 |
 Navigation |
| Not In My Back Yard |
HomepageIan Gallon
‘Not in my back yard’ is a natural response to the imposition of changes to our surroundings, especially those that appear to bring us little benefit. They may spoil our view, increase the flow of traffic, threaten the Natterjack toad, destroy wetlands or lose the rare Fritillary. Indignation turns to anger when we fail to see the logic behind the change, the anger justified in our minds by knowledge of other irrational planning decisions. However indignation and anger win no battles, and may be entirely misplaced. It is essential to look carefully at the proposed changes, attempting to determine the benefits as well as the disadvantages, particularly when the changes are ‘green’.
A case to illustrate the necessary work is the continuing struggle over the proposed waste transfer site at Gore Cross. There was no doubt a measure of ‘nimbyism’ in the original objections. The proposal has, however, been fought for a number of years, culminating in a traffic study that indicates that this is the worst choice of a number of sites. In addition, a road plan has been developed that makes another site, not only preferable, but has also made a considerable improvement in traffic safety on the A35. In addition the logic behind the said need for a transfer facility has been thrown in doubt. All the ‘green’ statements that have been made by the authorities have been made without evidence or research.
The recent announcement that the Severn Estuary is to be the site of a hydroelectric barrage has caused some consternation, and objections raised, based on the loss of beautiful views over the wetlands and the loss of this habitat for thousands of water birds. It is claimed that such a barrage would produce 5% of the country’s need for electric power. There is little doubt that there is enough energy, and assuming that the water flow has been modelled accurately, there is no reason to expect the project to fail. The loss of the wetlands may seem a big price to pay, but there are no comparable sites in Europe, never mind in Britain. There are alternative schemes for the estuary, such as forming multiple lagoons, which will still loose wetlands.
The Green pundits and the government have accepted the need for nuclear power, with statements that it is the only way to obtain enough power. This is simply not true. It is a possible way, however, but a way that needs to be analysed extremely carefully. Some thirty years ago, Scientific American published a study of the total energy requirements for the construction of a nuclear power plant. Briefly, it said that the build energy was roughly equivalent to one third of the total energy output in the lifetime of the plant! This means that one third of its output will be required to build its replacement, leaving us with one third as useful output! And this does not include the energy required for decommissioning. Even if this is done ‘safely’, the materials will be radioactive for thousands of years, posing an ever-increasing threat.
We must use the resources we have to help the world reduce its carbon footprint, even if it is in our back yard. But we must be diligent to ensure that the proposals are rational, and that the price is not too high. If we do not halt global warming we will pay a bigger price than the loss of beauty.
| Back To Top |
| PRINTABLE VIEW | - | TELL A FRIEND | - | ADD TO FAVOURITES |