Issue 19 August 2003
COMMENTResponsibilities and retrospective thinkingWhen an artist is faced with the reality of a blank canvas there is a period of reflection before the initial design takes place. This is not dissimilar to being a new President of a well-tried organisation where the committee are your colours and the canvas is the sum of the aspirations of the whole group. As far as I can see a Presidents job, apart from being the fall guy when it all goes pear-shaped, is to be the front man and provide leadership based on experience. As important is the ability to delegate carefully, as no working President can successfully be all things to all men and be at his or her post, indefatigable, inspired and brim-full of ideas, seven days a week. Steering through calm and stormy waters is another well-aired analogy and all these truisms and ideals are, in principle, fine acts to follow. Being simply human and a keen mountaineer with a passionate commitment to the hills in general and the Highlands in particular, living as I do north of Inverness, I see my years of committee work with the MCofS as a firm foundation for decisions in the future. It certainly helps knowing the colourful characters that make up the various committees and it is vaguely comforting to know that each individual has the ability to talk, passionately, at length on a wide variety of topics. I am sure they will ease my way through the various sloughs, steeps, precipices and pastures that the MCofS must travel in its aim of achieving a positive national identity. An important aim is for Government and its affiliated bodies to realise that the amount of work we do is out of all proportion to our actual size and for fiscal recognition of that fact. The MCofS is a mixture of watchdog, guardian, collator, advisor, commentator and tourist office, all in one. Another aim is to increase our membership with the express hope of increasing our staff to endeavour to ease the multi-facetted burden they currently share. Membership is the lifeblood of an organisation, and with the excellent Scottish Mountaineer as our flagship publication, membership is increasing. However as Kitchiner said 'We Need You!' Without the MCofS there would be no umbrella group to act as champions for mountaineers, rock climbers and walkers in Scotland and this fact alone should encourage those would-be members to join us. I wonder how many of our members know what we have already achieved over the last few years? In terms of safety the MCofS has set up the Scottish Mountain Safety Group, now the Scottish Mountain Safety Forum, whilst on broader issues the remits have been vast. A few examples could be mentioned. Fighting for freedom of access to the hills and wild places has meant active involvement in Part One of the Land Reform Bill and now participation in the Access Forum (of which I am a member). It has also meant meeting with landowners and walkers in often-successful attempts to solve access problems. Sometimes this has been with the help of the Highland Regional Council who have been supportive in our role of access watchdog. It was the MCofS that were largely responsible for preventing helicopter flights over the Cuillin and for objecting to an unsympathetic development in Glen Brittle. Likewise we have been very active in conservation of mountain footpaths, both in encouraging repairs and supporting new paths where appropriate, again with support from SNH, Forest Enterprise and BUFT. We were at the forefront of action to get the countryside opened up during foot and mouth and the information we passed to walkers and climbers via the website, managed by volunteer Duncan Gray, was unsurpassed. Many of the things that happen in the office are to liaise with our members and Pet (no, not a dog, our secretary) is constantly busy in communication with members and distributing the various leaflets that we produce or answering questions. Much of what I take on is the positive bedrock of earlier Presidents, in particular I would like to thank both John Donahue and Pete Hill for worthy and sometimes hectic inspiration and to our tireless team of Kevin, Mike, Roger and Pet for keeping the show on the road. I look forward to working with them and the various committees in the years to come.
By John Mackenzie |
TALKING POINTWind Farms in ScotlandFurther Debate Needed?By Kevin Howett In the December 02 issue of Scottish Mountaineer we highlighted the current development of renewable energy and gave accounts of three of our Annual Gathering speakers views. This generated a lot of letters from members, a selection of which are reproduced here. Since then we have highlighted planning applications for hydro developments including a revisit of the Shieldaig Scheme (see later) and we have been able to engage in discussion with some developers and put forward our concerns regarding getting a balance between the destruction of wild land and the value of the development both in terms of energy output and local employment. But the speed at which new wind farms are being put to the planning authorities is currently outstripping all our attempts to make detailed comment. MCofS is part of LINK (an environmental umbrella group) and they have issued a position statement on the issue (see the website). Concerns by local people kick started The Not on Angus Hills (NoAH) group, which then went on to document over 100 proposals. This led to Views of Scotland being set up in Perth 2002, to bring the facts surrounding renewable energy decisions to the Scottish people and their political representatives. Other local groups are now springing up, such as one in Speyside, and their objections are not based on the 'NIMBY' view but on the economic facts of the industry. The current rush to develop wind farms has been described as a new 'Gold Rush by energy suppliers'. Supported by a government policy to meet Kyoto agreements for increased targets on renewable energy production, by heavily subsidising their development, with both fines to energy companies for not meeting targets and subsidies for their development. What is certain is that there has been a lack of public debate on the facts of wind energy economics. In Germany, where they are ahead of Scotland in having 11,000 active turbines, over 100 eminent professors signed The Darmstadt Manifesto that asked for a change in that governments subsidised use of wind energy as a solution to a much bigger problem of increasing CO2 emissions. The efficiency of the turbines, the intermittency of supply (its not always windy), the effect the access roads make to hydrology, the destruction of peat (a natural carbon sink), the apparent doctoring of 'bird-kill' data and the assimilation and scale of modern developments, are all issues that need further scrutiny. But more importantly, the policy of supporting an industry that can only ever supply a tiny amount of energy (10,000 of the largest turbines may reduce UK emissions by 0.05%), whilst not tackling other initiatives that could hugely reduce CO2 emissions (such as increasing energy efficiency of power stations, better house insulation - indications are that this is 55 times more effective, reducing road traffic - the fastest growing source of CO2) at the cost of destroying scenic values and possible tourism economies really needs to be an open debate in order for us all to make an informed decision.
And to hell with the consequencesBy Gillian Bishop A change is about to take place in the Scottish landscape more fundamental than anything seen in the last hundred years. Few areas will escape unscathed as many familiar horizons become blighted by huge numbers of wind turbines with a generation capacity far in excess of Scotland's most ambitious renewable energy targets. As proposals are advertised only in their immediate locality, often buried in a list of applications to build conservatories, the majority of the population is unaware of the scale of these schemes. By the time some of the sites are built and people realise the damaging cumulative effect, it will be too late. The visual implications of the proposals are huge. One hundred and twenty wind-power sites are currently planned with 30 more undergoing wind evaluation. Most will contain between 20 and 150 turbines as tall as a 30-storey block of flats with a blade rotation as wide as the wingspan of a Boeing 747. Depending upon local geography, they may be visible for 30km or more. Ecologically, swathes of the countryside will be ruined when millions of cubic metres of peat, including precious raised and blanket bogs, sphagnum moss and other rare plants are displaced and destroyed by the building of turbine footings and access roads. When (and if) the turbines are dismantled the concrete and aggregate will remain in situ in perpetuity. The effect on wildlife is less clear. Habitat changes may encourage a few species at some sites but they will have a disastrous effect on many others. Developers play down the danger of bird-strike but reports of strike rates from Spain and California, where numbers of turbines have been operational for some years, are not encouraging. Great fears have been expressed for the safety of the golden eagle on Skye. Tourism could suffer badly. A VisitScotland survey last year revealed that fifteen per cent of tourists would steer clear of an area which had wind turbines. A further ten per cent said they would be less likely to return. Such a hike in wind power has no significant environmental advantage for Scotland. Electricity is only generated when the wind blows at the right speed. To prevent our sitting in the dark, an unpredictable supply needs constant back-up from conventional sources. This must come from high-emission coal-fired power stations like Longannet and Cockenzie which can be fired up relatively quickly to provide it. But government incentives make wind-power a money-spinner. Companies large and small are staking their claims in rural areas in a manner horribly reminiscent of the Klondike. The Scottish Executive makes no secret of the fact that it sees wind power only in industrial and commercial terms. It is deaf to all rational argument, rejecting objections on grounds of cumulative impact, for example, when it does not even have a list of all the proposed sites. It is striving to export 60 per cent or more of England's renewable energy target in the next decade. And to hell with the consequences. It is perhaps not surprising then that the enterprise minister is also charged with adjudicating the larger wind site applications. He has yet to turn one down. The future for Scotland's natural heritage is bleak indeed. For further information, a regular newsletter and facts and figures see www.viewsofscotland.org.uk. LettersDear MCofS A reduction in dependence on oil has huge implications in international politics. Consider the bombing of Afghanistan, the Iraq war, the Chinese repression of Tibet, the destruction of forest and tribal peoples in Africa! All partly attributable to oil. Environmental impact on fauna near renewables needs to be taken into consideration, but the reduced risks for not transporting oil must be part of the equation. Scotland does seem to be particularly well placed to make a real contribution in renewables. The argument of scenic impact is subjective, dependent on culture and perception of beauty. That seems a poor guide on which to make a decision on global health. Irene Macgregor
Dear MCofS The worst view in Scotland's hills is a solid block of conifer; turbines above these would be relatively attractive. Turbines along the coast in Gran Canaria are a worthwhile feature and similarly the Clyde coast from Ardrossan to Seamill has little beauty of its own and generators would not spoil that coast, but south of Ayr and north of Seamill they would be seriously intrusive. Can we have a review which defines sites which must be protected and areas where they would be visually beneficial. I would like the MCofS to be impartial. Guy Hansford
Dear MCofS K A Urquhart
Dear MCofS There are other human imprints here, a whaling station chimney in Bunavoneadar and the Lady's Cairn near Amhuinnsuidhe Castle. The question I leave you with is, do any of these intrusions into wildness really detract from the lasting beauty of the Harris hills, or do they merely confirm the place of the human in this environment? Allison McLaren |
Back to Newsletter index next article
|
This page is part of the old website of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland. To visit the new website, click on www.mcofs.org.uk |
[ Home ] [ News ]
[ Safety and Training ] [ Access and Conservation ] [ Sports Development ] [ Council Matters ]
[ Search ] [ Info Service ] [ Membership ] [ Publications ] [ Links ]