The scoping report for the initial windfarm proposal had some of the most extreme adverse environmental impacts I've seen for a large infrastructure project. Surely we can do better than this as a nation.
Yet more NIMBYism from Calderdale Inside Out. Having wind farms in these areas does come with an extra environmental cost, but it's been calculated at the cost of an extra 4-16 months of carbon. That is, the lost carbon will be made up for with less than a years generation from the the wind farm.
There's a small loss of overall blanket bog habitat and for that, we get the ability to provide electricity to multiple thousands of homes. If we are to be serious about saving the planet, we need to be serious about reducing our use of carbon. This helps do that.
Also, I fully expect you to reach out to the organisations that are trying to build this important infrastructure and ask them their opinion. As it is, as with the article on BESS, this feels very biased.
The irony is that these bogs will likely start to die in the next few decades as the area's mean temperature and humidity exceeds the ranges required for peat bogs to grow.
Where's the balance? Your guest is a well known critic of wind farms. He may be an expert, but he's still biased. You should at least give the people he's campaigning against the right to reply.
Just to be clear (in case it isn’t obvious)this is a trail. It is not the final article. Rights of reply do not usually appear in a trail. Also, he is not a critic of wind farms, he is critical of building wind farms on top of peat. In my interview he makes an excellent case for places to build on shore wind farms without disturbing peat.
Talking of bias, the planning officer's presentation re the BESS at the planning meeting was totally selective and biased in favour of applicants. Totally ignoring views of 1600 local residents and over 400 official objections covering potential tial toxicity, fore risk, water contamination, ancient grassland site, many listed buildings nearby and in densely populated area with many schools close by.Appalling process all the way through.
The scoping report for the initial windfarm proposal had some of the most extreme adverse environmental impacts I've seen for a large infrastructure project. Surely we can do better than this as a nation.
Yet more NIMBYism from Calderdale Inside Out. Having wind farms in these areas does come with an extra environmental cost, but it's been calculated at the cost of an extra 4-16 months of carbon. That is, the lost carbon will be made up for with less than a years generation from the the wind farm.
There's a small loss of overall blanket bog habitat and for that, we get the ability to provide electricity to multiple thousands of homes. If we are to be serious about saving the planet, we need to be serious about reducing our use of carbon. This helps do that.
Also, I fully expect you to reach out to the organisations that are trying to build this important infrastructure and ask them their opinion. As it is, as with the article on BESS, this feels very biased.
The irony is that these bogs will likely start to die in the next few decades as the area's mean temperature and humidity exceeds the ranges required for peat bogs to grow.
We’ve sat down to speak to an acknowledged world expert on peat. We are publishing what he said. How is that nimbyism?
Where's the balance? Your guest is a well known critic of wind farms. He may be an expert, but he's still biased. You should at least give the people he's campaigning against the right to reply.
Just to be clear (in case it isn’t obvious)this is a trail. It is not the final article. Rights of reply do not usually appear in a trail. Also, he is not a critic of wind farms, he is critical of building wind farms on top of peat. In my interview he makes an excellent case for places to build on shore wind farms without disturbing peat.
Talking of bias, the planning officer's presentation re the BESS at the planning meeting was totally selective and biased in favour of applicants. Totally ignoring views of 1600 local residents and over 400 official objections covering potential tial toxicity, fore risk, water contamination, ancient grassland site, many listed buildings nearby and in densely populated area with many schools close by.Appalling process all the way through.