Question 1: What will the minister in OED do honor citizens ‘entitlement’ to the knowledge of the natural environment condition “and” about the effects of planned and implemented intervention in nature, “so that they can safeguard the right they have under the preceding paragraph (ref. Constitution § 112) with regard to quality of nature – sentimental value – which today are neglected in the licensing process for wind farms on land?
Question 2: How can the minister in MPE defend goal of increasing production of electricity with an instrument as powerful subsidizing citizens’ expense – not least for wind power investment on land – in a situation of accelerating overproduction and consequent loss of power producers, while phasing out fossil fuels in Norway can be mastered with energy upgrades, energy efficiency and energy conservation?
Having gone way about open letter in several newspapers for the answers to my two questions about the government’s energy policy, I unfortunately nothing but away explanatory answers.
The Minister of MPE denied him with the assurance that he takes care of our civil rights by telling him (quote): “feels confident” that the application of Diversity Act in licensing treatment of small power and wind power issues meets the requirements Constitution § 112 sets of public decisions. He quotes from this § 8, where instruments adduced: Government decisions affecting biodiversity shall so far as is reasonably based on scientific knowledge about population status of species, habitats distribution and ecological condition and the effect of influences.
This response means in clear text that MPE maintains a licensing procedure for wind power plants underestimating quality of nature – sentimental value. Ministry does not fulfill citizens’ home lead rights follow the Constitution by that limits itself to abstract categories in the description of “the impact of planned intervention in nature.” What gets well a citizen – including a local politician – out of being rather short shrift with a voluminous but superficial impact in heavy terminology which concludes with information about “Inon-loss” as a number naming the percentage of “red-listed species” in categories CR and VU, the consequences for the natural environment available with phrases such as “medium negative” and conflict category as a large letter from A to E?
Such abstractive information is not other than “control techniques” – delusion – that causes the population belong to a plane area, being outmaneuvered in their defense of their beloved home maker. What is at stake is free nature. It allows not “recycle” after the establishment of road construction that leaves brutal wounds in a typical landscape of wind turbines on land in Norway usually is hilly and with mountains in the day. I acknowledge that amendment takes time. But the minister’s government counterparts in KMD and MAF have shown that where there is a will, there is a road!
Norway needs more power – because other countries do it ?! In his keynote speech at BI let Minister Lien assumed that there must and will be expanded for increased production of electricity in Norway. Because the blue-blue government is not the first with this objective, we have long had overproduction. We have – with rare exceptions – had power surplus since the commercialization of electricity supply in Norway in 1991. In a market economy will mean that prices will go down.
It comes bl. a. of the new facilities put into operation, that households reduce their consumption, that residential and commercial buildings constantly pulls less power and industrial and other industries increases the energy efficiency – or laid down. To this picture is as known also that it expected an increasingly milder and wetter climate in Norway. It will contribute to an increased potential for delivery of electricity from hydroelectric – a renewable energy source that we forced the expansion of after WW2.
The consequence of Norwegian energy policy that subsidizes the production of electricity, is that prices in Norway, according to Pareto Securities NVE wind seminar in 2014 has fallen from around 50 cents to 25 cents during the past six years. It is popular among customers. But for Norwegian municipalities and counties with substantial holdings in the industry who are losing huge sums and must cut its equivalent in operating costs and welfare benefits as kindergartens, schools, health care m v. This is very bad.
This head-under-arm policy does not least irreparable damage to coastal, forest and mountain scenery that has hitherto been left alone. In climate crisis times is obviously increased production of renewable energy a necessary measure worldwide – but in different country Norway as targeted action has already established production facilities enough to “phasing out of fossil energy sources,” this is part of the problem – not part of the solution. We require reality oriented solutions – S. u. – Answers utbedes!
Nils Faarlund
Supervisor in outdoor / Siviling.
No comments:
Post a Comment