Green groups funded by big wind

The Mail on Sunday (not online) carries the news that several prominent Scottish environmental groups are sponsored by wind farm companies.

Environment group WWF Scotland admitted that it had received more than £22,500 in the past year from one of the UK's biggest energy firms, Scottish and Southern Energy.

It has apparently also been revealed that Friends of the Earth Scotland are supported by Scottish Power Renewables, while the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland is also in the pay of big wind.

Amusing therefore to see this report issued jointly by the three organisations saying that fears over the reliability of wind power are overdone. Money talks, I guess.

Update on Apr 29, 2012 by Bishop Hill

There was also this RSPB study, which found that "wind farms are not bird blenders".

Comments

[Patagon]

Impressive picture in that article, Dreadnought.

[Palantir]

While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony

[bill]

The bird-chopping argument is trivial. What matters is that wind power, which makes some sense as a power source for isolated self sufficiency fanatics, has no place in 'national energy needs' schemes. In that regard it is simply bats! Which was exactly what the CEGB were saying 35 years ago and were dead right; now, in their modern incarnation, they are cheer leaders for this madness. And if trivial arguments are going to be seriously advanced, then a better trivial argument than the poor chopped up birdy-wordys one is that these things spoil the view and should not be permitted, just as putting up any other significant structure would almost certainly not be permitted in any area of ONB.

[jamesp]

Oi, RSPB!

Link

Which also contains the unintentional slip, "six kilowatts of power an hour", thus neatly reinforcing David Whitehouse's remark on R4 yesterday that we are not currently enjoying "a golden age of science journalism".. :-)

[jamesp]

bill

"The bird-chopping argument is trivial"

Very possibly, but it shouldn't be trivial to a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds!

[WillR]

Well I think that Wind Turbines cause Global warming -- see recent paper on the Rojer Pielke Sr. Web site:

New Paper “Impacts Of Wind Farms On Land Surface Temperature” By Zhou Et Al 2012 Documents An Effect Of Local And Regional Landscape Change On Long Term Surface Air Temperature Trends

The wind industry in the United States has experienced a remarkably rapid expansion of capacity in recent years and this fast growth is expected to continue in the future. While converting wind’s kinetic energy into electricity, wind turbines modify surface–atmosphere exchanges and the transfer of energy, momentum, mass and moisture within the atmosphere. These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate. Here we present observational evidence for such impacts based on analyses of satellite data for the period of 2003–2011 over a region in west-central Texas, where four of the world’s largest wind farms are located. Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72 °C per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to nearby non-wind-farm regions. We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms as its spatial pattern and magnitude couples very well with the geographic distribution of wind turbines.

fwiw...

Also an article about this on Watts Up With That.

[Lord Beaverbrook]

Terry S

It's time that the laws concerning charities should be revisited. They are starting to utilise funds that far out way the initial purpose of the charity, to generate more funds either through direct avertising to the public or political influence to generate income. What we see now is not charity but business and should be taxed as such.

[Lord Beaverbrook]

CPRE's concerns about wind turbine development 'misplaced'

The report raises concerns about the impact on England's landscapes of excessive onshore wind development. The press release originally accompanying the report claimed that 'more than 12,000' turbines were planned, under construction or already operational. It misquoted RenewableUK statistics, which actually show only 1,826 turbines are planned for England and 8,581 for the entire UK.

So that would be 6755 planned for Scotland perhaps with the backing of the Scottish environmental groups and parliament!

[Chairman Al]

list of EU funded ing of NGOs, 2011 contributions: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ngos/pdf/ngos2011.pdf

Birdlife up euro 400k, WWF stuffing euro 600k under the bed and FoE pocketing whopping euro 700K.

Are tax payers their biggest charitable donors in Europe?

[Mike Haseler]

The wind lobbyists have always known that windmills were bird killers.

Likewise their affect on tourism.

Likewise, the wind lobbyists have always know that only a minute number of the promised jobs from wind would materialise.

Like they've always known that wind energy will make the grid unstable and lead to power cuts.

So, move along ... nothing to see here ... just pigs with their snouts in the trough.

The truth is like the MPs expenses scandal, all this corruption is an open secret ... and what does it matter if the lobbyists ran the Renewable energy parliamentary group ... how on earth could it be corrupt for MSPs to let the lobbyists set the agenda of a parliamentary group?

What on earth is corrupt about wind developers paying local community councils an annual bribe for the wind?

What on earth is corrupt about global warming being as one huge gravy train for grant funding for academics?

Come on move along, nothing to see here ... it happens all the time in Scottish politics.

[MostlyHarmless]

From the American Bird Conservancy:

Wind power has the ability to be a green, bird-friendly form of power generation, but can also adversely affect birds. In 2009, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated that 440,000 birds per year were killed by U.S. wind turbines, and included this figure in the agency’s 2013 budget request to Congress. Birds can die in collisions with the turbine blades, towers, power lines, or related structures, and can also be impacted through habitat destruction from the siting of turbines, power lines, and access roads. Some birds, such as sage-grouse are particularly sensitive to the presence of turbines, and can be scared away from their breeding grounds several miles away from a wind farm.

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_farms.html

The exact opposite of the RSPB's stance, although the ABC believes that "Bird-Smart" wind could be acceptable:

American Bird Conservancy’s Policy Statement on Wind Energy and Bird-Smart Wind Guidelines

Wind power is the fastest developing source of energy in the United States and can be an important part of the solution to climate change. However, wind farms can kill birds through collisions with turbines and associated structures, and also harm them through the loss of habitat that birds need for survival. A 2008 Department of Energy report calls for the U.S. to generate 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030. By then, wind turbines are expected to be killing at least one million birds each year, and probably significantly more, depending on the final scale of wind build-out. Wind farms are also expected to impact almost 20,000 square miles of terrestrial habitat, and over 4,000 square miles of marine habitat by 2030, some critical to threatened species.

Some of the most iconic and vulnerable American birds are at risk from wind industry expansion unless this expansion is carefully planned and implemented. Onshore, these include Golden Eagles, Whooping Cranes, sage-grouse, prairie-chickens, and many migratory songbirds. Offshore, Brown Pelicans, Northern Gannets, sea ducks, loons, and terns are at risk, among other birds.