Last words from Ed Miliband
In the months since I first posted on this blog a great deal has happened in the fight against climate change. Perhaps the most important event was the UN conference in Copenhagen. The conference didn’t produce everything we wanted, and in particular it didn’t deliver a track to a legal treaty. But it did produce a global agreement on climate change that includes the US and China for the first time. The world has made an irreversible commitment to going low carbon.
What does that mean for the English countryside? Reading the comments on the blog it is clear that there is a mixture of optimism and concern.
There is optimism because by getting global emissions under control we can limit the damage that would be done to our landscapes and wildlife. The international action on emissions that is now under way is vital if we want to protect traditional landscapes.
Wind farms and the countryside
But there is concern that new low carbon infrastructure, and in particular windfarms, will change the environment people live in and use. It was interesting to read posts from people who saw windfarms as beautiful, but it is very clear that for many other people they pose a significant risk to areas they have come to love.
The key question for me is not about whether we need windfarms, but where they should be. The challenge of climate change is so large that by 2050 our electricity system needs to be almost entirely carbon free. That is why we are supporting the development of a range of renewable technologies including solar power, wave power and wind turbines located out at sea. But we cannot achieve the change we need if we rule out one of the best developed clean energy technologies: onshore wind.
So we need to make sure we put windfarms in the right places. We need to make sure people have a say in how those decisions are made. And I think we should do more to ensure local people can benefit from the windfarms that are built.
Planning for people and the environment
There is progress on all these fronts. The new Infrastructure Planning Commission is up and running and in the next few months will take decision making on large wind farms out of the hands of politicians and strengthen the consultation process. It will ensure decision making is in the national interest, including our interest in protecting our countryside.
For smaller windfarms and other renewables, we are updating the Planning Policy Statement that guides local planning authority decisions (you can click here to take part in the consultation).
And from 1st April, the feed-in-tariff system will make it much easier for local communities to earn money from small renewable electricity projects, including small wind farms that they build in their area.
I know this won’t be enough for people who want to say a blanket ‘no’ to wind farms, but I hope it will go some way to meeting the concerns of people who want to know that everything is being done to make sure we maximise the benefit from wind farms and minimise the disadvantages.
Away from wind energy, there was also a point made in the comments about the importance of helping energy efficiency at home. That is a really important point because saving energy is the easiest way to save carbon and it also provides an immediate benefit through lower bills. Earlier this month we set out plans to provide more support for people, including ways to pay for the installation of energy saving measures out of savings in energy bills rather than upfront. We expect around 7 million homes to have eco-makeovers by 2020.
Population growth and climate change
Someone also raised the issue of population growth and climate change. This is an issue that comes up a lot but the truth is that it is economic growth not population growth that is the main reason why emissions are rising. If you look at the pattern of emissions growth around the world, most of the nations with the highest population growth rates had low growth rates for carbon dioxide emissions.
The core issue is that at the moment economic development very often brings new high carbon power stations, high carbon vehicles and high carbon lifestyles. The challenge is to break that link so we can all enjoy the benefits of economic growth and development without the dangers of unconstrained climate change. That is why clean energy is so important around the world, as well as at home.
The final point I want to make is about the importance of people engaging in these issues, whatever side of the renewables debate they are on. The shift to low carbon requires a big transition in our country and it is important that that is made on the basis of broad public engagement and discussion. It can’t be left just to politicians or businesses or even the staff of NGOs. The commitment of CPRE members to the countryside is a powerful force in the debate and one I am sure will continue to be so long into the future.
Response from Shaun Spiers
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this debate, and especially to Ed Miliband. We have had over 150 contributions to the blog, and it is clear that there is there is huge interest in how to achieve a sustainable, low carbon future without harming the countryside.
First, it is worth congratulating the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) on an encouraging first year. After years of energy and environmental policy being largely divorced, DECC under Ed Miliband’s leadership has firmly linked them – or at least the climate change aspects of environmental polcy. This is a major achievement. Some of the policies that have come out of DECC over the past year, particularly the draft Heat and Energy Saving Strategy, which contains good proposals for reducing energy demand and promoting energy conservation, have been very welcome.
No one should doubt the importance of tackling climate change. CPRE’s 2026 Vision for the countryside makes clear that we take the issue very seriously indeed. But climate change is not the only environmental issue. Many people are also rightly concerned, for instance, about the impact of energy policy on tranquillity, landscape and wildlife. They are also want to know that decisions are taken in an open and democratic way. It is therefore encouraging that the Renewable Energy Strategy gives a more prominent role to bottom up local planning, though of course much of the detail that will underpin planning decisions, including the new National Policy Statements, is still undecided.
Conflicting environmental goods
Perhaps part of the reason that wider environmental factors have not been connected to energy policy is that doing so exposes the conflicts that can exist between different environmental ‘goods’. Taking one of the most controversial examples as an example, most people agree that wind power will have to play a role in an environmentally sustainable energy mix. At the same time, most people see the value of landscapes that are undisturbed by industrial development.
I was struck by a comment by Andy Boddington, which goes beyond the sterile debate of whether wind turbines are ugly or beautiful: “Wind farms can be beautiful – witness Bryn Titli just over the hill in Powys. But they are a technological beauty, not the harmonious interplay between man and the landscape that is now known as ‘natural. So they are out of order in the AONB.'” Most CPRE members would agree that large-scale wind turbines are inappropriate in National Parks and AONBs, and will have been encouraged that Ed Miliband, without saying ‘never’, seems to agree.
What seems clear is that these conflicts are real and that they deserve to be recognised as genuinely motivated rather than being simply dismissed as ‘nimbyism’, a tedious and depressing insult. It should also be recognised that while there nothing wrong with people trying to protect places they love – the country would be a much poorer place if no one was prepared to so – local people cannot be given a veto over any development. That is why CPRE so strongly supports a planning system that can ensure that a range of arguments, whether from developers or local communities, are properly debated and that decisions are taken ultimately in the public interest, rather than any sectional interest.
Planning for a low carbon future
Planning is too often blamed for stopping wind farm development. Of course, the planning system does stop some developments. It would not be a very good system if it did not. Some developments deserve to be stopped. But as the ENDS Report, a highly reputable environmental journal has recently made clear, “enough onshore wind farms are receiving planning permission each year to meet the technology’s share of the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets four years early”. DECC has largely stopped bashing the planning system, and we look forward to a similar change of heart on the part of the developers.
More positively, we would welcome a greater recognition of the role that planning can play in enabling the behaviour change that is essential to tackling climate change. One of the risks of not connecting wider environmental concerns with energy policy is that we focus too much on supply side measures. What is needed is a fundamental rethinking of the way we use land in light of the urgent need to live within environmental limits, including CO2 limits. I hope that CPRE can play its part in this by establishing a Commission to investigate how planning can contribute to this aim.
One area where the planning system is currently failing us, and where the Government does not seem very ‘joined-up’ is policy on opencast coal mining. It really is not good enough for Ed Miliband to say: “My department doesn’t play a role in making the decisions on planning applications for new coal mining developments – that falls within the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government.” The Government as a whole has a duty to tackle climate change and pursue sustainable development, and the fact is that is that developers and local authorities know that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is likely to approve applications for opencast coal mining on appeal, however damaging to local communities, our climate change targets and the wider environment. It would be good to see DECC and Defra ministers objecting to this!
To conclude, we greatly welcome Ed Miliband’s contribution to this blog, and look forward to seeing his final response. If we are to get public consent for the changes that will be necessary to tackle climate change, it is vital that people are listened to and that legitimate concerns about landscape and natural beauty are not belittled or dismissed. Ed Miliband’s engagement with CPRE is an important indication of the Government’s willingness to debate these important issues in a serious and respectful way.
Ed Miliband – Question 10
Q: |
 |
CPRE has described opencast mining as one of the most environmentally destructive processes taking place in the UK and we have spearheaded local opposition to these in Durham, Shropshire and Yorkshire. Our experience is that noise, pollution and disruption harm residents, damage urban regeneration and discourage investment. Yet, there is a worrying trend for the Government to overturn local decisions and permit damaging schemes. What action will you take to tackle the growing pressure for an expansion of opencast mining?
A: |
 |
Since 1999 there has been a “presumption against” opencast mining in England. It is the responsibility of local planners to consider applications taking into account the environmental impacts alongside the local or community benefits. I believe this has made a difference. There is a value to the country in maintaining access to coal reserves, as long as it’s environmentally acceptable, and this can include shallow coals suitable for surface mining. My department doesn’t play a role in making the decisions on planning applications for new coal mining developments – that falls within the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Ed Miliband – Question 9
Q: |
|
Technologies including solar power, in the new CIS tower in Manchester, for example; geothermal, such as the proposed Eden project scheme; wave power, being developed in the UK; and anaerobic digestion, which can process farm waste and provide fertiliser at the same time, can play a substantial part in securing delivery of renewable energy. Because wind turbines are so visible, are they in danger of overshadowing investment in these other less visible renewable energy sources? How can you ensure other forms of renewables aren’t deprived of investment and research?
A: |
|
Wind farms certainly attract more debate! But behind the headlines we are also encouraging support for other technologies. For example, energy companies have to get a set proportion of power from renewable sources, and since April they have got double credits for wave and tidal power.
Talking to people around the country, including in research organisations and companies, I do think other technologies are receiving attention. My colleague, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, announced £10 million earlier this year for an Anaerobic Digestion Demonstration Programme, which has huge potential.
New technologies like this show we can tackle climate change, and we can create a low-carbon Britain. There will have to be changes, but the prize – from preventing floods in our towns to widespread disruption in our countryside – will be worth the effort.
Ed Miliband – Question 8
Q: |
|
Many CPRE volunteers believe there is a need to bring some light to various debates raging over future energy provision and that costed analysis (capital and running) of various scenarios for energy production will help in this respect. Will the Government provide such an analysis?
A: |
|
Basically, yes: the Government will be setting out our approach to UK energy infrastructure as part of an energy and climate change white paper we’ll be releasing in mid July, and we will be updating our scenarios and the public costs for renewable energy. It’s not the government who runs and maintains energy production, though, but private companies, so the exact capital and running costs are for them.
Ed Miliband – Question 7
Q: |
|
Leading environmental academic Susan Owens has expressed a worry that ‘climate-related policies will be pursued at the expense of other important environmental attributes…. We do need renewable energy but, to put it crudely, we shouldn’t be putting wind farms in wild locations so that we can continue to drive and take cheap flights as much as we want.’ How can we reconcile the potential conflict between competing ‘environmental goods’?
A: |
|
True, we should worry just as much about the carbon from cars as from power stations, and that’s why the move to electric and fuel-efficient cars is important.
But no matter what else we choose to do, we will need to move to low-carbon power. By 2050, to play our part in international action, we will need to have cut 80 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990.
Ed Miliband – Question 6
Q: |
|
Should nationally designated landscapes, such as the Lake District National Park and Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, be ‘no-go’ areas for intrusive new energy infrastructure, including wind farms and pylons?
A: |
|
They’re much less likely to be suitable, and they do get more protection.
I wouldn’t want to say never, though: in exceptional circumstances it may be possible for some limited development to take place without unacceptable impacts on these important sites. It’s also worth bearing in mind that technological change can mean that sites that are currently excluded as locations for particular types of renewable energy development may in future be suitable.
Ed Miliband – Question 5
Q: |
|
In the South West in particular, many CPRE members are concerned about the impact on the landscape of the number of onshore wind turbines being built. What limits are there to the contribution of onshore wind power to meeting the nation’s renewable energy targets, and what is the likely balance between the contribution of offshore and onshore wind to these targets?
A: |
|
Our consultation on the renewable energy strategy last year estimated that the contribution from onshore wind might be 14 per cent of our total renewable energy, and the contribution from offshore wind might be 19 per cent. Of course, the exact share is hard to predict.
We’ll be publishing our Renewable Energy Strategy this summer, which will set out our latest estimates.
Ed Miliband – Question 4
Q: |
|
Can the Secretary of State reassure CPRE that there will be no new investment in coal generation without tried and tested CCS technologies, particularly in relation to the proposed new coal power station at Kingsnorth in Kent?
A: |
|
There will be no new coal-fired power stations without CCS.
Part of the reason for this is to reduce our own emissions, and partly it is precisely to test the technology at scale. It has already been proved in its different parts, and at small scale, but the test that remains is to fit it all together at industrial scale. Britain can make a major contribution to the fight against climate change if we demonstrate it. India and China, for example, both get two thirds of their power from coal.
If we waited until CCS was proven elsewhere, we would be ducking our obligation to help drive the technology, could delay the availability of CCS here and elsewhere – and would be losing the chance for Britain to be at the front of a new industry with global potential.
Instead, I announced proposals for there to be no new coal-fired power plants in this country without demonstrating carbon capture and storage – working from day one, capturing a substantial portion of emissions. They will also have to retrofit CCS to their full capacity within five years of CCS being proven.
Ed Miliband – Question 3
Q: |
|
Remote villages, especially in upland areas such as the Peak District, have significant opportunities for landscape-sensitive energy generation. What place is there for smaller community-scale renewable energy projects that fulfil local energy needs directly, without feeding into a national grid?
A: |
|
A big one! Local communities can spot new opportunities, and by working together can make sure their area leads the transition to low carbon.
The Government offers grants to allow householders, businesses and communities to install technologies such as micro turbines, combined heat and power, heat pumps and solar thermal. And in the Budget, the Chancellor said that over the next two years there will be another £70 million for decentralised small-scale and community low-carbon energy.
I think the role of communities generating their own clean power should not just be about being off the national grid, though. I want every town and village in the UK to be able to make the transition to low-carbon living, and to be able to make plans based on generating power, so I am introducing a guaranteed price for people to feed renewable electricity into the grid.
Ed Miliband – Question 2
Q: |
|
Many CPRE members were concerned by your reported comments that it should be ‘socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area – like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing’? Do you believe local communities have a legitimate role to protect valued local landscapes from damaging energy infrastructure? Or does the seriousness of climate change mean central Government will increasingly overrule local decisions?
A: |
|
Local communities do have an important role. In fact, we’re changing the rules for nationally significant infrastructures so developers have to consult the community before they even submit an application. And I agree that there are some places where wind farms may not be suitable.
The point I was making was just that we do need to think about our attitudes to wind farms. It’s not about overruling local decisions but making the case: the biggest threat to our countryside is not the wind turbine, it is climate change. As the RSPB said, “climate change is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, threats facing wildlife over the next 100 years.”
To head off that threat, we need all the low-carbon power we can get. We should build wind offshore, and in fact we have more offshore wind power now than any other country in the world. But the scale of the change is such that we need onshore too. Together, it can make a big difference: last year enough power for all the electricity for the equivalent of two million homes came from wind power.
Ed Miliband – Question 1
Q: |
|
CPRE recently published its vision for the countryside in 2026 – our centenary year. What changes do you think we will see by then to the character of the countryside as a result of climate change and new energy infrastructure?
A: |
|
We know climate change has already started, and last week the Met Office published new projections for what it will mean for us in the mid 2020s and beyond. In my own area of Yorkshire and Humber, we would not just have a rise in temperature of more than a degree, but we could lose 4 per cent of our summer rainwater if there are high emissions, and have to cope with 5 per cent more rain in the winter.
If we don’t cut global emissions early, the changes to our countryside would get more drastic in the decades that follow. In the 2080s, for example, if we don’t act on climate change, the Met Office projections are that my region would lose more than a quarter of our summer rain, and have more than 20 per cent extra rain in winter. While the summer heatwave of 2003 was just 2ºC above normal, the summer temperatures with unchecked climate change could be 4.2ºC above normal. You don’t need to a scientist to understand that this would have a devastating impact: our landscape, wildlife, and agricultural production would all be altered.
But the character of the countryside does not have to see these changes. It’s not too late to stop them – and in doing so, we have the chance to enjoy a more tranquil countryside as we move to quieter, electric cars, as well as a better public transport.
cpredebates.wordpress.com 