Not all residents oppose wind farms

OPINION: Is envy behind much of the opposition to wind farms proposed for North Canterbury, asks BEN KEPES.

I note with interest the conflicting perspectives articulated recently about the proposed wind-farm developments in North Canterbury.

Meridian's Ken Smales, and resident John Carr seemed poles apart in their perspectives. A more cynical person would suggest that might have something to do with one gaining a potential profit from the proposal and the other faced with a development that will impinge on his own backyard. It seems timely to hear a more neutral point of view, one neither charged through self-interest nor NIMBYism.

As a resident with no commercial tie to any of the companies investigating wind farms, I want to offer another perspective to that of Carr.

I own a property with one of the better views of the Mt Cass ridgeline (one of the locations proposed for a wind farm). I have a regular habit of visiting the ridgeline itself and I'm also someone with an interest in the conflicting issues around economic development, environmental impacts, and New Zealand's balancing act between desire for wealth, pride in its sustainability and comprehensive regulatory framework. I wanted, therefore, to give my views on the plan and on the maelstrom that seems to have blown up around it.

I firstly wanted to reflect on the assertion of opponents that the Meridian proposal, in particular, constitutes a "corporate takeover of North Canterbury". This assertion is patently absurd. Meridian has entered into commercial lease agreements with a handful of property owners; that is no different to the multitude of other commercial uses of the land that already occur in the area.

It is interesting to note that there was limited concern about the proposal before the financial arrangements between Meridian and the landowners were disclosed.

Is it possible that much of the opposition is related to sour grapes from those without an economically viable wind resource on their property?

The assertion by opponents that they represent the vast majority of the community in their opposition is, if my discussions with residents are anything to go by, wrong.

One of the perils of our regulatory environment is that we generally only hear from the applicant and members of the public opposed to the project.

My assessment is that for every malcontent prepared to vent his or her spleen against any particular project, there are many more who are either neutral or in favour of the proposal.

Much of the argument against the proposals hinges on the landscape impacts. It is important to remember we are not talking about an unmodified landscape. This is farmland, modified greatly over the past couple of centuries.

Unfortunately, it seems that most people's personal context begins in the present. The attitude seems to go that residents have a God-given right to use the land as they currently do, no matter how far removed that use is from pre- development.

However, when someone comes along and suggests developing the land for a different, or ancillary use, people tend to rapidly apply the handbrake, no matter how necessary that use is proven to be.

It seems churlish for anyone living in a highly modified environment such as the Waipara Valley to be against the proposal. Development of an agricultural, horticultural and residential nature has, after all, impacted upon the environment more than any wind farm ever will.

But, first, some context. We live in a country with increasing electricity demands and various pressures upon new electricity generation - large-scale hydro generation has proven difficult in recent years, New Zealand has an aversion to nuclear power, and fossil-fuelled plants will continue to be problematic from both a supply and impact perspective. While next-generation renewable sources - such as wave and tidal power - sound attractive, they are highly experimental and, at this stage at least, highly expensive on a per KwH basis.

Given all of this, our individual electricity use demands an increase in the aggregate electricity supply in as benign a way as possible - and this is where wind farms come in.

At first view, it would seem that the ability to generate electricity without affecting the existing ability of the land to generate economic wealth is a positive one. Couple this with the fact that wind power is as close as possible to zero-emission as we are likely to get and the stage is set for a fait accompli. Or so it would seem.

Unfortunately, as is often the case in these situations, an army of opponents comes out to articulate their opposition. Generally, this takes the form of intense self- interest cloaked in a thin veneer of scientific rationalisation.

From my own perspective, having spent considerable time around wind turbines, including time spent living near them in Denmark, their noise was never problematic to me. For everyone who claims the value of their farms will be reduced by their proposal, there is someone who cites international evidence that refutes claims of negative economic impacts from wind farms. There are those who, going even further, claim that visible wind farms on the New Zealand landscape will make a strong statement about New Zealand's sustainability and deliver on our oft-mentioned clean green image.

But the bottom line is this: we all use electricity and expect a plentiful and on-demand supply. This, coupled with the very real benefits of the local community having a degree of control over their own electricity supply, leaves me in no doubt that the proposals are a net positive for the local, and wider, community.

* Ben Kepes is a freelance journalist, technology analyst and entrepreneur. He lives on a lifestyle block in the Waipara Valley.

- © Fairfax NZ News