David
Well-known member
Draft text of a “moratorium” petition addressed to the RSPB and copied to the Scottish Executive, Scottish National Heritage (?and other similar English, Welsh and N. Irish Countryside bodies? What about DEFRA? Please advise.)
Please feel free to comment on this draft text, but don’t clog up the thread unless you feel your comments need a good public airing. I will publish as many revises as necessary with source named as requested/required. (I have also copied this to Mark Duchamp for his comments.). I personally believe that in the case of a public petition we should avoid too much detail and present a broad view which as many people as possible can support. I have used a lot of the RSPB’s own wording on the matter.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp
and
http://www.rspb.org.uk/action/eagledeaths.asp .
There are a lot of experts out there who are considerably more qualified and informed than I am as a miserable amateur. Individuals and organisations are of course free to lobby the RSPB separately and present more detailed evidence and arguments. I believe the real aim of this petition is to show the RSPB and other organisations that a large number of people are concerned about this subject, and “push them off the fence” on which they are uneasily sitting. To be fair, it’s not easy making or influencing politics!
Go on then - tear it apart
David
Please feel free to comment on this draft text, but don’t clog up the thread unless you feel your comments need a good public airing. I will publish as many revises as necessary with source named as requested/required. (I have also copied this to Mark Duchamp for his comments.). I personally believe that in the case of a public petition we should avoid too much detail and present a broad view which as many people as possible can support. I have used a lot of the RSPB’s own wording on the matter.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp
and
http://www.rspb.org.uk/action/eagledeaths.asp .
There are a lot of experts out there who are considerably more qualified and informed than I am as a miserable amateur. Individuals and organisations are of course free to lobby the RSPB separately and present more detailed evidence and arguments. I believe the real aim of this petition is to show the RSPB and other organisations that a large number of people are concerned about this subject, and “push them off the fence” on which they are uneasily sitting. To be fair, it’s not easy making or influencing politics!
Call for a moratorium on planning, siting and erection of wind turbines in areas with sensitive bird and other wildlife populations and habitats
We welcome the concern that the RSPB has demonstrated about proposals for the erection of wind farms in areas where significant bird and other wildlife populations and habitats are likely to be adversely affected. We applaud the many objections the RSPB has raised to wind farm proposals (on and offshore) over the past few years, particularly the 234 turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis in the Hebrides, on an extremely fragile and special area for wildlife. We also share the RSPB’s concerns on the effect of climate change and the aim to increase the proportion of a broad mix of effective forms of renewable energy with large long- term potential and minimal environmental impacts
It is however the view of the undersigned that the RSPB could and should initiate more radical and urgent action in this matter in order to fulfil its basic and primary objective of the protection of birds.
In your policy statement on wind farms you state:
“To ensure that future wind farms do not affect sensitive bird populations or their habitats, the RSPB is pressing the government for more research and monitoring of the effects of these developments on birds.”
This passive stance on the core of the windfarm debate does not go far enough in our opinion. Evidence from Spain and the United States of America confirms that poorly sited wind farms can cause severe problems for birds, through disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines. Wind turbines have caused the deaths of huge birds of prey on isolated islands off the Norwegian coast. The recent alarming reports of the deaths or displacement of white-tailed eagles from Smøla in Norway has as you have stated “increased fears that wind farms in Britain could take a similar toll on native and migrating wild birds”. In this context it is important to examine the accumulative effect on certain bird species, such as the Golden Eagle in Scotland, where the sustainability of the population could be adversely affected without this becoming apparent in a mere site population count.
This persuades us that the Precautionary Principle should be applied to environmental impact assessment of all wind farm proposals in areas considered sensitive for birds or other wildlife. The RSPB is better aware than any other organisation of such areas in the United Kingdom.
We consider that in view of the increasing number of wind farm applications, which present planning and review authorities with an immense administrative burden and consequently increases the risk of ‘rubber-stamping”, that an immediate moratorium on all sensitively sited windfarm proposals in the United Kingdom should be imposed. This moratorium should remain in place until a strategic approach to applications and planning procedures is in place. This approach should pay particular attention to the indirect and long term effects on particularly vulnerable populations of large raptor species such as the Golden Eagle.
We call on the RSPB to actively promote and support such a moratorium, which should remain in place until a strategic policy on the assessment of wind farms effects on wildlife has been drawn up and implemented. The aim must be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in each and every case, that no significant threat exists, or will develop, for birds or other wildlife.
Go on then - tear it apart
David