Comment posted Major environmental groups seriously compromised by wind developers’ cash by Hamish Beaton.
I have problems reconciling big “charities” strategic objectives. Make no mistake, these charitable organisations are big businesses, up there with some of the world’s best and most profitable organisation – ramshackled two bit organisations they are not- some like RSPB and its Scottish ilk are big land owners too, wielding massive funds as the Officers and Board think fit. It is disquieting to find them taking funds from the very organisations that they criticize. I would no more expect Sea Sheppard to be funded by the whaling industry – if you get my drift.
From the Power industry’s point of view this is excellent news. Corporate communication is enhanced by telling your audience that you have direct communication with and actively support RSPB – Scotland. Strange bed-fellows indeed. There’s the rub – does once cancel one’s RSPB subscription or work as a Member to change this policy? I’m open to suggestions.
I’m a long term critic of ForArgyll’s editorial policy. I for one think it’s not even written in Plain English. I have difficulty sorting editorial comment from fact. yet again, we have it’s editorial team in one breath decrying wind turbines while actively supporting community involvement in schemes up in Glendaruel. A simple statement is needed at times to make clear that the editorial team and or site owners have a vested interest in such schemes. But then if the big charities can’t get their act right, should we expect Forargyll to be any different?
Hamish Beaton also commented
- ForArgyll’s style is more along the lines of Mrs Merton’s tv programme -”lets all have a heated debate”. I’m utterly confused by their editorial policy – the one that is on a pull down menu at the top of the site needs a bit of plain English applied – how they apply and adhere to it beats me. It will be interesting to see if Jamie McIntyre gets a response from the site’s owners and managers – it’s certainly the oddest “news” site I read and comment on. The good news is that the other commentators are invariably really worth reading – all good stuff
- What you say is true. RSPB qualifies that statement “We are involved in scrutinising hundreds of wind farm applications every year to determine their likely wildlife impacts, and we ultimately object to about 6% of those we engage with, because they threaten bird populations. Where developers are willing to adapt plans to reduce impacts to acceptable levels we withdraw our objections, in other cases we robustly oppose them.
However, there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the impacts of wind energy, so the environmental impact of operational wind farms needs to be monitored – and policies and practices need to be adaptable, as we learn more about the impacts of wind farms on birds.
A strategic approach
We are calling for a more strategic and long-term planning approach to wind development than is currently being taken. With the right strategy and planning safeguards, and with co-operation between developers and conservationists, renewable targets can be achieved without significant detrimental effects on birds of conservation concern or their habitats.
Wind power has a significant role to play in the UK’s fight against climate change and we will work with Government and developers to ensure this outcome. But a closer examination of the effects of interactions among wind farms and between wind farms and other forms of development is still necessary”.
What I said was: “It is disquieting to find them taking funds from the very organisations that they criticize and object to the sighting of their sites.”
Recent comments by Hamish Beaton
- Easdale Island emergency evacuation exercise identifies fixed link issue
The Island and policies are simply a slate bing, a slate grey tip, from our bygone industrial heritage. The original community slaved to fill in all the nooks and crannies with grey slate rubble – eventually being robbed of their livelihoods. Even Easdale Sound was narrowed and made shallow with the waste. It would be a trivial matter to drop a load of ballast into the shoal Sound from the old pier to the Island making a causeway and bingo a new peninsular created. Indeed create a new marina at the same time, off setting the original cost of the job and creating some-more permanent full time work. But I guess the locals would hate it, despising the committee members that proposed it. Aye this would really divide them more than the Sound does today and send them scuttling back to the indomitable bickering committees right enough?
- Easdale Island emergency evacuation exercise identifies fixed link issue
There is a lovely flat bottomed bow loading self propelled barge that takes the large wheelie bins away. Problem solved: Either only have a fire or evacuation on bin day or make the barge’s home port the Island. Or look to Sark or St Michael’s Mount both with similar problems, I’m sure we could find a few council volunteers for a summer fact finding mission to see how self help works? I just love these insights into what goes on in Argyll in our name – and no doubt these persons were paid handsomely for recommending further committee work – it’s self perpetuation and committee work at its very finest – they are all to be congratulated.
- McGrigor hits out at SNP government over RET removal
Keith – I do believe what you propose is called ethnic cleansing. It has been tried before in this region, and if I recall my history, from time to time met with considerable local resistance, civil disobedience, and armed insurrection – could be that your ideas and policy are a tad flawed and not fully developed – some unkind persons may even suggest cranky, or not there in the head, but who am I to judge. Suggest reading good history book for starters may be enlightening and keeping your vision for us all under wraps for the time being.
- Oban lifeboat in rescue of canoeist from Loch Leven – in silence from MCA on two major incidents
As a news service and blog should ForArgyll have again contacted the MCA and asked more searching questions of how MCA release news given that some of the searches were over the weekend. To my mind, most Corporate Communications departments would be running on a skeletal staff, and may have considered the mobilization of resources more important.
All of us should also recognize that we are dealing with probably a sad fatality. Therefore, it behoofs us all to take a step back, consider our comments in that light, and look at the resources which the MCA called in. In both incidents it would appear that considerable resources and efforts were involved, and perhaps to cast aspersions at the Coastguards activities and their lack of hot juicy tidbits for ForArgyll’s blogs on the day is wrong?
- Has Nauti-lass been swept away from Strachur?
Environmental concerns among citizens around the world have been falling since 2009 and have now reached twenty-year lows, according to a multi-country GlobeScan poll [see today's Google Doodle http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/22/earth-day-43rd-birthday-google-doodle ].
The findings are drawn from the GlobeScan Radar annual tracking poll of citizens across 22 countries. A total of 22,812 people were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone during the second half of 2012. Twelve of these countries have been regularly polled on environmental issues since 1992.
Asked how serious they consider each of six environmental problems to be—air pollution, water pollution, species loss, automobile emissions, fresh water shortages, and climate change—fewer people now consider them “very serious” than at any time since tracking began twenty years ago.
Climate change is the only exception, where concern was lower from 1998 to 2003 than it is now. Concern about air and water pollution, as well as biodiversity, is significantly below where it was even in the 1990s. Many of the sharpest falls have taken place in the past two years.
The perceived seriousness of climate change has fallen particularly sharply since the unsuccessful UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. Climate concern dropped first in industrialized countries, but this year’s figures show that concern has now fallen in major developing economies such as Brazil and China as well.
6,774 citizens across these 12 countries were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone on this question between July 3, 2012 and September 3, 2012. Polling was conducted by the international research consultancy GlobeScan and its partners in each country. In 4 of the 12 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. The margin of error per country ranges from +/- 4.3 to 4.8 percent, 19 times out of 20.
Despite the steep fall in environmental concern over the past three years, majorities still consider most of these environmental problems to be “very serious,” Water pollution is viewed as the most serious environmental problem among those tested, rated by 58 percent as very serious. Climate change is rated second least serious out of the six, with one in two (49%) viewing it as “very serious.”
GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller comments: “Scientists report that evidence of environmental damage is stronger than ever—but our data shows that economic crisis and a lack of political leadership mean that the public are starting to tune out.
Those who care about mobilizing public opinion on the environment need to find new messages in order to reinvigorate a stalled debate.”
powered by SEO Super Comments