Sir, I’d like to correct Stephen Collins’ assumption about objections to windfarm projects that originate from wealthy Killiney ivory-tower dwellers pondering about their view (Opinion & Analysis – April 8th).
An examination of public submissions regarding the wind industry’s licence applications nearshore relevant project sites has shown that, while most public submissions affirm the necessity to act against climate change, and support the development offshore wind in Ireland; they also protest the steamrolling subsidy-driven large-scale wind projects on nearshore locations, which are bound put more intense pressure on migratory bird habitats, coastal and maritime habitats, and species which are protected under EU law. These public submissions are not made in South Dublin by wealthy pearl-clutchers, but by citizens who want to highlight the environmental effects of repeated investigative survey applications (involving intrusive methods such as seabed drilling and vibro-coring up to 80-metres depth and prolonged sonar testing) on the east coast’s remaining sensitive biodiverse ecosystems.
Most submissions focus on the cumulative impact of different turbine arrays (up to 315 metres high) and the severe impact these arrays will have ecologically critical sandbanks just 10km from shore. These submissions are crucial in examining applications for data gaps and greenwashing tricks used by the wind power industry to speed subsidy-padded nearshore investment plans over the line at all costs.
These developer-selected sites were not only environmentally unviable, but they were also dubious under the Foreshore Act. These east coast projects would have required that they propose alternative sites in other EU countries in order to avoid unintended impacts on vulnerable cetacean, fish, or avian species. Despite citizen and environmental groups’ efforts, these large-scale proposals have stumbled zombie-like toward the governmental solution: they were re-labelled as relevant projects under a curious protocol that was added to the Maritime Area Planning legislation.
Recent research revealed that the National Parks and Wildlife Service (the delegated watchdog for marine ecosystems) was incapable of properly monitoring and vetting large foreshore infrastructure developments.
Citizens or groups that make an effort to participate in public consult and flag serious defects in nearshore infrastructural developments proposals are now in the awkward position of acting in the role of environmental monitors for Government bodies that neglect this job while being wrongly scolded. Yours, etc,
SEANA KEVANY
Kinsale (Co Cork).