ALL areas of government policy require a balancing act. Needs are balanced against costs. Ideals are balanced against practicality. Environmental impact is balanced against jobs.
Nowhere is this need for balance more clearly evident than in provision of our energy. What can be good for the nation can be bad for the local community or, indeed, vice-versa. What can be good for clean power can be bad for visual impact on the environment.
Yesterday, Keith Brown, the Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, approved plans for a 19-turbine wind farm near Cockburnspath, East Lothian. The project has encountered opposition from local councils, community councils and campaigners. And, as a diligent minister, Mr Brown will undoubtedly have measured concerns against likely benefits.
In the end, for him, the balance swung in favour of a claimed £9.4 million in community benefit, the creation of jobs, and the provision of power to 35,000 homes. The project also fitted the Scottish Government’s commitment to renewables.
However, on the East Lothian-Borders boundary, many felt the Lammermuir Hills already had too many turbines. The Aikengall IIa application alone was adding 19 windmills to 16 already consented in 2009 and another 19 in 2013.
It was the wind energy dilemma in a nutshell: landscape intrusion versus clean power. But, even as we aim for the latter, we still need a mix of power sources for energy security, and Mr Brown will have noted with interest yesterday’s claims by EDF that the life of Torness nuclear plant could be extended beyond its projected 2030 closure. Some environmentalists will oppose that. Others will praise nuclear’s low carbon emissions and steady production. Just as some praise wind power. And others oppose it.
The trick remains to balance them all.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel