Fighting Against the Winds of Change
I read a news article in this morning’s newspaper regarding Meridian Energy’s (a power company) application for a variation of consent on their wind farm development at Makara, on Wellington’s south coast. Tucked in at the bottom was this tasty little nugget, regarding another possible wind farm development being discussed by Meridian and the local farmers (whose land it would be built on).
‘Ohariu Valley Preservation Society is being established to fight the Mill Creek proposal. Society member Margaret Niven said the project had divided the community.’ - Source
What a surprise – whenever a wind farm gets proposed, someone gets their backs up and forms a society to give their infantile tantrums more weight. This sort of behaviour really gets my back up. There are plans for a wind farm on Wellington Regional Council land on a foothill range near where I live (I would be able to see it on my running route, though not from my house) which has attracted the same hysterical opposition that was seen against the Makara wind farm proposal, Project Hayes down in Otago, and now it would seem for the Ohariu Valley Wind Farm (“Mill Creek proposal”). The problem with the current state of affairs is that the process gives these minority folks disproportionate influence and power to delay the project for years through consents, appeals, and the environment court. There is a certain point where the demands of a small minority (no more than 50 people usually, through their puppet “society”) have to be dismissed over the rights of the owners to employ their land for a reasonable use with comparably little disturbance (a little visual “pollution”, though I have to say I like the look of turbines on hills; and depending on the wind direction and proximity to one or two turbines, the slight whooshing sound of the turbines which one can easily adapt to).
Please do not take away the wrong idea with regards to what I am saying. There does need to be some form of process where proposals such as this are weighed up compared to their costs. Not just in actual pollution (if any), but also in externalities such as conservation value (to a reasonable extent, not to idiotic extremes), visual pollution, and noise pollution. But let us be realistic – when the Resource Management Act was passed issues of noise and visual pollution were meant to combat ugly buildings pumping out 130dB music 24/7, not wind turbines on hills making whooshing noises as they make power. Nor was conservation value meant to stop all buildings or all landscapes from being altered for all time; just those of real significance (such as Mt. Ruapehu, or the Treaty House). I would argue that the RMA is being twisted to suit a purpose it was never intended to serve, by busy-bodies and anti-progress Luddites determined to stop all things that do not suit their narrow utopian ideal of how the world should be. If nothing else, the RMA needs renovating to ensure that the misapplication of its provisions ceases.
But why is it that people have to be so negative about progress. I would be quite happy for a wind farm to be built in the area near my house. Heck, they could put one on top of our hill – there is enough technological and hydrological paraphernalia on it as it is – one more would make no difference. Most of these sites are chosen for a reason – minimal impact. In all cases, the land owners consent to the land being used for that purpose (obviously). But more generally, why must we object to things changing? Are barren hills really so visually attractive that sticking a few wind turbines on top will turn them into the modern day equivalent of an Industrial Revolution style British town? If you asked the people who object to these things, you would think so! Is a decrepit building of which we have scores really such a priceless artefact that it must be preserved for all time? Must no building or house ever be altered or moved in order to give it a new lease on life, or allow for the land to be used for another purpose (sometimes the most rabid objections being to those where there is clear public benefit, such as a road or a youth centre)? Why must we be so dogmatic in ensuring that progress be barred? After all, not all progress is bad.
Perhaps the best solution in this case would be to flip off the power to the “society” members who oppose every new generation development when demand grows too great. They might see the positive benefits more clearly then.
Posted in: Politics, Thoughts, Technology, Culture
