Tilting at the RSPB

23 Replies to “Tilting at the RSPB”

1. Carefully sited wind farms! When former staff of the RSPB are the ones carrying out the Environmental Assessment and have no knowledge of the Barn Owls killed by turbines due to information being withheld how can they be called ‘carefully sited’. Both birds and bats can not learn how to avoid these industrial units placed out in the countryside mainly because they are dead!

2. Of course this is also an argument for re-nationalising energy, and water (and probably telecommunications and public transport). Among the barmiest of privatizations ever, since it inevitably discourages innovation and investment, if they cut into profits of the shareholders.

3. I’ve been an ecotricity customer for years. Amazingly good customer service and 100% renewable electricity with proper investment in more (unlike the smoke and mirrors from other “green” suppliers/tariffs).

   Would thoroughly recommend them, even just to be able to speak to a real person in Gloucestershire who picks up the phone immediately, actually helps you and gets things done as they said they would.

   1. Shaun – welcome and thank you. And that sounds like a good recommendation.

4. You have ducked an important question.
   How much money does the RSPB receive from Ecotricity?
   Please answer.

   1. Alan – hardly ducked. The answer is in the link in the blog to the Ecotricity link up with RSPB. And the answer in £60 if you get electricity and gas.

5. “he’s a bit of a card isn’t he?”

   Yep. Most entertaining! Sadly now pay-walled at the Torygraph (tho’ not his RSS feed …) and I must say I was disappointed at his lack-lustre lack of ranting when he was on that “Question Time” a few weeks ago. I wonder whether he will rant at the DM for incorrectly spelling his name?

   As for shock-horrorness about greenness: a green snout is not pre-requisite for sticking in a trough – just a snout will do.

6. I was told by an authentic source that the RSPB maintains an entire department of ‘Windfarm Application Eco Consultants’ which guarantees to get landowners their highly profitable windfarm – in return for a whopping fee. The annual income that RSPB receives for ‘selling windfarms’ was alleged to exceed £10,000,000. is there any truth in this? If there is such a team of ‘hired gun consultants’ within RSPB it would be a grave betrayal of conservation in my view.

   1. Graham – I don’t work for the RSPB, but when I did it certainly wasn’t true, or even close to reality. You’d better downgrade your source, I suggest.

7. Surely any large scale energy generation method will have detrimental effects upon the environment, some direct, others indirect. And any new industrial facility, of any colour of energy, will impact upon some species, but not others. We should strive to ensure that the best bio-diverse solution is found to our energy problem. For our household, that is Ecotricity. Not the cheapest, admittedly, but then again, I don’t go outdoors in a five quid waterproof. So if we want less pollution from our energy producers and we’re not prepared to give up our reliance on power-thirsty gadgets, we either invest in renewables or sell our deluded souls to nuclear. Unless someone has a better idea?

   1. Graeme – thank you. In practice, it will be a combination of giving up gadgets, nuclear power, wind turbines and a whole host of other measures that will have to be taken to give us half a chance to reduce the impacts of climate change sufficiently.

   2. “sell our deluded souls to nuclear.”

      Unfortunately the nuclear option has been centred around uranium technology which was available because of its utility for producing very big bangs and being available off-the-shelf as it were to the detriment of other possibilities like thorium reactors which would utilise an abundant ore regarded as a nuisance waste material in mining operations and would produce energy with more manageable risks and legacies but which doesn’t go bang in such a spectacular fashion which probably accounts for our disinterest although the Indians and Chinese are keen on it as so is Baroness Worthington and it is her only redeeming feature as far as I can see.

      1. You’re not wrong, FC. I would’ve thought that thorium technology would be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any Government, but apparently not. There’s obviously not enough votes in good science.

8. I understand how bats are effected by wind turbines, the air pressure generated by the turbines making their internals go pop, but owls? Someone had better tell the 6 short eared owls I’ve been photographing that their lives are in danger!! Especially since they’re hunting on a regular basis in a field with six turbines all winter..that’s one downside to the end of winter..no shorties.
   I’m actually quite glad the RSPB are doing this it will end the debate once and for all the damage turbines do etc….must be spring I just praised the RSPB.

9. Hi Mark,

   Thanks for the link to JD’s article with his grandiose use of mind blowing facts. Where did he get ‘according to research by the ornithological society SEO/Birdlife, each wind turbine kills between 110 and 330 birds a year. This means that worldwide, wind turbines kill at least 22 million birds a year.’?? I tried to find it but couldn’t. There were a few articles quoting, as well as disputing those figures but not the original source.

   The trouble with articles like this is that these facts become accepted and then the ‘truth’. I know JD has a passionate hatred of wind farms so I guess he would not like to suggest how many birds are killed by his beloved fossil fuelled cars, planes or plastics floating in the oceans.

   It was also interesting to see that anyone with an alternative view point got a big thumbs down when commenting, he clearly has a cult following!

   PS I saw a flock of about 500 pink-feet geese feeding in a field of turbines couple of weeks ago. They didn’t seem bothered and headed straight for it early in the morning coming from their roost, good grass I guess.

10. Cannot see wind turbines saving the planet until.
    They produce electric 24 hrs 365 days a year.
    China,India and the major polluters of present time use them for the majority of their electric or use other green methods.
    It is also a dangerous thing for RSPB to make money from backing private unproven things and for sure even now there is confusion over Turbines,do they kill birds,are they just as polluting as other methods if production of them is taken into account,can they ever become economic without massive subsidies which I know Mark hates subsidies.The amount of worldwide pollution saved if we count all the turbines in the world is probably less than 1%(admittedly a guess).It is whatever the saving a pathetic amount until all country’s take it on board.Saying UK should set a example just will not work in economic thinking in the emerging industrial country’s.
    How crazy is it that millions of tons of wood goes to landfill and also exported abroad for other country’s to use it for power which causes just as much pollution as if we used it ourselves.

11. Wind turbines should be erected where the electricity is needed. Why do different electric companies charge different prices when the electricity comes down the same cables? Whatever the pros and cons are for wind farms, they are unsightly and it seems the sighting of them has to be in “wild” places. If the companies who own them do not give us cheap electric why should the windfarms be subsidised? The ones next to our NNR are about twenty feet shorter than Blackpool Tower, to give an example. They are preferable to nuclear power stations, and the danger they pose, but not good enough for our environment and landscape. Yet again we have sold ourselves short due to lack of thought. More houses and more industrial building means more power required. Come on “leaders” get your act together.

12. Sadly there is insufficient scientific information available yet, to make a valid judgement as to where windfarms can be ‘carefully sited’.
    The ornithological assessments submitted by the windfarm developers are lengthy, but are based on almost no serious independent scientific research. The impact of the spinning blades depends on the bird species, where it flies, how many pass through the windfarm area, the height the birds may fly, and the collision avoidance ability of the birds. And these ornithological assessments only consider birds that come from SPAs, and not other species. At the moment, there is a very significant risk that long-term harm will be caused to our coastal birds by the huge offshore windfarms.
    If you want to see the scale of proposed offshore windfarms, take a look at:
    http://www.4coffshore.com/offshorewind/

13. I could not find Delingpole’s actual blog (paywall?) but the Mail based this article on it.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305197/RSPB-makes-killing–windfarm-giants-turbines-accused-destroying-rare-birds.html

    Many of the most angry critiques of RSPB policy/income/ consultancy on wind farm applications is coming from actual RSPB members and conservationists who have been ‘sold down the river’ by the two-faced behaviour of the RSPB.

    ABSTRACT
    The RSPB has objected to only six per cent of all new windfarm developments. But the charity’s conservation director Martin Harper claims it will always fight windfarm developments where birds are particularly threatened.

    Henry Thoresby, an ornithologist who has fought several turbine applications, said that in his experience the RSPB is far too quick to withdraw its objections.
    “‘There was one proposal on the Dengie Peninsula in Essex which they really should have fought hard – a very important wilderness area with large flocks of golden plover. ‘But when it went to judicial review, they refused to help and the local bird group were left to fight on their own.

    ‘It’s a strange organisation. My suspicion is that they’re less interested in birds than global warming.’

    Another disappointed member is Terry O’Connor, a retired panel-beater, who for 30 years has watched migratory birds such as Brent geese and Bewick’s swans near his home in Silloth, Cumbria. When Npower applied to build four wind turbines in the middle of the route, birdwatchers begged the local RSPB area representative for help
    When Npower applied to build four wind turbines in the middle of the route, birdwatchers begged the local RSPB area representative for help. At first the RSPB was supportive and planners rejected the application. But when the developer appealed, the RSPB mysteriously withdrew its objection and the turbines were built.
    Mr O’Connor said: ‘The developers came up with some cock-and-bull plan about how they were going to pay farmers to feed the geese to lure them away from the turbines. ‘But to anyone who knows anything about bird behaviour this is a nonsense. ‘Now the turbines are up and of course the birds haven’t changed their flightpath. Locally we all feel utterly betrayed by the RSPB. They should never have let this happen.’

    The article also points out that at least 1/3 of the RSPB Council have strong links to windfarm/ climate change interests:

    The RSPB is run by its council of 18 members. More than a third have close ties to the green industry or are pro-wind campaigners. They include:

    Chairman, Steve Ormerod – Professor of Ecology at Cardiff, specialising in the effects of climate change on freshwater eco-systems; ex-president, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

    Chief Executive, Dr Mike Clarke – who has ‘campaigned for the integration of the environment and the economy’, according to the RSPB website.

    President, Kate Humble – the TV presenter said in 2012: ‘People don’t like windfarms. But the fact is that we need to have alternative sources of energy and windfarms are one of them.’

    Dr Havard Prosser – ex-chief environmental science adviser to Welsh Assembly and a renewable energy and sustainability advocate.

    James Alexander – businessman and chairman of The Green Thing, ‘a not-for-profit public service that inspires people to lead a greener life’.

    David Baldock – executive director of green think-tank the Institute for European Environmental Policy.

    It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that ‘Climate Change’ has become more important than actual bird conservation, if RSPB is NOT opposing windfarms next to Golden Plover colonies – doesn’t that suggest their priorities are elsewhere?

    1. It’s the money

14. On the subject of how much we are willing to pay for “essential” utilities and how we personally balance that against environmental impact, or less impact, at least with electricity we have a choice. For water and sewage disposal we have no choice and therefore can’t choose the option to pay more for a less polluted water environment, although arguably we should all stop taking this service for granted and pay appropriately to ensure the plentiful drinking water we enjoy and the “flush and forget” waste disposal we don’t even think about don’t damage every last stretch of our rivers. Eutrophication in rivers and lakes doesn’t just kill a few birds (sorry, not being flippant here), it wipes out whole plant and animal communities.

    And, in case you were wondering, I don’t work for a water company!

15. Is Graham White commenting here the same Graham White working for the RSPB as senior wetland ecologist?

    1. surprised – I’d be you if it were…

Comments are closed.