Moray Friends of the Earth

 Campaigning for Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice implications of Onshore Windfarms in Scotland

 By Rod Lovie (Aug 2003)

Compared to nuclear and coal fired power stations, wind power can be seen as a cheap, clean method of creating electricity.  However, as with most development, there is the potential for an uneven distribution of environmental costs and benefits.  In this essay I wish to examine some of the issues raised by onshore windfarms from a variety of environmental justice perspectives.  This will then enable me to look at whether wind power can be seen as an ‘environmentally just’ method of generating electricity.

In global terms Scotland is an affluent country with relatively high energy consumption.  In 2001/02 the demand was for 32,466 GigaWatt hours, up 9% from 1990/91.  Scotland generates 40,970 Gigawatt hours with 21% being exported to England and Wales.  However around 45% is produced from fossil fuel and 45% from nuclear.  As part of the Climate change Programme, Scotland is committed to increasing the proportion of electricity generated by renewable energy from 10% to 18% by 2010 (Scottish Executive 2002).

However, at present the only profitable form of mass renewable energy generation suitable for development appears to be onshore wind.  With multi-million pound developments being proposed throughout the country the question has to be posed whether there are environmental justice implications in this present course of action. 

Locally in Moray the number of recently proposed windfarms have been causing controversy.  A study by The Moray Council identified areas of possible windfarm development and was opened up for community consultation in 2001.  This has been developed into policy guidance for wind energy in Moray.  It states that:

“The Moray Council wish to positively encourage renewable energy developments in the appropriate locations and to encourage a reduction in energy consumption to support the UK commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions.”  (The Moray Council, 2001, p1)

Currently there are two sites which have been given consent, one awaiting a decision by The Moray Council and at least one being worked up into a planning application.

Overall the environmental benefits of onshore wind energy generation outweigh the environmental costs.  The environmental benefits of clean renewable energy production; the reduction in greenhouse gasses and the reduction on our dependence on coal, gas and nuclear energy will be enjoyed by us all.  However as in many proposed developments the environmental benefits to the wider community are often forgotten by local residents if the environmental costs are seen to be unequally distributed around the local area of the proposed development.  The perceived environmental costs of visual and noise pollution are restricted to the area immediately around the development.

In addition to this, the financial costs and benefits are frequently seen to be unequally distributed.  The financial benefits of the development are exclusively retained between the developer, the energy production company, the investors in the development, the landowner and the local council (through business rates).  Meanwhile it is perceived that the financial costs of a decrease in property value, a potential decrease in tourism and no additional employment benefits are retained by the local community.

However, if the environmental benefits outweigh the costs but the costs are unequally distributed this should not necessarily be a reason to stop the development.  Rather it should be used as a reason to attempt a more favourable distribution of the environmental costs. 

Environmental injustice can be viewed as a result of procedural or structural inequalities.  Procedural environmental justice is an equality of opportunity to access information and to influence the process (Dunion & Scandrett, 2002).  Structural environmental justice is an equality of the outcome of the process.

In the case of windfarms the procedural issues under scrutiny is the planning law in Scotland and how local communities can have any influence in it.  The process is developer led with The Moray Council Local Plan and the Wind Energy Policy Guidance designed to give advice to developers of what is acceptable.  As the developers will be seeking planning permission from the Council, the local Councillors are unable to comment on the individual proposals and have chosen to not discuss renewable energy at all.  This has meant that the local community and the developer have had to interact without any assistance or guidance from the local Council.  The approaches by the different windfarm developers to interacting with the local community have been many and varied.  One, Renewable Energy Systems (RES) chose to establish a stakeholder committee to bring local stakeholders (residents, community councillors, landowners etc) together to look at ways to minimise concerns and investigate options for community involvement.

It was hoped that this could provide a forum to discuss concerns before local opinion became polarised.  This did not happen, however the process has been useful in looking at the mechanisms for maximising community benefit from the development.  Although it appears standard practise for a developer to establish a monetary community fund for the local area, if a community is to embrace this dramatic change to their locality surely a sense of ownership of the project must be engendered.  While a community fund established by a benevolent developer can inject much needed funds into local community projects it can also be viewed as a cynical ploy to smooth the way for planning approval.

Many of the flaws in the planning process have been shown during the course of the application.  A major developer has more legal expertise and finances than a community.  In addition weaknesses in the interface of traditional democratic structures have been exposed.  The unwillingness of the council to become involved surely increases people’s apathy to established politics.  This apathy can be seen to be reflected in the lack of interest in the Community Council which some did not know to be in existence.  

The structural environmental justice issues look at the outcome of the development and seek to redistribute costs and benefits within an unequal system.

The present system of development seems to imply that a landowner owns not only the land, the minerals beneath it and anything that happens on it but also the wind that whistles over it.  Current land ownership patterns in Scotland mean that the spread of windfarms will be decided by the whims of those who own the land designated as acceptable for development.  Whether the land is owned by a generous landlord seeking to maximise rentals to invest the money back into the estate or an absentee landowner seeking to maximise his investment in the Swiss banking system, the people who live there can still feel excluded from the benefits of the development.  

While the process of individuals and corporations claiming ownership of what was once seen as being in common ownership (land, grazings, forests, seas and now the wind) is continuing unabated there seems no structural approach from Government to reverse this trend.  It is therefore imperative that imaginative approaches must be attempted to reclaim a sense of ownership while working within the current unjust structures.  This could include the electricity being made available locally or a part of the development being put into community ownership.

While community involvement and local benefit is a major concern of those living next to proposed windfarms another issue that is often raised is that of negative impact upon the value of surrounding property.  This concern ensures that those who see property as an investment to be realised when they move out will raise planning objections.  Alternatively many rural families pass property down through the generations and do not have a concern with the financial value placed on their land.  This raises the interesting question of whether it is easier for a developer to get permission in an area populated with predominantly indigenous families compared to an area of the countryside populated with relatively new incomers or those whose working lifestyle are more transient and possibly more profitable.

Of course this development cannot be looked at in isolation.  Electricity production has far reaching consequences and any method must be compared to the alternatives.  Clearly there can be no comparison between the effects on a community of living next to a windfarm to the effects of living next to an open cast coal mine or coal fired power station.  If we wish to continue to use an equivalent amount of electricity we have to produce it somehow.  All methods have costs which are not paid for by the end user.  In the case of windpower these externalities are the visual pollution of the wind turbines.  In the case of electricity production from fossil fuel the externalities are the visual and health implications to those living next to an extraction site, the power station or the roads in-between.  In addition the effects on the global environment by pumping out carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.  The greenhouse gas emissions have implications to people all round the world.  Those suffering from floods, changes to weather patterns or droughts are unlikely to have benefited from the electricity which contributed to the global warming.  In the case of nuclear power many future generations will have to live with the externalities of the waste that is produced so we can have electricity now.

If we want electricity, and there is no sign that this is about to change, then we will have to face up to the consequences of our needs.  If the solution of mass electricity generation is chosen then there are going to be inequalities in cost allocation and externalities.  These have to be compensated for.  However windfarms should not be the only method which should have this responsibility.  Those affected by pollution and global warming should be compensated by fossil fuel stations and those future generations should be compensated by the nuclear industry.  If all these charges were passed on to the consumer wind power would undoutably be the ‘cheapest’ option.

In conclusion, there are externalities and environmental costs to generating electricity from windfarms.  However, if attempts are made to balance these, there is no doubt that it is an environmentally just method in comparison with the alternatives.

References

Publications

Dunion & Scandrett (2002)  Just Sustainabilities, Ed by J Agyeman, R D Bullard & B Evans, Earthscan, London

Scandrett, E (2002)          Community Sustainability Audits, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Edinburgh

Scottish Executive (2002)  Key Scottish Environment Statistics 2002, Scottish Executive

The Moray Council (2002) Wind Energy Policy Guidance, The Moray Council

Warburton D ed (1998)    Community and Sustainable Development: Participation in the Future, Earthscan, London

Internet

www.est.co.uk/scri/          Scottish Community Renewables Initiative

www.drummuir.org.uk     Local website with info on windfarm

www.res-ltd.com              Website of RES the local developer

Send mail to Moray FOE with questions or comments about this web site

Website updated 05 February 2009