Gone with the Wind

by Ivor R. Russell

Ivor Russell, who before his retirement was Senior Partner in his own consultancy business in construction economics, is Secretary of CPRW's Carmarthenshire Branch and a member of the National Executive Committee.

In the film version of Margaret Mitchell's story, all that was left in the main character's life, as played by Vivian Leigh, was love for her country estate. Everything else had been blown away.

Wales has a similar situation in reverse. The very love of landscape that many people cherish as the ultimate value in their lives is under threat of being blown away by the production of one form of energy. Devastating as this is, it is not the only damage being done. Are they being unreasonable, impracticable, just selfish, or blind, those people wishing to preserve the landscape from this form of industrialisation? Should politicians and those who govern our lives have a vision of landscape value and declare their policy in order to ensure the future existence of that value with balance and fairness?

Should commercial interests share that vision? Their descendants may mourn the loss of that value even if they do not.

Are we to trust people who in their lack of knowledge of the true facts of energy welcome or promote inadequate solutions? Teify Pools

Are we to approve politicians who opt for every short term solution which for love of power, use it to our detriment? Are we to trust commercial interests who provide jobs and gain profit on short term aims when a concerted policy and better planned solutions would provide even more jobs and profit?

Or are we to trust people who have nothing to gain in commercial or profit seeking terms but who wish to preserve values?

The conflicting issues are, therefore, exploitation or values. How should we take sides?

These questions were on my mind as I toured Wales to take photographs for the CPRW exhibition Ð first shown at the Royal Welsh Show 2002.

The appreciation of landscape is a fairly recent phenomenon in history. The long climb out of barbarism was encouraged by a philosophy which saidgo forth and multiply and exploit the earth. But starting five or six centuries ago in the western world a change in attitudes began to appear. Painters began to notice landscape, writers began to extol it, poets began to praise it, musicians began to, later, Òemulate it in soundsÓ and photographers began to popularise it. Parallel with artistic efforts, scientists began to study and analyse it. In the last decades new use of words became endemic: diversity, sustainability, environmentally. A new method of selecting and controlling desirable or necessary development arose: it is called planning. It is a mere century or so old but it has served us well in that century and should not be lightly abandoned. And out of all this has arisen the enjoyment of tourism. This is the world we now have. It is a world not just of exploitation but of a counterbalancing need for conservation, preservation and appreciation of enduring qualities. As the march of urbanisation continues, the need for an escape, a counterbalance, a green belt, a scallop shell of quiet, a mountain or hill, a river valley, a field pattern, an undulation in the levels, a belt of trees becomes a necessity. My very ordinary edition of 'Wild Wales' is prefaced by the extraordinary claim. To read it is to wash body and soul in the open air, to be purified from the stains of civilisation, to meet and greet the mighty mother. Oh rare George Borrow.

As I stood above Teifi pools near Tregaron I thought of Borrow, who subtitled his book 'Its people, language and scenery'.

A modern George Borrow would, I think, have a world view of Wales and its scenery with its unique combination of virtues and values dependant basically upon its geological range and diversity. In Mark TwainÕs words they don't make any of it any more. In comparison, vast areas of the earth appear as flat plains of little scenic value. Sea comprises 70% of the planet's surface area. Of the 30% land mass area 0.0013% is Wales with its incomparable variety of scenic types. How should this be valued? Surely by means of assessment and protection similar to the World Heritage Sites wich are devoted to the works of man's occupation of this planet earth. National Parks have gone some way to protecting special areas but not far enough and, in a shrinking world of travel, population increase means more people are visiting areas denoted for their beauty, even if not yet fully protected. Why therefore industrialise WalesÕ land mass with serried rows of wind turbines? Are they the only answer to future energy needs? If there is a choice, are they the best answer? Should the land mass of Wales be left free?

Let us consider how the proponents of wind farms betray in much of their propaganda this disregard of a modern George Borrow's advocacy. It is as though they recognise it but wish to negate it. Most pictures of Denmark's wind farms show a dead flat landscape. A recent issue of the influential National Geographic magazine shows cows peacefully grazing in a flat landscape, typical of the plains of Canada or the U.S.A. The TV weather forecasts show turbines revolving with no landscape at all. This is in order to avoid the visual landscape issue, as the use of language is used to fog the issue. If you wish to manipulate the portrayal of an issue of values then you no longer call a spade a spade. Wind farms are not farms, housing developments and business developments are not parks, but this is how they describe them. In this way the emotions and opinions of the people are falsely assuaged so they still think they have farms or parks or something similar.

Single issue politics distorts the issues involved. The DTI in pursuit of land-based wind turbines and their advocacy of less planning and quicker decisions follows a decade of opposition. Brian Wilson, in granting permission for the North Hoyle offshore wind project, said Wales is blessed with some of the finest energy rich natural resources in the world. I am confident that government investors and the community will work together to create a successful beneficial development. On television he said that it was surprising that no opposition to the offshore wind farm had arisen. He should not be surprised because it is OFFshore and not Onshore. Wales has its landscape, its richest resource being rapidly depleted. Discord has been sown in communities, pain caused that should not have been necessary. The same Western Mail report of 1st August quoted Greenpeace claiming that wind power at sea could meet the UK's needs three times over. If this is true, add all the other sources of renewable energy over a fifty year cycle (solar, biomass, subsea and tidal methods) and the inevitable conclusion is that the priceless asset of WalesÕ landscape does not need to be sacrificed. This vision makes present free for all policies onshore the work of a philistine lack of planned philosophy. It is divisive and damaging and should be reconsidered. Even if the Greenpeace claim is false or too optimistic, the other sources can more than meet the needs.