Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Defence officials block wind farms
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
The Ministry of Defence have been accused of shooting down Gordon Brown’s plans for tackling global warming by opposing wind farms across Britain.
The MoD has opposed most of the proposals on the ground that they will interfere with air defence radar, and all have resulted in delays, permission being refused, public inquiries, or in one case the withdrawal of the planning application.
The MoD’s opposition runs counter to the target set by the Prime Minister for Britain to produce up to 40 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 to combat climate change.
A Commons written answer by the Defence minister Derek Twigg has revealed that the MoD has opposed 28 planning applications for wind farms between 2005 and 2007.
Harry Cohen, the Labour MP, who obtained the answer, said: “It just shows that one hand of the government doesn’t know what the other is doing.”
Most of the planning cases are still pending. They include Hare Hill in East Ayrshire, where the MoD objected to a wind farm on the ground that it would restrict low-flying training.
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
8 December 2007
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
Wind Watch relies entirely on User Contributions |
(via Stripe) |
(via Paypal) |
Share: