4G whiz and wind resistance

At least a couple of good things happened on the technology front this week. First was the announcement about 4G phones. This is great news for commuters, as it will allow for much faster phone conversations on the part of their fellow travellers. Instead of having to spend an entire journey overhearing someone droning on about the sales conference at Sunshine Desserts, or last night’s tiff with the boyfriend – “I’m like ... so he’s like … and I’m like …”, it will all be over in a single nanosecond, and they will be able to enjoy the rest of their commute in peace. Of course, they’ll still arrive 11 minutes late, wrong kind of absurdity on the line, Raynes Park.

So much for improvements to the ambient sonic environment. Now we turn to its visual analogue. Yes, analogue, I like analogue, analogue is good. Wind factories are rather more contentious. Other than to cause offence, controversy and nuisance I’m not quite sure what the point is of these establishments, except perhaps the surefire acquisition of some kind of subsidy, something vaguely green-related and thus under no circumstances to be questioned. Money, in other words (well, it used to be green).Therefore the second piece of good news is that I’m able to report a small local victory in this respect, and all praise is due to those tireless campaigners who have had a clutch of these sinister monstrosities rejected. Turbines, that is. Probably there will be an appeal, which ones hopes, but does not necessarily expect, will be fair, democracy being what it is in this country, but for now victory lies with the common man. The reasons why this particular proposal has been rejected are several, and site-specific, and need not concern us here. The serious point I want to emphasise is this. Notable, as always, in arriving at this decision, was that objection on the basis of people simply not wanting to have to look at, or being forced to see, these immense structures was not allowed as an admissible argument. This is outrageous.

There are hundreds of these schemes around the country and it seems to me a criminal waste of time, effort, and money - as well as a denial of democracy and a cause of huge amounts of anguish - that not only does each one have to be fought separately, from scratch as it were, by residents with no training in such matters and with better things to do, but that objectors have to resort to spurious arguments in order to have the unwanted proposals thrown out. They are forced into creative dishonesty. They have to establish statistics about potential distractions to passing drivers, interference with air traffic control, confusion to the local bat population. Objective, quantifiable factors which really don’t matter to them. They can’t just say, “we don’t want them, they spoil our view, they ruin the landscape, we hate the damn things like everbody does”. Why shouldn’t they? “Sorry, mate, that’s subjective; not allowed”.

Of course, willing philistines can always be found and paraded who will say they like wind turbines, think they’re rather beautiful and hint at mystery and romance in a wistful kind of way, but to any unbiased, sensitive person with a love of rural, coastal or even urban beauty the fact is that large swathes of the UK and its shorelines have been and continue to be visually damaged by these contraptions, which even their proponents admit to be of doubtful and at best minimal efficiency.  They are not going to go anywhere near meeting our future energy requirements. The so-called environmentalists, who are so up themselves about saving the planet are, it seems, quite happy to destroy the visual environment, and take a perverse delight in doing so. This is not an aspect of the environment noticeably important to or appreciated by any other species than ourselves. The eco-warriers evidently don’t realise that humans inhabit an ecological niche too, one which we invest with complex psychological and aesthetic values and meanings. They don’t understand that subjective assessments are what we as human beings do. Our subjectivity is what makes us human. No other species has this faculty, however small and furry and lovely and hard to find. While we are morally obliged to take care of our planet and all its inhabitants, we have rights too, and the right to an unspoiled landscape and an unsullied view is one of them.

In this case, ironically, it’s other inhabitants, other biological species, the smaller the better, who we rely upon for help. This works as follows. The best way of objecting to anything like a wind factory is to discover, or if necessary invent, some obscure kind of putrid weed or malicious rodent which any sane person would immediately hose with something rich in organophosphorus derivatives. Saying you don’t want the wind factory won’t work, and if you try, you’ll be stigmatised as a NIMBY, a BANANA, a NEWARK or some other unpleasant acronym or anagram. What you need to say is this. Well, would you credit it? Would you just effing believe it? Someone’s only gone and reported a possible sighting of a lesser-brained, poo-eating, SARS-transmitting, ever-so-rare, stinging arse-beetle right where the turbines are going to be built (and for turbines read HS2, airport runway, whatever). I mean, it may be the only one this side of Tasmania. Then wait for the response, which will be - OK, fine, project cancelled.

Easy. Too easy. There’s something wrong with our sense of values here. I’ll be pondering the subjective appreciation of our surroundings in future postings.

22 February 2013