Stop The Severn Barrage! (1 Viewer)

Jos Stratford · Oct 3, 2007

scooby said:
I know I shouldn't....why?

Well, since you asked...

A single-minded obsession to tackling one issue in isolation is leading to a brand of 'environmentalist' that is activily destroying the very environment they pretend to care so much about. If it seems to produce power in a way they deem environmentally friendly, they support it. If it reduces emissions in any way, regardless of side effects, they support it. Then, jumping on the bandwagon created by them, in come developers and politicians and other assorted hangers-on, all now nicely respectable and next up they are screwing the environment in the name of saving it - that is warped. The result of their actions is a media that seems to be have lapped up their views and a general public that seems unaware to the very real negative impacts that their policies have.

If you want to live in a world blighted by wind farms and barrages, and you want to see tropical forests and marshlands converted into monocultures to feed the biofuel craze, then join their ranks. If you don't care a toss about grain prices rising significantly and plunging ever more into potential food crisis, join their ranks. And, if you listen to them, just kiss goodbye to most of the world's eco-tourism projects - they rely on tourism - no tourism, no project and probably none of the ecosystem they sought to protect.

Can't be bothered to continue, but you get the drift - I would place the threat from these types ahead of many of the standard perceived threats. They dress green, then piss all over anything truly green.

Popeye · Oct 3, 2007

Apparently the residents of the Bay of Fundy voted against a similar scheme.

As some one who lives within 50 yards of the Severn it would seem obvious to me that the area would clog with silt very quickly.

Other considerations are the increased height of the tides down river from the barage, reported upto 1 metre extra. Even though the tides will be lower and a reduced risk of tidal flooding north of the barage I have still signed.

Tidal Lagoons seem a far better alternative to this monsterous dam.

scooby · Oct 3, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
Well, since you asked...

A single-minded obsession to tackling one issue in isolation is leading to a brand of 'environmentalist' that is activily destroying the very environment they pretend to care so much about. If it seems to produce power in a way they deem environmentally friendly, they support it. If it reduces emissions in any way, regardless of side effects, they support it. Then, jumping on the bandwagon created by them, in come developers and politicians and other assorted hangers-on, all now nicely respectable and next up they are screwing the environment in the name of saving it - that is warped. The result of their actions is a media that seems to be have lapped up their views and a general public that seems unaware to the very real negative impacts that their policies have.

If you want to live in a world blighted by wind farms and barrages, and you want to see tropical forests and marshlands converted into monocultures to feed the biofuel craze, then join their ranks. If you don't care a toss about grain prices rising significantly and plunging ever more into potential food crisis, join their ranks. And, if you listen to them, just kiss goodbye to most of the world's eco-tourism projects - they rely on tourism - no tourism, no project and probably none of the ecosystem they sought to protect.

Can't be bothered to continue, but you get the drift - I would place the threat from these types ahead of many of the standard perceived threats. They dress green, then piss all over anything truly green.

I already live in a world blighted by power stations, industrial agriculture, refineries, mining, transport and associated pollution that has been proven to contribute to the warming of the planet. I want a reduction in energy consumption and a switch to forms of energy production that contribute less to a warming climate and think this energy should come from sources close to the point of consumption; I'm franky scared of the catastrophic senarios in climate change that seem to me to be increasingly possible if nothing is done to diminish the levels of greenhouse gas polution.
I actively campaign against the biofuel and monocultures that some people seem to see as solutions, they are not. I'm equally wary of projects such as this barrage but I'd like to hear a lot more evidence before signing up to a petition to stop it.

Edit: As Popeye says, tidal lagoons may be a better way.

Jos Stratford · Oct 3, 2007

scooby said:
I'd like to hear a lot more evidence before signing up to a petition to stop it.

What evidence would you like to see? The aftermath? The RSPB, WWF, FoE have all expressed disbelief at the scheme, a project that will simply eliminate the habitat that supports upward of 60,000 waterbirds. And for what? For a piddly 5% contribution to the UK's power supply. 5% could be saved overnight by simply applying totally painless energy-saving methods, methods that would neither affect people's everyday lives and would not affect the environment.

Additionally, there is serious concern as to the actual net savings to CO2 output - this would be one of the country's biggest construction projects and as such be a significant CO2 producer in itself. So, my view, it is another warped idea of environmental protection.

rozinante · Oct 3, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
I would place the threat from these types ahead of many of the standard perceived threats. They dress green, then piss all over anything truly green.

I think almost everyone here would agree with you there.

Unfortunatly there are those who seem to delight in using such understandable concerns to similarily tarnish anyone with stronger green tendencies than Jeremy Clarkson.

Jos Stratford · Oct 3, 2007

scooby said:
I already live in a world blighted by power stations, industrial agriculture, refineries, mining, transport and associated pollution that has been proven to contribute to the warming of the planet.

So you'd like to see it further blighted? The uplands, the coasts, et al.? Just to protect the planet, to protect what? To protect the bits you have destroyed in the process?

Sorry, I'd prefer to take my risk with the 2% temperature increase (which is a total guestimate I understand) than see the destruction of what makes the planet special in the first place. The planet is warming maybe, the results on wildlife and the environment is still unknown, there are many maybes. However, there are no maybes if you support many of these hairbrained crank schemes - fancy a visit to Smola these days? No maybe there. Visit some of the ex-rainforest in Malaysia, no maybe there. Try the Hebrides in a few years, or the Severn, or a thousand other places, no maybes, just simple destruction.

scooby · Oct 3, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
What evidence would you like to see? The aftermath? The RSPB, WWF, FoE have all expressed disbelief at the scheme, a project that will simply eliminate the habitat that supports upward of 60,000 waterbirds. And for what? For a piddly 5% contribution to the UK's power supply. 5% could be saved overnight by simply applying totally painless energy-saving methods, methods that would neither affect people's everyday lives and would not affect the environment.

Additionally, there is serious concern as to the actual net savings to CO2 output - this would be one of the country's biggest construction projects and as such be a significant CO2 producer in itself. So, my view, it is another warped idea of environmental protection.

It's early days, but it seems to me the SDC report does highlight some of the concerns of the RSPB and others...

"The SDC has therefore laid down a series of tough conditions which a Severn barrage would have to meet in order to be considered sustainable.

These include:

• A Severn barrage must be publicly led as a project and publicly owned as an asset to avoid short-termist decisions and ensure the long-term public interest

• Full compliance with European Directives on habitats and birds is vital, as is a long-term commitment to creating compensatory habitats on an unprecedented scale

• Further investigation of the ‘environmental opportunity’ that might exist for combining climate change mitigation with adaptation through a habitat creation package that actively responds to the impacts of climate change over the long term

• Development of a Severn barrage must not divert Government attention away from much wider action on climate change."

Haven't the RSPB said that the long term CO2 saving could be significant?

Jos Stratford · Oct 3, 2007

scooby said:
• ... creating compensatory habitats

• .... a habitat creation package

I will interested in proposals to replace 20 square kilometres of intertidal mudflat that are as rich as the Severn, one of the UK's biggest estuaries

scooby said:
• A Severn barrage must be publicly led as a project and publicly owned as an asset to avoid short-termist decisions and ensure the long-term public interest

Given that the Welsh Assembly and Gloucester Council already seem to be backing the project and that media, by and large, has portrayed windfarms and barrages as environmentally-friendly, it would appear the decision is already being made that it is in the public interest. Just a pity it is not in the environment's interest.

scooby said:
Haven't the RSPB said that the long term CO2 saving could be significant?

Maybe, maybe not, some information was expressing concerns, but I did not pay so much attention to it - CO2 is not really an issue in this project as far as I am concerned. As already said, 5% can easily be achieved through simple energy saving means.

scooby · Oct 3, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
I will interested in proposals to replace 20 square kilometres of intertidal mudflat that are as rich as the Severn, one of the UK's biggest estuaries

Given that the Welsh Assembly and Gloucester Council already seem to be backing the project and that media, by and large, has portrayed windfarms and barrages as environmentally-friendly, it would appear the decision is already being made that it is in the public interest. Just a pity it is not in the environment's interest.

Maybe, maybe not, some information was expressing concerns, but I did not pay so much attention to it - CO2 is not really an issue in this project as far as I am concerned. As already said, 5% can easily be achieved through simple energy saving means.

1.Me too
3.Can't it be seen as an additional 5% after other simple energy savings means are implemented?

Jos Stratford · Oct 3, 2007

scooby said:
Can't it be seen as an additional 5% after other simple energy savings means are implemented?

Sure, just goes back to my initial point - just screw everything, so long as we cut carbon emissions. I give up, goodnight.

Barred Wobbler · Oct 3, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
Well, since you asked...

A single-minded obsession to tackling one issue in isolation is leading to a brand of 'environmentalist' that is activily destroying the very environment they pretend to care so much about. If it seems to produce power in a way they deem environmentally friendly, they support it. If it reduces emissions in any way, regardless of side effects, they support it. Then, jumping on the bandwagon created by them, in come developers and politicians and other assorted hangers-on, all now nicely respectable and next up they are screwing the environment in the name of saving it - that is warped. The result of their actions is a media that seems to be have lapped up their views and a general public that seems unaware to the very real negative impacts that their policies have.

If you want to live in a world blighted by wind farms and barrages, and you want to see tropical forests and marshlands converted into monocultures to feed the biofuel craze, then join their ranks. If you don't care a toss about grain prices rising significantly and plunging ever more into potential food crisis, join their ranks. And, if you listen to them, just kiss goodbye to most of the world's eco-tourism projects - they rely on tourism - no tourism, no project and probably none of the ecosystem they sought to protect.

Can't be bothered to continue, but you get the drift - I would place the threat from these types ahead of many of the standard perceived threats. They dress green, then piss all over anything truly green.

Jos, this post hits all the nails squarely on their collective heads.

Well said.

ColinD · Oct 4, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
Maybe, maybe not, some information was expressing concerns, but I did not pay so much attention to it - CO2 is not really an issue in this project as far as I am concerned. As already said, 5% can easily be achieved through simple energy saving means.

Ok, here's the plan. Everybody who signs this petition agrees not to fly for the next 5 years in order to cut their carbon emissions, and they agree to make energy savings of at least 5% on top of what they are already doing, to prove to the government that we are serious, and that the barrage is not necessary. :-O

Seriously though (because we all know the above will never happen), thanks for your input Jos, it was exactly what I was looking for and has convinced me that the petition is worth signing. I completely agree with your reasoning.

Cudyll Bach · Oct 4, 2007

The Welsh Assembly also has plans to destroy some of the Gwent Levels with a new M4 relief road which would also affect important wetland habitats along the Severn Estuary.

http://www.foe.co.uk/cymru/english/press_releases/2003/no_m4_relief_road.html

Gerald & Mary · Oct 4, 2007

severn barrage

It seems to me that the decission to build the barrage or any other hairbrained scheme is well advanced(with sweatners)in place long before it arrives into the public domain, does not mean we "Joe Public" should shirk from voicing our concerns,in the meantime better get on birdwatching as it could be our last chance

Tyke · Oct 4, 2007

Gerald & Mary said:
in the meantime better get on birdwatching as it could be our last chance

Yep-back to our comfort zones now folks.....or has anyone got an alternative to the Barrage?
Colin

ps-does birdwatching per-se qualify as "eco-tourism"-or do you have to get on a plane for that badge of honour?

scooby · Oct 4, 2007

Gerald & Mary said:
It seems to me that the decission to build the barrage or any other hairbrained scheme is well advanced(with sweatners)in place long before it arrives into the public domain, does not mean we "Joe Public" should shirk from voicing our concerns,in the meantime better get on birdwatching as it could be our last chance

Absolutely not.
FOE Wales seem to be saying a series of tidal lagoons would be a cheaper, less damaging, and more efficient alternative to the barrage and on that basis I'll probably register my opposition. But I would appreciate any links or information to clarify the case.
While accepting much of what Jos and others have to say, I do take task with the prevalent mood that seemingly any clean energy generation is 'hair brained' and destructive. What I do believe is that our current energy requirements and current production methods are exactly that, hair brained and destructive in a way we may not have come to terms with yet.

Vectis Birder · Oct 4, 2007

Jos Stratford said:
Well, since you asked...

A single-minded obsession to tackling one issue in isolation is leading to a brand of 'environmentalist' that is activily destroying the very environment they pretend to care so much about. If it seems to produce power in a way they deem environmentally friendly, they support it. If it reduces emissions in any way, regardless of side effects, they support it. Then, jumping on the bandwagon created by them, in come developers and politicians and other assorted hangers-on, all now nicely respectable and next up they are screwing the environment in the name of saving it - that is warped. The result of their actions is a media that seems to be have lapped up their views and a general public that seems unaware to the very real negative impacts that their policies have.

If you want to live in a world blighted by wind farms and barrages, and you want to see tropical forests and marshlands converted into monocultures to feed the biofuel craze, then join their ranks. If you don't care a toss about grain prices rising significantly and plunging ever more into potential food crisis, join their ranks. And, if you listen to them, just kiss goodbye to most of the world's eco-tourism projects - they rely on tourism - no tourism, no project and probably none of the ecosystem they sought to protect.

Can't be bothered to continue, but you get the drift - I would place the threat from these types ahead of many of the standard perceived threats. They dress green, then piss all over anything truly green.

I'm with Jos on this one. It seems that some of the proposed 'solutions' or schemes for alternative energy production will do severe damage to the ecosystems. As Jos rightly points out, one is the amount of rainforest being cut down in order that biofuels can be grown in their place. One of the worst causes of global warming/climate change is the destruction of the rainforests.

Instead of decommisioning our nuclear power stations, how about upgrading them and building a few more - yes, saying that on here will get me flamed no doubt, but frankly I'd rather have a few nuclear power stations than a destructive barrage or even more damaging biofuels. Before anyone starts on about Chernobyl, that was the result of a ropey old reactor and a stupid, ill-advised experiment with that reactor. Nuclear power is not the complete solution but will go some way to being a part of it.

Tyke · Oct 4, 2007

Vectis Birder said:
Instead of decommisioning our nuclear power stations, how about upgrading them and building a few more - yes, saying that on here will get me flamed no doubt,

Not from me Vectis-it is screamingly obvious that this is the only solution to electricity generation security for UK. Consumption will not come down-it's a function of population growth , both globally & nationally.
Renewables are a very minor contributor and usually entail significant environmental cost out of proportion to their benefit.
.We can't wait until some nut case decides to cut our gas off ( either by tap or bomb)-and fossil fuels WILL run out-we have to start planning for that now.
And nuclear power stations guarantee large emission reductions-which may or may not affect GW.

God knows what the alternative to oil is -but bio-fuels as an "environmentally friendly" fuel , as has been said are a sick joke.
But oil will run out too so we have to find something.

Colin

scooby · Oct 4, 2007

Tyke said:
Not from me Vectis-it is screamingly obvious that this is the only solution to electricity generation security for UK. Consumption will not come down-it's a function of population growth , both globally & nationally.
Renewables are a very minor contributor and usually entail significant environmental cost out of proportion to their benefit.
.We can't wait until some nut case decides to cut our gas off ( either by tap or bomb)-and fossil fuels WILL run out-we have to start planning for that now.
And nuclear power stations guarantee large emission reductions-which may or may not affect GW.

God knows what the alternative to oil is -but bio-fuels as an "environmentally friendly" fuel , as has been said are a sick joke.
But oil will run out too so we have to find something.
Colin

Which is exactly why I can't dissmiss the barrage scheme without knowing a lot more about it.
Nuclear energy is probably part of the solution to limiting man made CO2 but please don't go round thinking it's safe, clean, cheap or infinite....it isn't. As for pollution it's hard to imagine anything more polluting.

Vectis Birder · Oct 4, 2007

scooby said:
Which is exactly why I can't dissmiss the barrage scheme without knowing a lot more about it.
Nuclear energy is probably part of the solution to limiting man made CO2 but please don't go round thinking it's safe, clean, cheap or infinite....it isn't. As for pollution it's hard to imagine anything more polluting.

No, of course it isn't the panacea for all our environmental woes, it's a stop gap but better than what we have at present (coal and oil-fired power stations).

Yes, there is a pollution issue with nuclear fuel (storage of the used stuff, for example) and uranium isn't infinite but properly managed and in properly maintained power stations there is no reason why nuclear power should be worse than anything else as regards pollution. Nothing's perfect - even wind farms are not carbon-neutral, they require fuel to manufacture and transport.

Stop The Severn Barrage! (1 Viewer)

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Anarchism is order

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Itchy feet

Well-known member

Well-known member

Itchy feet

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread