Mr Brown will have noted with
interest yesterday’s claims by EDF that the life of Torness nuclear plant
could be extended beyond its projected 2030 closure. Some environmentalists
will oppose that. Others will praise nuclear’s low carbon emissions and
steady production. Just as some praise wind power. And others oppose it.
The trick remains to balance them all.
0 Comments