The first Wind Farm Action Group Conference, Organised by Saddleworth Moors Action Group in Association with Country Guardian, was held at Saddleworth, Yorkshire, on June 19th 2004. It was a great success and a follow-up Conference was held at Saddleworth on 12th April 2005

Firstly we wanted to help new groups ,as when S.M.A.G. was formed in 2003 to combat the threat of an inappropriately sited Wind Power Station [W.P.S.] we found the myriad problems that new protesters can face.

Secondly we wanted a forum where individuals and groups could exchange ideas and experiences.

Thirdly we wanted to counteract the deceitful nonsense being peddled by the Govt. and profit-driven developers sitting on their gravy-powered train.

The political expediency, the short-termism, the lies and half-truths presented as facts was, and is, breathtaking and is as flawed as the technology being foisted on the U.K. with an abuse of the planning system.

The B.W.E.A. and the D.T.I. are now launching all-out publicity campaigns, featuring fourth-rate celebrities, who will tell us how green, clean and efficient wind power is; how Third World poverty, rising sea levels and Global Warming can be cured at a stroke, and those who don’t support it are Devils Incarnate. When one looks at their line-up one is reminded of Sir Bernard Inghams phrase, “Wind power is for the brain-dead and the brain-washed.”

A brief resume of the presentations is given below – and gives a good over-view of the “Mess of wattage”.

PROFESSOR DAVID BELLAMY. Gave a stirring view of the faults and weaknesses in the rush for wind…the lies re. Output, the lack of operating figures, the costs of Back-up, and the ludicrously small contribution they make. There is a rush to get them up and running before the tax-paying public realise the falsity.

The huge costs of activating KYOTO…probably 140 Trillion dollars, and as The Darmstadt Manifesto 1998 said,” fighting climate change is a waste of time” Global warming has strong scientific evidence of Cyclical patterns and the “Hockey Stick” hypothesis is flawed. The final hypocrisy is our Govt, financing old-style coal-fired power stations in China and building more Airports and Motorways. If wind-farms are the answer, then someone is asking the wrong bloody question.

SIR BERNARD INGHAM Presented a vivid summary of the essential constituents of a viable National Energy Policy, and how our Govt, fall well short of any effective stewardship, A dismal prognosis. We lack an energy policy which will achieve security of supply at affordable cost; all we have is a declaration of environmental policy which means little, is not necessary, and is unachievable. He put some striking figures and images before the delegates.

Over 1100 turbines produce 0.3% of our electricity on an intermittent, unreliable basis. As demand is rising we would need 400,000 carpeting our land, as well as back up to satisfy this.

To replace one conventional 1000MW station with turbines would mean filling Dartmoor AND the Country needs 55000MW. At peak demand!

To replace ONE 1000MW station with solar panels needs 1.5 “Dartmoors” Biomass – a forest the size of Wales, and Bio-gas would need 800 MILLION CHICKENS defecating in a shed one third the size of Dartmoor.

He also made the contentious but factual point that one new-type nuclear power plant can be put on an existing site the size of 10 soccer pitches.

OTHER POINTS; The National Grid is a “balance” from minute to minute which wind cannot deal with. The Institute of Civil Engineers say that large power cuts - socially and economically damaging.. are definite by 2020 as we wont have the capacity to power the Nation.

Our Policy should be developed to be a judicious mix of new clean coal-fired, gas, oil, nuclear, and some renewables with a strict energy conservation programme.

At the moment we have local democracy being undermined by PPS22 in order to pursue Green Tokenism and Green Vandalism, leaving the Country in a crucially vulnerable position re, power supplies.

GEOFFREY SINCLAIR. A valuable Consultant to many groups, outlined the problems and pitfalls of negotiating the protest pathway through the minefield of Planning Officers, Councils, Public Enquiries, and of course Public Opinion. Protest MUST start a.s.a.p., from the first intimation of a scheme…finding out plans, objecting to anemometers, building relationships with Councils and Planners [some of whom are “Green” but not necessarily well-informed], countering the often pernicious and superficial opinion surveys done by developers on an unprepared Public, and countering “Readers Letters” in the Press from creatures of the B.W.E.A.

Generally, Councils, PLANNERS, and Public Enquiry Inspectors don’t want to go against Govt. Policy, but there have been successes based on planning issues Viz. Amenity, Landscape, ecological and nuisance effects outweighing the “benefits” of W.P.S. Also Planning Depts. May be resentful at being overly pressured by the Diktat of PPS.22.

Dr. RICHARD COURTNEY. In his inimitable evangelical, humorous way pointed up the lack of any USEFUL electricity from W.P.S. plus the fact that they can increase the need for conventional power plants and therefore emissions. The TRUE purpose of W.P.S. is to put on an empty Govt. display of “Greenness”. There is no commitment to technological change in conventional power generation e.g. air-blown gasification combined cycle [A.B.G.C.], which produces electricity with few emissions. We are selling old-fashioned coal-fired technology to China, who are building one every two weeks, yet we could supply A.B.G.C. systems but don’t. Staggering hypocrisy by our Government.

Power surges are catastrophic to National Grid supply and cause power cuts, yet W.P.S. supply causes surges - which is why Denmark has to give power away!! The certainty of the failure of wind power means EXTRA conventional stations are needed - total illogicality.

DR. KAYE LITTLE Gave a chilling account of the lost battle for CEFN CROES. The fight had started in 1998, and over the last 5 years had been a tale of cynicism, greed, and untruths by home-based and foreign Multi-nationals. The result was the ruination and desecration of 17.5 sq. kilometres of Forestry Commission land.. Her conclusion - don’t trust ANYONE associated with development and there are wider implications beyond the immediate environmental impacts, Her photos were truly shocking, and her book of the struggle “The Battle for Cefn Croes” is on the Internet.

DR. VIC MASON showed that there is still something rotten in the State of Denmark; Whether it be the huge subsidies paid by the Taxpayer- -A cost of 8_10 billion Danish Kronero r the fact that it has cost more in Capital and operational costs than if they had stayed with the original conventional system, or the fact that the populace pay about twice the U.K. price for their electricity.

In 2003 the output of renewable energy [almost totally wind] in Denmark in numerical terms was about 21% of local power demand, BUT much of it had to be exported to Norway, Germany etc. at giveaway prices to maintain the stability of the Danish Grid. This probably cost Danish consumers 1 BILLION D.K.K Per year AND also displaced “Green” electricity production in those Countries. This inter-connectivity also allows Denmark to import coal, oil, or nuclear-based electricity when the Country is becalmed BUT they pay premium prices!

In 2000—2002 the total production of W.P.S. in Denmark corresponded to about 50% of the power exported. CO2 emissions in Denmark have continued to rise.

In West Denmark where 75% of W.P.S. are there are almost no areas where one is out of sight despite prohibition of hill-top sites, yet, ludicrously, Denmark is held up as an example of the benefits of Wind Power.

DR. MIKE HALL gave more statistics to discredit the claims of Govt./developers and show the desecration of the Country to be a cynical confidence trick.

On D.T.I. figures, in 2020 we will need about 26% more electricity than now, yet our closure of our nuclear stations will remove 20% of our current supply…leaving a shortfall of 46%, and as most coal-fired stations are to close, the real short-fall will be 65%.

Mike talked of the proposed W.P.S. for Whinash - the largest on-shore proposal for England, with an immense environmental effect on the edge of the Lake District - which would produce an actual output of c.25M.W. from 27 turbines. THUS to generate the same power as ONE medium-sized coal or nuclear station one would need 64 or 38 “Whinashs” respectively i.e. about 1728 and1026 turbines submerging thousands of acres of land.

He also pointed out what we have all seen. viz. The way that developers give extremely misleading information re. Noise, output, visual impact, etc. etc.e.g. The applicants for Askam W.P.S. CLAIMED ; Save 18100 tons CO2.

The unanswerable conclusion is that wind is an intermittent, additional source of a small amount of electricity and is not a serious alternative for an industrial Nation. The Govt. has NO mandate from the British people to destroy our upland heritage for no gain.

ELIZABETH MANN Gave her presentation on Force 10: political will v. Landscape Protection. She showed that the power of self-starting opposition groups from ordinary citizens has seriously disturbed the wind developers, the Govt. and the B.W.E.A., all of whom, with characteristic arrogance, had assumed they could “spin” their way over any opposing views. Thus steps had to be taken at National and local Government level to squash this opposition.

The B.W.E.A. had stated in a Leader in “Windpower Monthly” that the Industry “..must play politics..” and it would seem from the recent ratification ofPPS22 that they have Govt. on their side.

DR. DAVID MANLEY has done intensive scientific studies of noise transmission from turbines which make the childish statements of the developers “no noise - quiet as a library” etc. look distinctly shady and facile.

David showed there is no connection of felt and heard noise with wind direction, and that low frequency noise is particularly troublesome, offensive and harmful, with its maximum propagation along “Hot Lines”.

The checks made by developers are superficial and give false [and often reassuring] information as the detecting microphones are not adequate for very low frequencies. David found this very unsatisfactory and considered it an urgent priority that a standard is accepted for Srecordings to be made at low frequencies; at the moment only seismic detectors can handle this and when used they show signals can be picked up at great distances. All cause for unease.

Two groups of people who support W.P.S. are those with vested interests and those who know little about them.

About 200 sites are identified in Scotland and Planners can't cope. Thus many flawed Environmental Impact Assessments are accepted without question.

The Scottish Executive are Rubber-stamping 50MW applications…the B.W.E.A. have moved their Road-show to Scotland as its so easy to get permission! This also obviates the need for Public Enquiry.

An example of the lunacy; A gas/oil station at Peterhead covers 50 acres, has capacity of 1500MW and has 300 full time jobs A W.P.S. proposed for Drummer would cover 2000 acres, produce 14MW and have 2 full time jobs.

Have good relations with planners and Councillors to educate them: don’t get involved with Developers; they are ruthless.

DAVID BRIERLEY gave an emotional yet factual account of what it can be like to fight one of these applications, lose, and have to live with the horror and fragmentation of the Community; the destruction of the Habitat, visual disturbance and extreme noise nuisance. Compare this with the soft-focus green rural idyll of the developers proposals.

All guidelines for installation mean nothing, are not enforceable and are ignored. Minimum cost and maximum profit are achieved by deceit. Details in the application are changed in construction and nothing is done.

Their campaign had failed against the Establishments of the Govt., the Law, and the Developers - but they would fight on.

David reminded everyone; Take the “N” from Green and replace it with a “D”

Take the “F” from justice - but one cant do that, because as we all learn: There is NO “F” in Justice !!

Over 200 anti-windfarm activists from 47 organisations at the Saddleworth conference in June heard the following speakers and topics. Of these, one is reproduced below in the form of an edited transcript, the other is a verbatim transcript. Several of the others are similar to contributions by the same authors available on the Country Guardian website www.countryguardian.net. Each article is annotated as appropriate

A. Full transcript of David Brierley’s presentation, drawing on his and his neighbours’ experience of living with a windfarm

It is my belief, following the experiences of the last 5 years, that the realities of living alongside a wind power station bear little (or no) resemblance to those cosy images, so falsely, so blatantly, so criminally, portrayed by the wind industry, the “greens” and assorted Governmental departments and agencies. The image they would have you the public believe, is one of a soft focus, pastel coloured scene, possibly showing children running through a flower-strewn meadow.

This picture is intended to portray an image of an undisturbed, utopian, rural, idyll, (with possibly, - but far from mandatory,) - a barely discernible wind turbine in the far distance. There is always, apparently, a complete symphony orchestra playing soothing, relaxing music, camouflaged and discretely concealed somewhere in every field adjacent to every wind power station, but – elusively - always just out of camera.

I have struggled to find any of them. The noise of the turbines is quite sufficient, thank you. Being forced to endure Beethoven’s “Pastoral”, Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons” or Pachelbel’s “Canon” every time I see a rotating turbine is just too horrendous to contemplate! (as much as I might appreciate those particular pieces, in other circumstances!).

One is inevitably, - and I believe deliberately, - led subliminally to the belief that this industry champions wind power stations existing unobtrusively in dreamy, peaceful, tranquil locations reminiscent of an impressionist painting. One, possibly signed by, or ascribed to, Claude Monet.

The European and British Wind Energy Associations both proudly and very publicly, proclaim, (in their Best Practice Guidelines,) the following:-

“WIND TURBINES SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED SO CLOSE TO DOMESTIC DWELLINGS THAT THEY UNREASONABLY AFFECT THE AMENITY OF SUCH PROPERTIES THROUGH NOISE, SHADOW FLICKER, VISUAL DOMINANCE OR REFLECTED LIGHT”

We, the residents of Marton Askam and Ireleth in South West Cumbria, have all of these phenomena at one location. We reported this to the BWEA, but basically they weren’t interested. Neither (apparently) do they ever criticise, investigate or punish any developer affiliated to this industry body, who fails to comply with these grand sounding sentiments.

Therefore, ANY “cowboy developers” (of which I believe there may be many) can choose to comply with those that suit them and those that don’t are then conveniently ignored, apparently with the backing of the BWEA, to the detriment of the “quality of life” of residents. I believe “minimal cost” is the Industry driving criteria.

Further, there is no legislation in this country that specifically covers wind power stations. This, I feel, is one of the main problems which leads to the situations we, (and many others), are now experiencing. This lunatic “dash for wind” guarantees that more and more residents of our once peaceful countryside are more and more likely to be adversely affected, when they too, inevitably, become “the neighbours of wind turbines.”

The “industry speak”, and propaganda, which amounts to nothing more than misinformation, lies, and deceit, begins long before any planning application is entered to the local authority. It is usual for some (but not necessarily all!) residents to receive a “Dear Householder” letter, laying out the developers reasons for having selected your area, and how he proposes to deal with any of the problems that he assesses may arise.

We ended up with 63.5 metres - because the developer had failed, for some inexplicable reason known only to himself, to inform the residents that he had omitted to included the size of the blades! (these, incidentally, are similar dimensions to a jumbo jet – hardly forgettable!)

How on earth, can anyone, (in all honesty), declare that seven, 200 ft structures, each painted brilliant white and with a blue “go faster” stripe on the turbine housing, – located at the summit of the highest hill overlooking three villages, (rising from sea level to 180 metres in just over 2 kilometres,) with blades the size of a jumbo jet’s wing span, revolving at 26 rpm, flashing in the sunshine and making a noise like a broken down washing machine in its death throes, have been “carefully designed to minimise any visual impact?”

Furthermore, this particular project was so “carefully designed” that they managed to miss-locate these turbines up to 900-ft (in total) away from where they were given planning permission. Consequently the wind farm does not benefit from any planning permission. (What, also, is the validity of any safety cases, soil samples, ground integrity and noise surveys carried out on these spurious locations – NO ONE BUT US SEEMS IN THE LEAST CONCERNED!). Can I suggest that if any of you were to try building a house extension, a conservatory, a garage etc., 9ins. away from where you were given permission, you would then see exactly who would be concerned!

Everybody and his Uncle would pursue you unmercifully, with threats of sanctions and legal action unless you pulled down your project and build it exactly as permitted.

(Could this be why PPS 22 is so important to the wind industry, the Government and Mr. Prescott personally?)

We have noise reported AND in innumerable instances logged (by local authority environmental health officers) up to 2 kilometres away from the site. We have a verbal report, made in front of witnesses, by an independent acoustics engineer, of his identifying noise from “our” turbines 5 kilometres away, and across a wide river estuary. (He eventually declined to give a witness statement or to appear on our behalf at court, as he had just been offered employment at a nearby wind farm and would therefore have a “conflict of interests”. Funnily enough, this “conflict” excuse cropped up several times whilst we were attempting to compile our witness list!)

We have a location that cannot see any of the 7 turbines. Where these residents have to leave their premises, sometimes for days on end, in a desperate attempt to gain some respite from the incessant noise that keeps them awake, makes them ill, and continually stops them enjoying their house and gardens. We have houses where residents are obliged to attempt sleep by means of playing a radio all night long, in an effort to drown out the noise of the turbines.

We have another location where a young student is forced to attempt sleep (and studying for crucial examinations which would dictate her future), with a “walkman” and earphones, continually playing her type of music, to obliterate/break up the noise from the turbines.

We have a location where the occupants regularly have to play “musical bedrooms”, changing from one room to another, sometimes several times, during the night, in a vain attempt to gain some relief from the noise from the turbines. A noise which has been variously described as “a clog in a tumble drier”, “a train continually passing though the room”, “a c130 Hercules flying outside your window”, “distant pile driving”, and “someone mixing concrete in the sky”

This one beats cock fighting. The major construction contracts amounted to £700,000 the amount placed with “local contractors” - a mere £60,000. Once “our” wind power station began operation we very quickly discovered that promises made in pursuit of securing planning permission (and to a public inquiry), disappeared totally, in a somewhat “Brigadoon” type scenario. Safety margins of “no turbines being placed less than their own fall over distance from any public access” were compromised. Developers rationalised these unauthorised changes by stating –

Noise levels breached the planning condition and caused (and continue to cause - almost five years later) severe disruption and annoyance to residents. Several residents believe the noise is making them ill. Lack of sleep, anxiety, headaches, earaches, upset stomachs and a general feeling of malaise are reported by residents of all ages, all around the site. Unfortunately, none of these symptoms have (as yet) been corroborated (by a medical practitioner) as ill - effects originating from the presence of wind turbines.

Shadow flicker and glinting are experienced at properties up to 2.5 k away from the site. – When the developers were informed of these phenomena their reaction, as always, was immediate denial. But these dreadful, adverse, effects are fact. They are very real. They have been witnessed by hundreds of people. They are still being suffered by many of our residents. These ill - effects have also been witnessed by councillors and council officials. (Some of who also declined to give statements or to be witnesses in our court case.)

Eventually the developers admitted everything that we had claimed – BUT STILL NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO RESOLVE THESE PROBLEMS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO MATTER- THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING. THE RESIDENTS,

The developers (and the industry in general) claim it is difficult to predict shadow flicker, glinting and reflection – we totally disagree. The Egyptians, The Mayans, The Incas and Aztecs were all capable of building whole cities based on the movement of the sun.

In this country Stonehenge is a perfect example of prediction of the movement of the sun. If stone-age man was capable of this technology, why should the wind industry find it so difficult? Could it be another example of those unwelcome costs eating into their obscene, heavily subsidised, profits?

Noise is another issue that this industry finds “difficulty” with. They vociferously complain that it is “impracticable” to measure noise lower than 30 dB. So, they request, at planning, a noise condition based on 5 dB over this spurious imaginary background level of 30 (making a total of 35 dB.) The background noise level at our location – prior to the wind farm - was recorded as low as 16.5 dB. (Somebody therefore found it “practicable” enough to take these readings.). Our night - time average would be about 19 dB.

This (dB) scale is logarithmic. Every increase of 10dB over this original 19 dB means at least a doubling of the perceived previous level of loudness – so now we have an actual noise level of at least between 4 and 8 times that which we experienced prior to the development.

The local authority claims that because of the court case of “Gillingham v Medway Council,” the classification of “our” area changed with the passing of the planning permission for this, “our”, wind power station. Consequently, (in our once peaceful, rural, location,) we now find that we have been transformed, as if by magic, into a mixed rural/industrial area. Therefore our “expectations of noise”, (or should I say our expectations of quiet?) should now be in line with this industrialisation and are consequently “unrealistically” high.

“Unrealistic” for whom? We are the residents. We notice and live with these differences. We have lived here for years. We point it out. Nothing happens. WE SUFFER!

The World Health Organisation states that the minimum required noise level for uninterrupted, restorative, sleep should be 30 dB. So why do we have to suffer a much higher level? Is this another of those “unwelcome costs” for the wind industry?

It’s not necessarily the noise level – as measured in dB - that is the problem. It is the nature of that noise. People report that this is a noise they “feel” rather than “hear”. They report that their heart appears to be trying to keep in sync with the beat from the blades and they experience great discomfort should that beat change. Especially during the night - time hours – as has now been totally exposed in the recent report by Fritz Van den Burg from GrÖningen University .

My wife is an asthmatic and has experienced, on several occasions, whilst suffering an attack, similar symptoms, whereby her breathing wanted to keep “in synch” with the beat from the turbines. We both find this an extremely distressing situation. People report tinnitus-like symptoms, sickness and dizziness. All of which they attribute to “the noise” from the wind farm. Because, when the noise ceases, for whatever reason – so do their symptoms. (Animals, too, reportedly show signs of stress at “the noise” and shadow flicker.) Farmers working in adjacent fields cannot stand the “feelings” for more than two hours at a time because, quote, – “it does my head in”. Unfortunately local doctors have, as yet, failed to link any of these complaints to the presence of the wind turbines. (Although I believe that work is in progress, along exactly these lines, in another area of the country and that a report of the findings will be published shortly.)

Residents are continually forced out of the enjoyment of their gardens on days when the wind direction is such that “the noise” invades every corner of their properties. Some have been forced out of their houses for longer periods for exactly this reason. Developers deny that this ever occurs – or rather they did deny it. They now reluctantly admit it, but add – “Lets face it, if you live near a wind farm you’ve got to expect noise.” A quote from one of the defendants, at our recent court case, on oath, in the witness box, was,

“The inevitable consequence of living next to a wind farm is………… … … … NOISE!”

This same man, Matt Britton, who currently holds a (relatively) high position of responsibility within Powergen Renewables, had previously categorically declared, at other venues, and under far less “judicial” circumstances, that :- “Wind Turbines are inaudible.” Which of his versions is the truth?

Can I suggest that it is the former. The latter presumably being yet another example of lies and deceit hiding behind the innocuous sounding title of “industry speak.”

This “noise” is not a new phenomenon. It has been widely reported all over the world. About 3 years ago – Defra commissioned a report by Cassella Stanger, into the sources of Low Frequency Noise. Within this report every one of the symptoms affecting our residents are described perfectly. We were totally unaware of its existence, yet this report positively identifies wind farms as a source of nuisance (and states that health can suffer). What is being done about this report? Apparently nothing!. We located this report following a chance remark and we placed it with our MP, the Rt. Hon John Hutton, Minister of State for Health. We believed, from his reactions, that his department had been totally unaware of its existence.

We had (initially) received support from Mr Hutton. He had been made aware of all of our problems. He was apparently at first, extremely sympathetic. He offered assistance, until, for some inexplicable reason, he felt that despite organising a meeting with Lord Rooker, within John Prescott’s Office, which was suddenly, mysteriously, abandoned - he found that he could assist us no longer. I found this most peculiar and somewhat sinister. But not totally unexpected!

Subsequently, our diabolical situation has now dragged on for over five years and, in all honesty, we are no nearer to a resolution than we were when we first began. We have actually achieved nothing! There is no point denying that the result of the court case was a body blow to all of us. We believed that we were right. ( We still believe that we are right). We were shattered.

We firmly believed that by presenting our evidence to the court, comprising of, 6 complainants, 7 other residents as independent witnesses, and 3 council officials, (who all submitted written evidence and were prepared to give verbal confirmation of this evidence and to undergo cross examination, if called,) and producing certified, timed and dated, various local authority Environmental Health Officers records and reports proving:-

26 noise nuisances, 14 border line noise nuisances and - at least, 1 breach of planning conditions, in the 22 months immediately prior to appearing in the court, that we had done sufficient work to convince any district judge that a nuisance situation had existed, still existed or was likely to recur, under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I (personally) persuaded MAIWAG members that if we were patient, if we did our work thoroughly, if we collated all the evidence, if we then presented it correctly and if we worked to the highest burden of proof – the criminal burden of proof, that of beyond reasonable doubt, - WE WOULD WIN. I believed it was so simple. It was so painfully obvious!

This I based on 30 years experience in the police force, where I genuinely believed in the due process of law and justice. Whereby, if something was obviously wrong, against public decency, against commonly held beliefs and standards, common law, or against an act of parliament, and that citizens were able to prove it, they would obtain the correct verdict. Then the prescribed punishment for that particular crime, would inevitably follow. Let’s face it…..THIS WAS THE SYSTEM. THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM. IT WAS SO GOOD THAT OTHER COUNTRIES BASED THEIR OWN LEGAL SYSTEMS ON OURS.

I forcefully (and perhaps sometimes too forcefully) persuaded MAIWAG members to believe in, and adhere to, this maxim. I committed them to 5 years extremely hard and time consuming work, and not least, to a considerably large financial debt. I thought that the system of justice that I believed in would always support “the wronged” against “the wrong doer.” I couldn’t have been more wrong! I couldn’t now be more disillusioned!

In our case the judge decided that the evidence we presented “lacked detail and specificity” and that “audibility and annoyance are not to be equated with nuisance”. PARDON? Immediately following the trial verdict, (and within minutes of returning to my home), I was phoned by a well-known and well-respected television journalist from London . He told me something which, at the time, I had serious doubts about, but which I am now thoroughly convinced of, - that was, we “ could not be allowed” to win this test case. He, like us, was shattered when the decision was made public. He didn’t know how we could have failed. He informed me that right up to the verdict being made public, the whole wind industry believed WE had won. BUT WE FAILED! WHY? HOW? Two days afterwards he and a colleague travelled from London to Cumbria and interviewed both Les and I, and he there repeated his belief that we had been – to use his extremely colourful expression – “SHAFTED.”

I now harbour grave doubts that the “holy grail” of “justice” exists, in any shape or form, particularly in connection with our case against this industry. I now doubt that it has ever existed, or that under the current regime, it will ever be allowed to exist in the future. I was so shattered by this that I resigned from MAIWAG - because I just couldn’t see any way forward. I now believe that issues involving the financial interests of large corporate bodies, their profit margins and their interest rates, or their monetary return to their share holders, or government departments promoting dubious ministerial “sound bites”, have now become far more important than the human rights of “common or garden” residents.

Consequently the individual HAS to be, and always WILL be - sacrificed - in every instance.

AND IN EVERY INSTANCE THESE DUPLICITOUS CHARLATANS SCULK AND COWER BEHIND THE VOTE WINNING MANTLE OF “GREEN ASPIRATIONS”

I’m actually a very simple man, with quite simple aspirations. One of my wishes is (or was) to retain my family’s “quality of life.” Something that I believe, I and doubtless many of you, have aspired towards all our working lives and have already made huge, largely hidden, sacrifices in an attempt to achieve a far better future for ourselves, which we then hope to pass down to our descendants. The arguments from “greens” that they want to save the world for their grand children, are mine too. EXACTLY!

However, attempting to achieve this objective by replacing one form of pollution with several others and then inflicted these on unsuspecting residents by stealth is NOT the way to achieve it. Again, I couldn’t have been more wrong. However, now, I’m (hopefully) wiser. I am /and MAIWAG are, continuing to gather, collate and disperse, information and evidence, to whoever requires it. Because no–one should have to go through what we have had to endure. We are all worn out. We are all totally disillusioned. We are also considerably poorer financially, but, WE WILL NOT GIVE IN! WE CAN’T GIVE IN - BECAUSE THIS SITUATION IS SO OBVIOUSLY, PATENTLY, CRIMINALLY - WRONG! WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT THESE APPALLING INJUSTICES WITH JUST AS MUCH COMMITMENT AS WE HAD BEFORE OUR (VERY PUBLIC) DEFEAT. BECAUSE WE KNOW, NO MATTER WHAT DECEITS ARE EMPLOYED AGAINST US, OR WHATEVER OBSTACLES ARE PLACED IN OUR WAY, WE ARE RIGHT!

We will continue in our attempts to achieve a legal redress to a situation that the Local Planning Authority, the Local Authority Environmental Health Department, The Government Office of the North West, The North West Development Agency, Defra, The Ministry for the Environment, The Health Ministry, and the several secretaries of state of innumerable government departments, are either incapable of resolving, reluctant to address, or deliberately, in the best traditions of one of Britain’s best known heroes, (Nelson) “turn a blind eye to.”

(How I wish that even half of these, more often than not, faceless…………. People……… had a small percentage of HIS backbone, whilst continually availing themselves of his ocular disability!)

Despite letters from Government departments telling us that Barrow Council have “all the powers necessary to deal with this situation speedily, efficiently and effectively” (now dated some 4 years ago), and a planning committee who have on 3 occasions voted to enforce planning breaches, ……………we still await an outcome………………

Consequently, I believe that if MAIWAG’s experiences are any yardstick, anyone facing the prospect of this desperate, diabolical, dash for wind, would be advised to fight any similar applications from the outset wherever possible. Don’t even consider commencing your objections, your resistance, your fight, once the problems associated with actually living close to a wind power station, have become - all to painfully - obvious. By then it will be too late! Apathy and lethargy are your worst enemies. This industry with all its’ hype, with all its’ misleading claims, with all its’ “industry speak”, is nowhere near as “green” as they would have you believe. People must realise this.

B. Summary Report of the two presentations by Sir Bernard Ingham, Country Guardian’s Vice President, based on the recordings made at the Conference. Text in quotation marks is direct quote, the rest is the Editor’s paraphrase

Sir Bernard had been asked to become Vice President of Country Guardian by its founder, Joseph Lythgoe, partly because of his background in Government energy policy. He had served as a senior civil servant in the Department of Energy from 1974 to 1979, including a spell under Tony Benn as Energy Minister.

The present Government has an environment policy but not an energy policy. An energy policy would have as its main concern Security of Supply, which must be affordable if Britain is to be competitive. A fundamental factor is that you cannot store electricity, the electricity supply system is a “triumph of balancing”. “Whether you accept Global Warming or concede there is a political imperative to show that you do” there is a case for trying to reduce CO2 emissions.

Unless something is done, present policies will lead to a 50% reduction is our current electricity generation capacity within 10-15 years, to be replaced by renewables and gas. The 22/23% which comes from nuclear will “wither on the vine” to become about 3% by 2020; the 25% from coal and oil will have gone. Gas comes from unstable countries such as Russia , Saudi Arabia and Algeria and we are at the end of the pipeline. It is a “near certainty” that the necessary pipelines can be built.

Renewable Energy is intermittent and unreliable, uneconomic and environmentally damaging.

The highly subsidised contribution from wind is currently less that three quarters of one percent, but the Government says it will rise to 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. No expert believes that. Danish records show that windfarms contribute only about 25% of rated capacity and for half the year there is very little input. We know this because the statistics are made public there, in the UK they are “commercially sensitive”. The need for standby generation as a result of intermittency wipes out any greenhouse gas savings. The arguments for wind are “brainwash for the brain-dead”

It is unsafe and impracticable to rely on much input from other renewables. For example, look at the space required to replace the output from an average 1,000MW conventional power station:-

A bio alcohol plantation the size of Devon (sugar), Sussex and Kent (potatoes), Yorkshire (maize) or the whole of the UK (wheat)

Note -this is to replace 1,000 MW of conventional energy – the UK peak energy load is 55,000MW..

What is needed is an energy mix, and the solution is not easy. Unfortunately we have lost faith in the political system to act. Conservation should be pushed much harder; there is much scope for technological advances and more efficient appliances. Demand for electricity must be assumed to be influenced by the following:

For the campaign against windfarms the big problem is a “phenomenal ignorance” on the part of the public about the facts, fed by FoE and Greenpeace and BWEA, much of it appealing to emotion. It is necessary to turn the propaganda round by responding with letters to the press, radio, TV, MPs, councillors, MEPS etc., meetings and conferences. “Fertilise” existing communication channels. It is important to appeal to emotion as well as to logical argument.

The new Renewable Energy Foundation is complementary to Country Guardian. It has far more resources and will supplement CG’s provision of information and dedication. The two organisations must co-operate.

Despite the wind industry’s propaganda there is no cause to be defeatist. According to BWEA two thirds of windfarm applications have failed. One sign of this is the move offshore, another the assault on Scotland (which is unsustainable). Offshore wind is not acceptable; our case is that windpower is ineffective wherever it is – we are not just concerned with the environmental damage, “we are not NIMBYs”. But the Government’s attack on the Planning System is unacceptable

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please reserve ………. places for the Wind Farm conference on Tuesday April 12 th

Name…………………………………………Group………………………….

Address…………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………….Postcode……………………...

Telephone……………………………….Email………………………………...

In February 2005 a paper was published in the scientific journal Oxford Energy Comment, which is published by the
authoritative Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and written by Malcolm Keay, a member of the Institute's staff.
Entitled CO2 Emissions Reduction: Time for a Reality Check? The paper basically pours a lot of cold water on the efforts by the UK Government to reduce CO2 emissions, and in particular the hopes pinned on renewables, and specifically wind power.

Read the paper, which is printed below, preceded by a comment on it from the newspaper Scotland on Sunday,

Experts show official wind power claims are hot air

JEREMY WATSON
jwatson@scotlandonsunday.com

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build thousands of wind turbines across Scotland will make almost no difference to greenhouse gas levels, according to new research by leading environmental scientists.

The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies says that even on the most optimistic assumptions, renewable sources of energy, such as wind power, will have only a "minor impact" on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The report, by one of the UK ’s leading think tanks on energy policy, is a serious setback for the Scottish Executive. Ministers hope to convince voters that around 70 new wind farms will make a significant contribution to slashing carbon dioxide levels by at least 20% over the next 15 years.

But the institute’s report argues that previous experience shows governments fail to meet their targets for building wind farms, and even when they do deliver their promises, they have little impact on greenhouse gas levels.

Other technologies, such as nuclear energy, which produces no carbon dioxide, now deserve to be given closer consideration by ministers, even if they are unpopular with voters, the report says.

New nuclear power stations in countries such as France have played a major role in reducing carbon dioxide levels over the past two decades, it adds. But reliance on renewables and energy efficiency measures "is not a proven or reliable way of making big carbon dioxide reductions".

Carbon dioxide pumped out by road traffic, industry and power stations that use irreplaceable fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, is a major contributor to global warming and plays a part in accelerating dangerous climate change around the world, claim campaigners.

The Scottish Executive is hoping to cut emissions by producing more than one third of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Within 15 years, it is planning to have 2,500 turbines in operation compared with 330 now, enabling conventional power stations to be closed.

The Oxford research gives fresh ammunition to community groups fighting the rapidly increasing number of wind farm projects throughout Scotland .

The report was compiled by senior research fellow Malcolm Keay who looked at European government attempts to reduce greenhouse gas levels to meet targets set by the Kyoto climate change treaty, which came into force earlier this month.

Keay said: "Wind farms will not deliver the reductions that governments are hoping for. Even if wind farm targets are met, then it will only have a very small impact on reducing carbon dioxide.

"Across the UK as a whole, that will be offset by the retirement of nuclear plants by 2012. That will be true of Scotland as well, as Hunterston B [in Ayrshire] is due to be retired in that period. The net effect on carbon dioxide emissions will be zero, however fast wind farms are built."

There are alternatives which governments must now examine even if they are politically unpalatable, Keay added. The first is taxing industry and drivers more heavily. The second is either retaining nuclear power at present levels or expanding the network of stations.

"If you are serious about climate change then you have to go for these difficult measures because what the government is talking about right now just won’t work," he said.

"Renewables won’t deliver the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions that we want."

Some campaigners insist wind power is not an effective renewable energy supply, pointing to the experiences of European countries with more advanced schemes than Britain ’s. In Denmark, carbon dioxide emissions have continued to rise as older coal power stations have been forced to make up for shortfalls in electricity on low wind days.

A recent government study in Germany , the world’s leading wind energy producer, concluded wind farms were expensive and inefficient.

A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said it had not had time to consider the Oxford report, but it was "confident" it would reach its targets both for producing energy from renewable sources and cutting carbon dioxide levels.

But Views of Scotland, the anti-wind-farm pressure group, said it was a "serious concern" that independent research had concluded that the Executive’s carbon dioxide reduction strategy was badly flawed.

"The Institute argues convincingly that the UK ’s overall Kyoto targets will probably not be met and would do little to cut carbon dioxide emissions in any case. The government’s case is smoke-and-mirrors."

The UK government is already giving clear signals to the nuclear industry that it will consider the case for new power stations following the expected general election in May.

One leading energy academic says the Scottish Executive will have to sanction at least one new nuclear power station to meet its targets on reducing carbon dioxide levels and cleaner energy.

Professor James McDonald, director of the Institute of Energy and Environment at Strathclyde University , said: "It is going to be difficult for the Scottish Executive to meet its 2020 targets without building more base load plants [conventional power stations] in Scotland . By then the only stations they will have left will be the gas power station in Peterhead and Torness nuclear power station.

"And with Scotland being the engine room for renewable energy sources for the whole of the UK , there is going to be a need to build at least one nuclear power plant together with either cleaner coal plants or gas turbine plants."

The difficulties of meeting wind power targets became apparent again last week when two of the country’s most powerful landowners came out on opposite sides of the debate.

The Duke of Roxburghe’s estate in the Borders announced it was backing plans for a 62-turbine wind farm in a bowl within the Lammermuir Hills, south of Edinburgh .

But the Duke of Buccleuch, who also owns a huge Borders estate, is objecting to a separate wind farm development close to his home at Bowhill, near Selkirk. A spokesman said the 13 proposed turbines, each 400ft high, would have a serious impact on the beauty of the area.

Oxford Energy Comment

February 2005

CO 2 Emissions Reduction: Time for a Reality Check?

The Kyoto Protocol is due to come into effect this February and we are already more than half way from the signing of the Protocol to the beginning of its first commitment period (and three quarters of the way there since the baseline date of 1990). The world also needs to look beyond Kyoto . Many countries, including the UK , have set themselves ambitious longer term goals, to reduce emissions by 60% or even 75% by 2050. Meanwhile, a number of recent studies – for instance, the climateprediction.net project based on distributed computing and the International Climate Change Taskforce – have stressed the magnitude of the risks and the need for early and effective action.

So it is timely that reviews of progress towards Kyoto targets for the UK and EU have come out recently (the Consultation Paper Review of the UK Climate Change Programme in the UK and the European Environment Agency (EEA) Report Greenhouse gas emission trends on progress in the EU, both published in December 2004). This Comment considers whether these reports amount to a realistic assessment of the policy measures adopted to meet the targets.

At first sight, the impression given is that everything is more or less on track. The UK Paper says that “our latest projections on the impact that our policies and measures will have on our emissions suggest that the UK remains on course to comfortably achieve its target under the Kyoto Protocol”, though admitting that more needs to be done to meet the 20% reduction in CO 2 emissions set as a national goal. The EEA report is more cautious: it acknowledges that the EU is only a third of the way towards meeting its goal (greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 were 2.9% below the 1990 base, as compared with the target of 8 % for the period 2008-2012). However, it suggests that with policy measures in the pipeline and use of the Kyoto mechanisms, the target could be met.

What neither report states is that the evidence contained in them could lead to a much more pessimistic conclusion: that the policy measures favoured in the UK and EU have not delivered significant CO 2 reductions and are clearly inadequate to the longer term challenge.

First it is worth looking at the data. Like all statistics, emissions data can conceal as much as they reveal, and they need to be analysed carefully.

Looking at underlying CO 2 trends over a longer period, the recent picture stands out as indicating worse, not better performance. Significant reductions in CO 2 have taken place in the past - before the Kyoto Protocol came into being. For instance, between 1970 and 1995, CO 2 emissions fell in many major EU countries: in the UK , France and Germany by 20% or more. Emissions across the EU as a whole also fell over that period.

This was hardly noticed at the time (or since) and was not of course due to Kyoto measures but to other factors – the growth of nuclear power, especially in France; replacement of coal by gas, especially in the British residential and power generation sectors; industrial restructuring in the UK and Germany (in the UK alone, more than half the reduction in CO 2 emissions during the period came from industry). This long term CO 2 reduction up to the mid-1990s has now gone into reverse, as the trends which brought it about have more or less worked themselves out.

That deterioration in performance, one would have thought, might be reason to question whether the existing policy consensus is the right one, or at least to scrutinise the effectiveness of the measures in some detail, but in fact most countries seem to be drawing the opposite conclusion: that their existing measures need to be intensified.

The EEA summarises the position as follows: “domestic policies and measures in EU-15 Member States that are projected to help most in achieving the targets include promotion of energy from renewable energy, promotion of combined heat and power (CHP), improvements in energy performance [and energy efficiency]”. With the addition of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), the UK is relying on essentially the same package. The purpose of this Comment is not to question such measures in themselves – they will certainly have a part to play in any climate change programme – but to ask if it is realistic to rely on them to deliver the Kyoto targets and the further deeper reductions many countries are aiming at.

The evidence shows that there are two fundamental practical drawbacks with the chosen measures: first, that the relevant targets will not be met; second, that even if they were, they would deliver little in terms of CO 2 reduction.

The EEA admits that the EU renewables target is unlikely to be met (as with previous EU targets). Most commentators also expect the UK to miss its 2010 renewables target (again, like previous targets). The consistent track record of failing to meet such targets is not surprising: the targets underestimate the real practical, economic (and environmental) obstacles to the development of new renewable sources.

But many people also overestimate the potential contribution of renewables. Even if the UK target is met this would only save around 2.5MtC in 2010 (on the UK Government’s own figures). Compare that with the 10 MtC reduction between 1990 and 1995 in emissions from energy supply (mainly due to replacement of coal by gas and nuclear in power generation) or with the UK domestic target of reducing CO 2 emissions by over 30 MtC. Renewables, even on the most optimistic assumptions, have only a minor impact, despite their prominence in the public debate.

CHP also attracts unrealistic expectations. Again, as the EEA notes, the EU targets are very unlikely to be met. But even if the targets were met, it is not clear how significant the savings would be. Proponents of CHP often quote efficiencies of up to 95%. The EEA itself says “CHP utilises over 85% of the energy in the fuel rather than the average of about 35 to 45% in current plants producing only electricity.” This sort of efficiency assumption is used to drive expectations of energy and emissions savings.

In short, while the quoted efficiencies may be theoretically obtainable in ideal conditions, they are not representative of the savings achievable in typical applications.

What do the actual data show? In the UK , efficiencies of CHP have fallen since the late 1990s and now stand below 70% (on a gross basis – see Digest of UK Energy Statistics Chapter 6), amongst other things because of falling load factors. The energy savings (as compared with separate generation of the same quantities of power and heat) are not necessarily significant [1] , if they exist at all. However, as with renewables, there are siting problems. The best sites, with a good match between heat and power output, tend to be exploited first, making good quality CHP harder and harder to find as penetration increases. It is in practice unlikely that new CHP stations will reach the efficiencies quoted by the EEA, and it is certainly not typical in the UK .

To do it justice, DEFRA appears to have come to recognise this: in its latest position paper on CHP it is much more cautious than the EEA, saying only “CHP can increase the overall efficiency of fuel use to more than 75%, compared with about 40% from conventional electricity generation” (indeed, it is more cautious than the UK Energy White Paper of February 2003, which quoted a range of 70-90% efficiency for CHP). The UK ’s 10GW target relates specifically to “good quality CHP” and the review paper recognises the adverse conditions facing the industry. The 10GW target is not in practice likely to be met.

What about the third pillar of the EEA policy approach, energy efficiency? This is the most important of the UK measures. The Energy White Paper says “we expect more than half the reductions in our existing Climate Change Programme – around 10MtC by 2010 – to come from energy efficiency” as well as “half the additional 15-25MtC savings we are likely to need by 2020”. In other words, energy efficiency is far and away the most important single policy measure – many times more significant than renewables, which have received much more attention.

The problem with energy efficiency is not that it is not worthwhile – no-one can be in favour of wasting energy – but that it is extremely difficult to measure its impact, or indeed to know if it leads to any absolute reduction in energy use or emissions.

Again, the picture is often clouded in the presentation. The figures quoted for savings from energy efficiency tend to be of two types:

The UK White Paper quotes both sorts of number without qualification. Yet, even at the theoretical level, it is clear that careful analysis is required – consider, for example the analogy with labour efficiency (productivity). Few people would accept a top-down claim on the lines set out above, eg that a 1.5% a year improvement in productivity meant the loss of an equivalent number of jobs; or a bottom-up calculation that added up the impact of efficient new machines installed across the economy as a way of estimating levels of employment. Economies are dynamic and complex systems; the various interactions and feedbacks need to be taken into account.

These issues have not been adequately addressed in relation to energy efficiency, with the result that it is not possible to say whether the Government’s programmes are having any result – rather than go into detail, it may be simpler to quote the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (10 th Report, session 2003-2004), which commented that

“A central theme emerging from this report is the difficulty of assessing progress on energy efficiency in the absence of robust and reliable energy projections and systematic ex post appraisals of the impact of specific policy measures…..

…..Indeed, in dealing with energy efficiency, there is a sensation of standing on shifting sands.”

The fact is that it is almost impossible to say with any confidence whether any absolute savings at a macro level are being delivered by energy efficiency and there is no convincing international evidence – see following section – that it is an effective route to emissions reduction.

Yet, even though past savings have not been measured properly, the Government still relies on energy efficiency for a significant (and measurable) proportion of the expected future savings. For example, the review comments:

“Since 1990, carbon dioxide emissions from the household sector have fallen by about 3%. On the basis of current policies, carbon dioxide emissions are expected to decline by about 16% between 1990 and 2010.”

The discrepancy between limited and uncertain results and the huge expected savings (with only one quarter of the period to go) is striking.

It might be argued that across the EU as a whole the “virtuous” countries are seeing their efforts swamped by the sinners, or that, at least in the UK , the track record of the measures favoured by the present Administration is not long enough for their success to be evaluated.

But examination of the international evidence does not substantiate this. The problems at a European level are not confined to a small minority of countries. The EEA notes that:

§ Nine of the EU-15 are not likely to meet their targets, even on optimistic assumptions ( Austria , Belgium , Denmark , Finland , Greece , Ireland , Italy , Portugal and Spain ).

§ Other countries may meet their targets with the introduction of planned new measures.

§ However, even existing plus planned additional measures are not enough to bring the EU back on track. In fact, for the EU to meet its target would require that: a number of countries over-deliver; additional measures are introduced and work as planned; and that the Kyoto trading mechanisms are used.

Even this outlook depends on a confidence that the chosen policies will have the expected impacts.

It is not clear how such a confidence emerges from a review of past performance. While it is arguable that the UK has only fairly recently started taking energy efficiency and renewables seriously (though previous Governments, which have consistently claimed to be promoting them effectively, might challenge this), a number of EU countries have long experience of strong and consistent policy making in this area. Specifically, two countries can be identified as having followed the EEA policy path for considerably more than a decade: Denmark and the Netherlands . Their policies have delivered impressive concrete results in terms of direct outputs. Denmark has had an active and well-known wind programme and has achieved the highest penetration of new renewables in the EU (over 20% of electricity capacity). Denmark and the Netherlands have the highest penetration in the EU of CHP (over 50% for Denmark and 37% for the Netherlands as compared with about 6% for the UK ). Both countries also have aggressive energy efficiency programmes. Indeed, the Netherlands is taken as a “case study” in the UK Energy White Paper discussing energy efficiency programmes and Denmark is frequently identified as a role model in climate change discussions.

But is this reflected in strong CO 2 reductions? The question seems not to be asked. Chapter 3 of the UK White Paper, for instance, compares UK energy intensity with that of other OECD countries and sets out the objective of moving up the table, ie of improving energy intensity (taken as a proxy for energy efficiency) as a way of reducing emissions. What it does not analyse (nor does the EEA) is whether there is any clear relationship between energy intensity, and the penetration of CHP and renewables, on the one hand, and overall energy use or CO 2 emissions on the other.

Table 1 below is adapted and updated from Chart 3.1 of the UK White Paper. It shows, for EU countries, energy intensity (column 1) – the figure which the White Paper itself quoted. But, unlike the White Paper, it also shows (columns 2 and 3) energy use per head and CO 2 emissions per head (this is the indicator which best measures success in meeting climate change objectives). As the table shows, there is no clear relationship between energy intensities and energy use or CO 2 emissions. Although the UK has higher energy intensity than most of the other countries listed, its CO 2 emissions per head are lower than most of those whose intensity is better, including Denmark and the Netherlands .

As it happens, the Netherlands and Denmark also have a worse track record than the UK on emissions since 1990 - CO 2 emissions have increased in both countries. Denmark is almost certainly not on course to meet its (admittedly stringent) Kyoto target; and Netherlands will only do so on the most favourable assumptions. The UK , on the other hand, has reduced emissions and is likely to meet its target (though, as pointed out above, this is not a result of its stated CO 2 reduction measures).

Is this just a short term phenomenon reflecting the efforts previously made by Denmark and the Netherlands to reduce emissions? Again, it appears not. Since 1970, Denmark ’s CO 2 emissions have fallen only slightly; those of the Netherlands have increased by over 20%; but those of the UK have gone down around 20%.

This is not to decry the serious and well-intentioned efforts of these countries. Denmark and the Netherlands have no doubt benefited from their programmes; the programmes may well have contributed to an environmental performance better than would otherwise have been the case, given the many other complicating factors which have been present in practice. But, unfortunately, it is not enough for performance simply to have been better than it might have been. There are always complicating factors; achieving climate change targets means reducing emissions despite those factors. Reliance on the trinity of renewables, CHP and energy efficiency, though they may have a useful contribution to make, is not a proven or reliable way of making big CO 2 reductions.

This is the message which the two reviews should be highlighting (since it emerges from the data they contain) but they do not. For instance, the UK Review asks a number of questions about energy supply (Chapter 6 of the document). Apart from a few general points, all are focused on what more might be done to promote CHP and renewables. Similarly, in Chapter 9 (households), it asks what more might be done to promote energy efficiency. There is no serious questioning of the policy measures in themselves. And, as the EEA noted, other EU Governments are relying on a continuation and intensification of the existing policies, not considering alternative approaches.

The reason for the silence might well be that Governments simply find it too difficult to discuss the alternatives. One problem might be apparent from another look at Table 1. For a Martian visitor, it would be clear that there are two EU countries in the list which have succeeded in delivering significantly lower CO 2 emissions than their peers – France and Sweden . Unlike the Mediterranean countries, Spain and Italy , with their favourable climates, they have not done so by lower levels of energy use (energy use per head is higher than in Denmark or the UK ) or by significant penetrations of new renewables and CHP. Instead, the reason is simple: they both have high levels of nuclear and hydro power, combined with high levels of electricity intensity. None of this forms part of the current EU policy prescription, or emerges from the Reviews.

Another difficult area is that of economic instruments. (There has, of course, been some action in this area, such as the Emission Trading Scheme and carbon taxes in some countries. However, the ETS only came into force at the beginning of this year and there is not yet enough evidence about the impact of the scheme). In general, there is a strong case for giving serious consideration to emissions trading or carbon taxes (essentially very similar measures) as a way of delivering significant savings – and, more particularly, to consider extending such an approach from industry (which, as pointed out above, has already delivered significant savings while the other sectors have grown or at best stabilised) to households and transport. But these are not options Governments like to canvass.

This brings us to another major problem area: transport. Between 1990 and 2002, ghg emissions from transport in the EU-15 rose by 22%; the EEA projects an increase of 34% by 2010. This increase is taking place despite an improvement in the efficiency of new cars – the average CO 2 emissions of new passenger cars reduced by about 11% from 1995 to 2002, for instance. Yet, despite the poor track record, the main measures being relied on in the transport sector parallel those for other sectors discussed above – i.e. energy efficiency (particularly the efficiency of new passenger cars) and renewables (biofuels in transport). The transport sector is not the main focus of this Comment, but similar messages seem to emerge – that existing measures are not proving effective at reducing CO 2 emissions. EU climate change measures have had little impact on transport (or, therefore, oil) demand to date and the continuing focus on renewables, CHP and energy efficiency which the EEA highlights means that little change is likely.

It is just possible that some reconsideration is taking place. It is striking that perhaps the most successful transport policy of recent years – the London Congestion Charge – relied on economic incentives, and there are some opaque suggestions in the UK Review that the UK Government might be considering the implications. Section 8.10 says:

“The Government remains committed to using economic instruments, such as vehicle taxation, as a way of reducing the environmental impact of road transport. The Government will ….keep under review the possibility of new measures in the future.”

This very cautious statement is, however, about as far as the Reviews go in considering whether new approaches might be considered, in the face of the limited impact of the current measures.

European Environment Agency Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2004

HM Government Review of the UK Climate Change Programme: Consultation Paper December 2004

DTI Energy White Paper: Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy February 2003

World Energy Council Energy Efficiency: A Worldwide Review London , July 2004

[1] To illustrate this, consider a simplified example of a CHP station supplying 3.5 units of output, 2.5 of heat and 1 of power. At an efficiency of 85% (the EEA assumption) this would take 4.1 units of fuel. If the alternative heat production had an efficiency of 80% and the power production an efficiency of 36%, 5.8 units of fuel would be required – the CHP plant shows a very useful saving. But different assumptions produce different results. If the CHP plant had an efficiency of 70% (still better than the UK average) it would require 5 units of fuel. If the alternative heat production had an efficiency of 90% and the power generation 55% (reasonable for new plant), the combination of stand-alone plant would require only 4.5 units of fuel, ie in this case the CHP plant uses more fuel and therefore is likely to produce higher emissions. Clearly the actual situation is unlikely to be at either of these extremes and will depend on the particular circumstances, but the calculation serves to demonstrate how complicated it is to forecast the energy savings from CHP. Estimating CO 2 savings involves further assumptions about the fuels being replaced. CHP stations are predominantly gas-fired and may appear to produce emissions savings, compared with the existing generation mix; the apparent savings may be reduced or disappear if the comparison is made with new gas-fired generation.

Please note that if this paper, or any part of this paper, is quoted or reproduced, the source must be acknowledged.

On February 26th 2005, The Guardian printed the above item - Report doubts future of wind power" on its front page. Inside it printed an article by Robert Macfarlane entitled:
Windfarms? You might as well take a knife to a Constable

THE INDEPENDENT 28 May 2005
(Front Page)

Revealed: The real cost of air travel

By Michael McCarthy, Marie Woolf and Michael Harrison

It might be cheap, but it's going to cost the earth. The cut-price airline ticket is fuelling a boom that will make countering global warming impossible.

The tens of thousands of Britons jetting off on cheap flights this weekend have been given graphic reminders by leading green groups that the huge surge in mass air travel is becoming one of the biggest causes of climate change.

Unless the boom in cheap flights is halted, say Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, Britain and other countries will simply not be able to meet targets for cutting back on the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that are causing the atmosphere to warm, with potentially disastrous consequences. In spelling out what is for most people - and for many politicians - a very uncomfortable truth, they are echoing the warnings of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee.

The scientists of the former and the MPs of the latter have set out in detail how the soaring growth in CO2 emissions from aircraft that the cheap flights bonanza is promoting will do terrible damage to the atmosphere and make a nonsense of global warming targets, such as Britain's stated aim of cutting CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

British emissions of C02 from aircraft, expressed in millions of tons of carbon, shot up from 4.6 million tons in 1990 to 8.8 million tons in 2000. But based on predicted air passenger transport growth figures - from 180 million passengers per year today to 476 million passengers per year by 2030 - they are expected to rise to 17.7 million tons in 2030.

Aircraft emissions that go directly into the stratosphere have more than twice the global warming effect of emissions from cars and power stations at ground level and, based on the Government's own calculations, the effect of the 2030 emissions will be equivalent to 44.3 million tons of carbon - 45 per cent of Britain's expected emissions total at that date.

That growth alone, the environmental audit committee says, will make Britain's 60 per cent CO2 reduction target "meaningless and unachievable". The clash of interests cannot be ducked any more, say the green groups. "The convenience we enjoy in covering huge distances in a short time is one of the fast-growing threats to life on earth," said Tony Juniper, the executive director of Friends of the Earth.

"Aviation is an increasing source of climate-changing pollution and we must take steps to curb it now. Planes pump out eight times more carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a train. A return flight to Australia will release as much carbon dioxide as all the heating, light and cooking for a house for a year."

Blake Lee-Harwood, campaigns director for Greenpeace, said: "The simple fact is the boom in cheap air travel cannot be reconciled with the survival of those things we most value about the planet, and will ultimately kill millions of people.

"The only way to stop the problem is to reduce our flying. We just have to accept public transport and highly efficient cars are the only kinds of routine transport we can sensibly use, and air travel is just for special occasions. We may not like that hard truth but we don't have a choice." The green groups feel the only solution is to cut back on demand by forcing prices up, especially as commercial aviation has long benefited from a very easy tax regime. In other words, people will have to be "priced off planes" and the cheap flights bonanza will have to end.

Bizarrely, the Government is facing in two directions at once. In the 2003 energy White Paper, it committed itself to tackling climate change and announced its 60 per cent CO2 target. But in the aviation White Paper later that year, it promised to facilitate the expected mass increase in air traffic, if necessary by providing several new runways to cope with increased demand

There is no sign of the two positions being reconciled by Tony Blair. Yesterday, it appeared the leaders of the G8 group of nations, set to put climate change at the top of the agenda at this summer's G8 meeting in Scotland which Tony Blair will chair, are also flunking the issue. A leaked draft of a climate change communiqué showed they were promising more research into the effects of aircraft emissions, but shying away from any commitment to raise ticket prices.

One of the leading advocates of an emissions trading scheme for airlines is among a group of UK business leaders who wrote to Tony Blair yesterday calling for a "step change" in efforts to tackle climate change. Mike Clasper, the chief executive of BAA, has been the aviation industry's most outspoken supporter of the idea of forcing airlines to pay for excessive carbon emissions, even though it could be financially damaging to many of his customers. Mr Clasper and 12 other senior businessmen say companies are deterred from investing in low carbon technologies because of the lack of long-term government policies and concern that their international competitiveness will be harmed.

Other signatories to the letter include the chairman of HSBC bank, Sir John Bond, the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, Sir Stuart Hampson and the chief executive of Scottish Power, Ian Russell.

The facts about flying

* Air travel produces 19 times the greenhouse gas emissions of trains; and 190 times that of a ship.

* Aviation could contribute 15 per cent of greenhouse gases each year if unchecked.

* Greenhouse gas emissions caused by UK air travel have doubled in the past 13 years, from 20.1m tons in 1990 to 39.5m tons in 2004.

* During the same period emissions from UK cars rose by 8m tons, to 67.8m tons.

* One return flight to Florida produces the equivalent CO2 of a year's average motoring.

* Emissions at altitude have 2.7 times the environmental impact of those on the ground.

* Air travel is growing at UK airports at an average of 4.25 per cent. In 1970, 32 million flew from UK airports; in 2002, 189 million. By 2030 some 500 million passengers may pass through UK airports.

* Cargo transportation is growing by 7 per cent a year. In 1970, 580,000 tons of freight were moved by plane; in 2002, 2.2 million tons. It is forecast to reach 5 million tons in 2010.

* 50 per cent of the UK population flew at least once in 2001.

* Flying 1kg of asparagus from California to the UK uses 900 times more energy than the home-grown equivalent.

Oxford Energy Comment

February 2005

CO 2 Emissions Reduction: Time for a Reality Check?

World Energy Council Energy Efficiency: A Worldwide Review London , July 2004