And while the Greens are doing what they do best (opposing green development), the Labour government has already lifted the Tory ban on onshore windfarms.

This is odd, because Labour are the same as the Tories, as we all know, and the Greens are a radical new force. But in this case, Labour are doing the direct opposite of the Tories, while the Greens are doing the same things the Tories did! Most curious.

EDIT: Here’s the official government statement confirming this.

EDIT 2: And this isn’t all! Rachel Reeves is also planning to do more to make onshore wind simpler to build.

  • davidagain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    The cheapest form of energy just got the green light. This will do a lot of good further down the line.

  • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    8 days ago

    Fuck yes. I live very close to a wind farm and can see them from my window. They’re marvels and, alongside the several local solar farms too, it’s such a positive feeling knowing that, regardless of the weather, clean energy is being created.

    I know plenty oppose these things but having grown up next to a coal power plant, I’ll take a stunning wind turbine any day over those giant cooling tower monstrosities.

    • frankPodmoreOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think a lot of people struggle to tell the difference between something that changes the view and something that ruins the view. Wind turbines will change a view, of course, because they’re a new addition. But there’s no sense in which they make it worse!

      • FellowEnt@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Arguably anything man-made makes a view worse, but as far as man-made structures go they’re beautiful. And they give you a free wind gauge just by looking out the window. I’d rather see thousands of turbines on the horizon vs the glow of oil fields or plumes of smoke/steam.

        • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          When the national grid was being established a lot of people were very against the pylons being erected for very similar reasons that people are against wind farms. But who wants to stand up and say they want to go back to a time where having electricity in your household wasn’t a normal thing now?

          • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 days ago

            People don’t want power lines, solar panels, coal plants, wind turbines, etc. But of course they all want electricity. It just doesn’t make sense.

            • Guntrigger@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              Look, I get my internet through the air, why can’t you send my electricity through the air?

              gets struck by lightning

      • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        Fully agree. People travel for thousands of miles to see the windmills in the Netherlands. They’re no different and the beautiful white and curved designs makes them look like a true wonder of modern engineering achievement.

    • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 days ago

      I live relatively close to an offshore wind farm as well as a number of onshore turbines. I like them and don’t feel they detract from the view - at night the red warning lights look amazing.

      When the offshore ones were being planned a neighbour objected and had an artist’s impression made of the view of them from his house. It made the papers and we solidly took the piss out of him because that view would only be possible if you built a crow’s nest on a long poll right on top of his house and used binoculars.

      • JustCopyingOthers@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Ash only once when the filters failed. You’d occasionally get “power station frost”. If the wind was in the right direction on freezing days moisture from the cooling towers would freeze to give a 100m wide avenue of thick haw frost. There’s a lot of big transmission lines that aren’t pretty and buzz when it rains. (wind/solar don’t need lines this big)

      • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        No ash or dark fumes emitted - I assume did something clever underground to capture or filter it. But plenty of steam billowed out of the cooling tower. During cooler parts of the year, the steam would freeze and turn into snow which was a lot of fun to go and have a snowball fight in late autumn.

        But then again, I’m possibly just blissfully ignorant and lung cancer will get me any day now.

        • waz@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          Ash separators and flue gas desulphurisation. That keeps the stack from having grey/brown or yellow fumes, which would contain the ash as solids to drop out or the sulphur dioxide that contributes to acid rain. Cooling towers are of course only water vapour, so as long as the visible emission of the central thin stack on a coal power station is white, it’s running clean.

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      Water boards already get fined for this. The problem is that paying the fine is cheaper than paying to fix the massively outdated infrastructure.

    • FangedWyvern42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      The only way to make the bastards responsible stop is jail time. The companies and the people who run them have more than enough money to pay the fines.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        Renationalise them. Zero compensation. They’ve already sucked it dry of profits over the last 35 years, so I figure what’s left is ours.

        I’m paying nearly £700 a year to have my shit put in the river, and I have no choice in what company it goes to. That’s not how privatisation should work. I’m basically a fucking serf.

    • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 days ago

      There was talk of them getting some quick wins in, because Tony Blair did something similar in 1997. It helps you signal that there’s been a change. Both the planning changes (like this) and stopping the Rwanda deportations have been heavily-discussed so it makes sense to get them out early.

      • gedhrel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        The specific things I recall were the FOIA (which Blair later came to regret; the tine to strike with such things is while the fires of idealism still burn hot) and removing the control of interest rates from the Treasury - the Tories had been royally fucking the economy with that in the years running up to the election. Imagine if Truss had her hands on that lever.

          • gedhrel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yeah, thise were two things directly aimed at the misbehaviour of the outgoing government.

            Ah, those heady days, before shouting “nonsense!” at Jack Straw would gwt you arrested under the (woefully badly-written) Prevention of Terrorism Act. It’s almost as though power corrupts (and the office of the Home Sec in particular is enough to break the morals of anyone).

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Last September, Michael Gove, then communities secretary, said the ban would be lifted; rules put in place by David Cameron in 2015 decreed that a single planning objection could scupper an onshore wind project.

    Analysis of the government’s renewable energy planning database found that no applications for new onshore wind projects were submitted after Gove’s announcement.

    The end of the ban was promised in Labour’s election manifesto and trailed by the new energy secretary, Ed Miliband, when he was in opposition, but campaigners were surprised by the speed at which it has been implemented.

    Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said: “By ending the onshore wind ban in England, Labour is making an important stride towards delivering on our climate goals, while also paving the way for lower bills, as renewables produce some of the cheapest and cleanest energy available.

    By harnessing the country’s vast renewable power potential, the new government is staking its claim as a global leader in the green energy transition.”

    Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace’s chief scientist, added: “As the recent gas price crisis shows, this ban was self-defeating for energy security, costly, and lost opportunities to cut emissions.


    The original article contains 625 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • UrbonMaximus@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    8 days ago

    What are you on about? This is not a policy by the greens, but one MP. Ramsay said ‘…110 miles of cabling using 50m high pylons will “destroy our historic landscapes and will require huge loss of trees”.’ An MP who cares about his constituence!? The horror!!

    He suggested that they should do a thorough analysis and consultation before going forward. Maybe the silicon valley mantra of ‘move fast and break things’ shouldn’t be applied to our green future policies.

    • frankPodmoreOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      He is the co-leader of the Greens, so it’s fair to say that he speaks for the party.

      He is opposed to a policy which has already been thoroughly consulted on. The consultation found that the only alternatives would be to bury the lines, which would be more environmentally destructive, or do nothing, which would be more environmentally destructive. So, yes, he is opposed to green infrastructure, which is sadly quite consistent with the actual record (as opposed to the rhetoric) of the Green party.

      EDIT: I should have added, the demand for endless ‘consultations’ is a well-worn delaying and blocking tactic. But it’s especially hypocritical of the Greens who constantly use the (accurate!) rhetoric that we’re in a ‘climate emergency’ to win votes.

      • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        He is the co-leader of the Greens, so it’s fair to say that he speaks for the party.

        I think the green party operates differently to other parties. They have a leader (two leaders) but don’t enforce any rules or leadership structure. Their members are allowed to disagree with the leadership that isn’t a leadership. Even the leader himself.

        • frankPodmoreOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          But they do elect leaders, as I understand, to act as spokespeople, and in this case they’ve elected as a spokesperson someone who’s opposed to green infrastructure.

          Another way of putting it is to say that at least 25% of Green MPs oppose green infrastructure.

          • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            I think it’s a question of democracy against autocracy. You can either impose wind farms against local objections, or you can take a more difficult route and involve the local communities.

            What I am saying is you can support green infrastructure, but only if it’s sustainable and with consent of the local communiy.

            • frankPodmoreOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              That approach has just been tested to destruction under the Tories, who let local communities veto necessary, good, sustainable plans time and time again.

              • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 days ago

                I thought that the Conservatives just banned onshore wind turbines regardless of sentiment on the ground.

                • davidagain@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  They changed the policy so that wind farms could only be built on land designated by local councils as wind farm land. There’s no sense preemptively designating land as for wind farms if no one is trying to build a wind farm, and there’s no sense preemptively buying land for a wind farm unless it’s designated for wind farm. Effectively it designated the entire country as unsuitable for wind farms and made it easy for anyone to have their objections count against a new wind farm. Opposition to wind farms is very much in the minority, but it’s very vocal, very well organised and has the backing of fossil fuel industries.

                  By contrast, fracking was pushed through against the local council’s objections and very much against the majority of local opinion. This is what you do with energy projects that you view as nationally important.

                  The Conservatives felt that it was important to preserve and further subsidise the fossil fuel industry, so they supported fracking, no matter how a surdly expensive or unpopular, no matter how much water was permanently polluted and locked away from use. It was only when literally hundreds and hundreds of minor earthquakes (that they said weren’t important or indicative of a problem) led to a more major earthquake that made bad headlines for them, that they paused it for a while until the news died down.

                  Anyway, most large energy projects are not subject to local objections, except, of course, for the cheapest form of energy today, which is onshore wind, which was subject to local objections with extra hurdles in the way compared to any other building projects.

                  So it wasn’t technically banned, but everyone called it a ban because it was easier to get planning permission for a skyscraper in the Lake District than a wind farm on the Pennines.

                • frankPodmoreOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  They didn’t actually ban them completely. The government advice added two tests to planning permission for onshore wind only, which in practice were near-impossible to overcome. Proposals had to have ‘proved community support’, which meant (or was taken to mean) that if anyone at all objected, they couldn’t go ahead.

      • UrbonMaximus@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        He is opposed to a policy which has already been thoroughly consulted on.

        Wrong, I’m afraid it wasn’t. national grid consultation

        It seems like the pressure is working, because they agreed that the initial assessment wasn’t enough: “We are also consulting on the preliminary findings from our environmental studies and assessments as well as proposed mitigation for any potential impacts to the local environment, including animal habitats and the local landscape.”

        In any case the local campaigners want more scrutiny and consultation from a third party. Which is their right if we like it or not.

        • frankPodmoreOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          As I said elsewhere, these endless consultations are a known blocking tactic. Nimby campaigners demand endless consultations but they are clearly acting in bad faith: they only accept the results when they agree with the nimby demands to build nothing. We have seen this over and over again. It is a big part of the reason we have a housing crisis and a stagnant economy. It’s scandalous that the Greens are now using their parliamentary platform to continue to act how they have in local government: blocking necessary green development.