Sir, – I would like to respond to Stephen Collins's assumption that objections to wind farm projects originate only from wealthy Killiney ivory tower dwellers fretting about their view (Opinion & Analysis, April 8th).
A review of the public submissions on the wind industry’s licence applications for nearshore “relevant project” sites shows that while most public submissions affirm the need to act against climate change and support the development of offshore wind in Ireland, they protest the steamrolling of massive subsidy-driven wind projects on nearshore sites, which are bound to put further intense pressure on migratory birds, coastal and marine habitats and species which are protected by EU law. It would be evident that these public submissions are not made by wealthy south Dublin pearl-clutchers but by citizens who aim to highlight the environmental impacts of repeat investigative survey applications (involving intrusive measures such as seabed drilling, vibro-coring to 80-metre depth, dredging and prolonged use of sonar testing) on the remaining sensitive nearshore biodiverse ecosystems of the east coast.
Rather than complaining about visual impact, most submissions seek to address the cumulative effect of different arrays of turbines (up to 310 metres high) and the serious impact that these cheek-by-jowl arrays will have on ecologically key sandbanks 10km from shore. These submissions have a critical role in scrutinising applications for data gaps and greenwashing clichés used by the wind energy industry to accelerate subsidy-padded nearshore investment projects over the line at any cost.
Even under the lax terms of the Foreshore Act, these developer-selected project sites were dubious and environmentally unviable from the start. These east coast projects would have been obliged to propose alternative sites in most other EU countries, so as to avoid inevitable impacts on sensitive cetacean, fish and avian species. Despite the attempts of environmental groups and citizens, these large-scale proposals have lumbered zombie-like towards the governmental solution of relabelling them as “relevant” projects under a curious transition protocol tacked onto the Maritime Area Planning legislation.
A recent report found that the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the delegated watchdog for marine habitats, to be incapable of properly monitoring or vetting such huge foreshore infrastructural developments.
Citizens or groups who make the effort to participate in public consultation and flag serious faults in nearshore infrastructural development proposals are now in the invidious position of acting as environmental monitors in place of the Government bodies which neglect that job, while being wrongfully scolded for frivolity. – Yours, etc,
SEANA KEVANY,
Kinsale, Co Cork.