by Janice Limson
The Windfarm panel discussion arranged by the Indalo Group of Private Nature Reserves last Thursday [29 April 2010] laid bare many of the problems South Africa faces in embracing alternative energy solutions. It is ironic that the objections raised came from the least likely of quarters – the private game industry, a group with conservation and protection of the environment at the core of their industry. What emerged instead was a picture of selective conservation, a troubling sense of entitlement, and a plethora of unsubstantiated arguments against windfarms delivered from a high ground pumped up by certain of the game industry packing the audience, the illusion of big tourist bucks and a thin sheet of altruism.
The key arguments raised by the two speakers against the windfarms were all largely disputed by hard scientific evidence. Cars kill more birds than windfarms do. The noise at the base of a wind turbine is less than the noise from a passing car on the road (at 45 meters). Projections are that in SA energy from windfarms will be cheaper than coal by 2025. In Europe where they have begun to factor in a fraction of the environmental costs, coal is already on a par with the cost of energy from wind. The fourth argument was that the windfarms would disturb the skyline and chase away the tourists, with their dollars and Euros, who come to view their BIG FIVE in a pristine environment. And this is where the debate gets interesting.
Consider for a moment the devastating impact of climate change on the environment. It is clear that environmental destruction would be detrimental to the game industry in the longer term. And yet while one of the speakers spoke with something near reverence about the thicket vegetation in the region, scientists suggest that there are too many elephants concentrated in small areas within the game farms. Their destruction of the thicket is not only doing substantial damage to bird populations which nest in this prime environment but combined with destruction of habitat, the elephants are contributing substantial amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. Add this to the carbon footprint of the flights and ground travel which bring in tourists from across the world and questions start being raised about how environmentally sustainable the privatised game industry really is. This then begs the question – what are they doing to lessen the impact of this damage? Surely initiatives such as windfarms should be championed, rather than demonised by the game industry?
And this is where my concerns around elitism crept in, as, though the speakers state their support for alternative energy, it could be viewed as a case of NIMBY-ism (Not In My BackYard). There is a misplaced entitlement to a view, and an entrenched entitlement at that. One of the speakers, in answering a question posed by a representative of the Unemployed Workers Union, referred to Black people as non-European, as in the term, non-White. If you, like many, haven’t yet fully appreciated how offensive this label is, and you haven’t embraced the notion of being referred to as a non-entity then now is a good time because your future and that of our region could be at stake. Simply put:
- Alternative energy such as that from wind has the potential to bring energy security (and hence economic security) to Grahamstown, (consider all that work time lost through load-shedding).
- It has been shown the world over and increasingly so (as European countries increase their outlay of windfarms) that when sited close to an energy grid and in a well researched site, wind can provide harmless, natural and sustainable energy. Excess power from the windfarm can be stored or utilised in a number of different ways.
- Over the lifetime of the windfarm planned for Grahamstown, 26% of the profits will be ploughed back by the windfarm company into the Grahamstown community, meaning +/-12 million rand per year for education in a cleverly negotiated initiative in the Winds of Change Trust.
- Moving to alternative energy via wind is one of the first steps Grahamstown can take in limiting the effects of climate change for our generation and future generations to come.
Despite all these facts, this vision for the future may be exchanged for foreign tourist currency. While the tourist view is valued, your views may not be. You are a non-tourist. You are simply too local. In fact, peer reviewed articles have emerged which could be seen to challenge the widely touted perspective that the private game industry has benefitted local people and local economies. But that is another debate. I guess if we can be misled by the 2010 World Cup Soccer promises, we deserve to be misled in the same way Southwell has been when the bid for alternative energy from wind (along with potentially around 20 million Rand per year into the education of these communities) was put on hold. Will the tourist currency which does happen to make its way via the game industry be able to provide as much? Where are the voices of those who may have been denied these extraordinary benefits?
However, judging from conversations following last Thursday’s meeting, the key arguments raised against windfarms which we heard during the debate, (unsupported by scientific evidence, and lacking in social justice, as they were), may not, thankfully, be shared by many in the local private game industry. The head of Indalo injected a positive message of the group’s commitment to carbon neutrality, and that is the silver lining in a sky I could happily share with a windfarm and future alternative energy strategies.
Giving the green light to the windfarm development is a thumbs-up then for the BIG FIVE: environment, energy, economy, education and ecotourism. It really is time to take collective responsibility for the effects of climate change, to act decisively and not only when it is convenient to do so. I bet the tourists will agree.
See also A win (d)-win (d) situation?