Apologies if this is a little short - bladdy work keeps getting in the way.
I went round to my parents at the weekend for a family meal. One of the things this enables me to do is to read the local freesheet. This is a curious thing. It is a free newspaper that costs very little to create and contains very little of concern. It is curated from articles which have been in the 'proper' pay-for local evening paper over the preceding week.
What it does do though is give a little insight into what actually troubles local people which comes down to one thing:
Change.
People hate it; but if they can attach localism to it, then they believe it will carry even more weight. For some reason if something affects a locality it threatens a community. It is very rare that 'change' is seen as an enhancement, which is why any development - whether physical, social or technological - should be insipidly gradual with people hardly even aware that it is occurring.
One of the pieces which jumped out at me as ridiculously irrational was a piece on the opposition for a wind turbine.
A single wind turbine.
Not a wind farm. Just one turbine.
Now, I am currently preparing a much more substantial essay on the benefits of renewable energy so I will not go into that now. But I was so annoyed at this piece on the local opposition. The ONLY ground for opposition was that it would spoil the view.
There was nothing about any increase in noise pollution - in any event they would be well advised to steer clear of that as the wind whistling through trees creates as much noice as a turbine.
There was nothing about the increase of traffic due to the construction, though they probably realised such an argument was very temporary as it would only last a matter of weeks.
There was nothing about any interference to wildlife, though obviously this would distract from any 'local' viewpoint as wildlife is nationwide.
There was nothing about any disruption caused by construction and digging and hauling huge lumps of earth out, scarring the immediate landscape for a period of time. That did surprise me actually because the argument that it will take nature 2 or 3 years to return the cut-and-covered cable channels to their natural state (if at all) is certainly more arguable than the argument that, for a couple of weeks, there are going to be a couple more lorries on the road.
No, the only argument against it is that it would be a blot on the landscape. The arguers rather shot themselves in the foot though. They pointed out that there was already one turbine locally which could be seen from x many miles away and interferred with the view one got of the minster as one approached the town.
So there are two problems with that argument. Firstly there is already a turbine. How much more 'distracting' is a second actually going to be. And secondly they were not arguing that it would interfere with the view of the landscape, the rolling hills and meadows; but with the view of another (albeit much older) man-made object.
It really annoys me because for those that find them ugly there are as many who find them pretty, and a substantial amount in the middle who find them neither but who agree that they are necessary.
And it's pure NIMBYism. They wouldn't bat an eyelid if the turbine were going up fifty miles away. Or twenty miles away. Or even five miles away. In fact they would probably be postiviely arguing for them as necessary to decrease our reliance on diminshing, non-renewable resources. If they were reasonable about it - even residual in just accepting that it would happen - rather than reacting to it, then they would adopt it a lot quicker. If you are the rough surface, then of course something will grate on you.
How often do villages build themselves around - or simply differentiate themselves by - a windmill. "Turn left just after the old water-mill". In one viillage in Nottinghamshire one of the 'star' attractions is the old, industrial, entirely unaesthetic when contructed pumping station. It just takes a couple of years to get used to it being there. Think about your trip home - you possibly love seeing a particular petrol station or even power station because you know that you are practically on the home straight.
I would love to live close to a turbine. Not just because I would be 'doing my bit' but because I think they are a thing of phenomenal beauty, would enhance (or at least unaffect) the value of my property, and give me something a little bit distinctive.
I have a brilliant house on top of a hill with a view over a lot of Nottingham. At the very distant horizon I can see the eight cooling towers of the power station and it is a view which is very definitely mine. I own that view. And that view changes - some of the buildings get knocked down and rebuilt, some of the houses have their roofs replaced; even temporal things like the trees growing or the cars on the roads changing. Every time I look it is different; but most definitely mine. And just because someone erects a turbine in that view, that addition doesn't make a detraction from the beauty.
Take the arguments against High Speed 2, the new proposed rail link. I have already clearly stated my position: I am very much in favour of the project and I have very little time for those campaigning against it. I will hear their argument, but I will see through their argument. Rather than simply put the other side I can see a fully established and reasonable rebuttable.
There are four main arguments: financial, ecological, environmental and social.
The financial can only be assessed by looking at the cold, hard facts but most of the argument relies on spiralling coats, overruns and the initial costs and ignores the long-term financial benefits.
The ecological considers the pollution in the construction and continued operation and ignores the fact of necessity and that this is probably the most ecologically sustainable way to cope with increases in population and travel requirements rather than some ridiculous utopian suggestion that we will just learn to adapt to our existing network and that we should simply reduce the amount we travel rather than improve how we do it.
The environment concerns relate to 'carving up' 'vast swaths' of 'green-belt' land and ignore that this has already been undertaken with the sprawling rail and road connections already covering our green and pleasant land. Yes, my 'just-one-more' argument ignores any 'creep-concerns', but seriously, we have a lot of countryside as it is.
Which brings me finally to the main argument I was trying to get to: the 'social' argument that this will 'devastate' the villages it cuts past. It won't. They will still exist. People simply cannot afford to abandon the houses in these villages purely because a train zips past every hour. The 'devastation' of the 'constant interruption' will be something short-lived, and shorter than simply 'once they all die they will be quiet.' If they really are that desperate to get away from the noise, they can move. And their house won't have lost any value: people will see the close transport links as a positive benefit. And this is where their arguments, as well as being NIMBYist, are short-sighted and very selective in the benefit/damage analysis.
If we were just to listen to personal, NIMBYistic arguments, the projects would never get done. The change is not bad, it is just different. And we should embrace it, as to resist it is just making a rod for our own backs, no-one else's. And if we resisted all change then we would never progress.
I went round to my parents at the weekend for a family meal. One of the things this enables me to do is to read the local freesheet. This is a curious thing. It is a free newspaper that costs very little to create and contains very little of concern. It is curated from articles which have been in the 'proper' pay-for local evening paper over the preceding week.
What it does do though is give a little insight into what actually troubles local people which comes down to one thing:
Change.
People hate it; but if they can attach localism to it, then they believe it will carry even more weight. For some reason if something affects a locality it threatens a community. It is very rare that 'change' is seen as an enhancement, which is why any development - whether physical, social or technological - should be insipidly gradual with people hardly even aware that it is occurring.
One of the pieces which jumped out at me as ridiculously irrational was a piece on the opposition for a wind turbine.
A single wind turbine.
Not a wind farm. Just one turbine.
Now, I am currently preparing a much more substantial essay on the benefits of renewable energy so I will not go into that now. But I was so annoyed at this piece on the local opposition. The ONLY ground for opposition was that it would spoil the view.
There was nothing about any increase in noise pollution - in any event they would be well advised to steer clear of that as the wind whistling through trees creates as much noice as a turbine.
There was nothing about the increase of traffic due to the construction, though they probably realised such an argument was very temporary as it would only last a matter of weeks.
There was nothing about any interference to wildlife, though obviously this would distract from any 'local' viewpoint as wildlife is nationwide.
There was nothing about any disruption caused by construction and digging and hauling huge lumps of earth out, scarring the immediate landscape for a period of time. That did surprise me actually because the argument that it will take nature 2 or 3 years to return the cut-and-covered cable channels to their natural state (if at all) is certainly more arguable than the argument that, for a couple of weeks, there are going to be a couple more lorries on the road.
No, the only argument against it is that it would be a blot on the landscape. The arguers rather shot themselves in the foot though. They pointed out that there was already one turbine locally which could be seen from x many miles away and interferred with the view one got of the minster as one approached the town.
So there are two problems with that argument. Firstly there is already a turbine. How much more 'distracting' is a second actually going to be. And secondly they were not arguing that it would interfere with the view of the landscape, the rolling hills and meadows; but with the view of another (albeit much older) man-made object.
It really annoys me because for those that find them ugly there are as many who find them pretty, and a substantial amount in the middle who find them neither but who agree that they are necessary.
And it's pure NIMBYism. They wouldn't bat an eyelid if the turbine were going up fifty miles away. Or twenty miles away. Or even five miles away. In fact they would probably be postiviely arguing for them as necessary to decrease our reliance on diminshing, non-renewable resources. If they were reasonable about it - even residual in just accepting that it would happen - rather than reacting to it, then they would adopt it a lot quicker. If you are the rough surface, then of course something will grate on you.
How often do villages build themselves around - or simply differentiate themselves by - a windmill. "Turn left just after the old water-mill". In one viillage in Nottinghamshire one of the 'star' attractions is the old, industrial, entirely unaesthetic when contructed pumping station. It just takes a couple of years to get used to it being there. Think about your trip home - you possibly love seeing a particular petrol station or even power station because you know that you are practically on the home straight.
I would love to live close to a turbine. Not just because I would be 'doing my bit' but because I think they are a thing of phenomenal beauty, would enhance (or at least unaffect) the value of my property, and give me something a little bit distinctive.
I have a brilliant house on top of a hill with a view over a lot of Nottingham. At the very distant horizon I can see the eight cooling towers of the power station and it is a view which is very definitely mine. I own that view. And that view changes - some of the buildings get knocked down and rebuilt, some of the houses have their roofs replaced; even temporal things like the trees growing or the cars on the roads changing. Every time I look it is different; but most definitely mine. And just because someone erects a turbine in that view, that addition doesn't make a detraction from the beauty.
Take the arguments against High Speed 2, the new proposed rail link. I have already clearly stated my position: I am very much in favour of the project and I have very little time for those campaigning against it. I will hear their argument, but I will see through their argument. Rather than simply put the other side I can see a fully established and reasonable rebuttable.
There are four main arguments: financial, ecological, environmental and social.
The financial can only be assessed by looking at the cold, hard facts but most of the argument relies on spiralling coats, overruns and the initial costs and ignores the long-term financial benefits.
The ecological considers the pollution in the construction and continued operation and ignores the fact of necessity and that this is probably the most ecologically sustainable way to cope with increases in population and travel requirements rather than some ridiculous utopian suggestion that we will just learn to adapt to our existing network and that we should simply reduce the amount we travel rather than improve how we do it.
The environment concerns relate to 'carving up' 'vast swaths' of 'green-belt' land and ignore that this has already been undertaken with the sprawling rail and road connections already covering our green and pleasant land. Yes, my 'just-one-more' argument ignores any 'creep-concerns', but seriously, we have a lot of countryside as it is.
Which brings me finally to the main argument I was trying to get to: the 'social' argument that this will 'devastate' the villages it cuts past. It won't. They will still exist. People simply cannot afford to abandon the houses in these villages purely because a train zips past every hour. The 'devastation' of the 'constant interruption' will be something short-lived, and shorter than simply 'once they all die they will be quiet.' If they really are that desperate to get away from the noise, they can move. And their house won't have lost any value: people will see the close transport links as a positive benefit. And this is where their arguments, as well as being NIMBYist, are short-sighted and very selective in the benefit/damage analysis.
If we were just to listen to personal, NIMBYistic arguments, the projects would never get done. The change is not bad, it is just different. And we should embrace it, as to resist it is just making a rod for our own backs, no-one else's. And if we resisted all change then we would never progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment