UKC

The approval of a series of hydro power schemes in Glen Etive has dismayed many in the outdoor community. But at the root of the objections, suggests Tomas Frydrych, is a misconceived notion of wildness that serves us poorly in a time of global environmental crisis.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I have to admit that when the author used 'wildness' then 'wilderness' interchangeably in the first couple of paragraphs, it skewed my reading of the rest. In the modern environmental sense, wilderness is a specific thing, with an accepted specific definition, something along the lines of 'a large tract of land almost completely devoid of human activity or structures'. Of course we can joke about the garden being a wilderness, or our son's bedroom, or an empty restaurant, but this article seems to be trying to take on larger more serious environmental questions.

Plenty of places in Scotland are wild, they exhibit wildness for the human observer. I doubt there is any wilderness in Scotland, with all those roads, villages, farms, fences, signs etc. I just checked on Google Earth and in the biggest 'blank' spot with no towns or roads has two hotels 30km apart. That ain't wilderness.

I do see the term used - incorrectly - there for marketing reasons and in many other places that are basically just 'outdoors'. But this is a misuse of a term - not a problem with the term itself.

This is not just semantics, definitions matter, because the nature of the subject, particularly in this case its size, matters. There are very good reasons, particularly biodiversity (a term notably absent from this piece) why wilderness must be both empty of humans and large.

Issues of land use in Scotland are a poor place from which to be criticising - and devaluing - the concept of genuine wilderness.

I don't have much to do with Glen Etive, but I read the arguments with interest because I  think it's a question that will come up again and again: how much of our 'natural' environment should we be willing to sacrifice to offset the effects of climate change. Most of what I read understood that there was a balance to strike, but that ultimately the benefit of the Glen Etive hydro schemes seemed very small compared to the disruption they will cause. The article ignores all of this nuance with sentences like:

The bottom line is that I can't say I care about Climate Change, laud the school kids for their strike, and then systematically object to every single renewable project out there because it offends my sense of wildness

The Glen Etive scheme is not 'every single renewable project'. In fact, it's the only one that has received this level of scrutiny that I'm aware of. 

Having discussed at length the sentimental and irrational aspects of people's attitudes to the countryside, the author doesn't mention any of the effects of the Glen Etive scheme, either in terms of energy produced / CO2 saved, the impact on ecology or even the economic arguments of hydropower vs tourism. But I guess it's more fun to sound superior rather than debate the issues raised by the scheme. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Provocative, and I don't mean that as a criticism. However, generalised and binary arguments (either addressing the potential climate catastrophe or enhancing wilder landscapes, not both) are unhelpful.  A few points:

1)  "The bottom line is that I can't say I care about Climate Change, laud the school kids for their strike, and then systematically object to every single renewable project out there because it offends my sense of wildness, because it spoils my photos, or even because someone else is going to be making money out of it. And we outdoor folk, and the NGOs representing us, invariably do."

This statement is simply not true. Far from objecting to 'every single renewable project', Scottish NGOs such as the John Muir Trust, Mountaineering Scotland and the North East Mountain Trust have objected to relatively few and have been very careful in this regard. In respect of small scale hydro, the major concern in most cases has not been the schemes per se but the poorly constructed, poorly restored and, on occasions, unnecessary tracks to these. The NGOs have mainly been concentrating on trying to get the tracks issue dealt with properly, not trying to stop the development of the schemes (many view Etive as an exceptional case).

The NGOs have been at the forefront of supporting the extension of native woodland and encouraging peat restoration. Apart from the other ecological (and landscape benefits) of these, forests and peatland are major carbon sinks.

2) The article lacks context. All reports argue that urgent action is needed across a range of fronts. Onshore wind and hydro are one part of a jigsaw that includes the development/extension of other technologies such as off shore wind and solar. Also the article makes no mention of the urgent need to reduce carbon use, for which we all have a responsibility.

3) Personally, I have shares in wind farms, hydro and other renewable technologies but have objected to applications for certain schemes because of their locations: I see no paradox in this.

4) To finish with a provocative note of my own- climbing can be a carbon intensive activity. How many of us are planning to climb in ways which reduce our carbon footprints from travel?

In reply to Damo:

Why does biodiversity necessitate the absence of humans and where do you put those humans you have removed or not allowed to live there? 

As I understand it part of the idea behind the piece is that we need to live better with nature, rather than seeing ourselves as somehow removed from it. 

In reply to sheelba:

Yes, we are part of nature, but that doesn't mean we have to inhabit and scar every single bit of it.

Biodiversity does not necessitate the absence of humans, but large areas of intact, undisturbed ecosystems are important for preserving biodiversity. Beneath a certain size, they collapse.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

There's a deal of wrong-headedness in that article, beginning with

"The idea of wildness as we know it goes back to the 19th century romantic movement"

Erm, no; either that, or I'm not one of your 'we'. There is a continuing confusion between 'wildness' and 'wilderness' in your arguments. The first does not necessarily include the second.

And you need to proof-read more closely or, better, get someone else to do so for you. 'a priory', indeed.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Thanks. A priory... Can't believe I managed to miss that several times when subbing. My philosophy degree hasn't been useful for much in life [discuss], but this should've been one of those times 

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

If it's any consolation I once, during a time of some financial stress when budgets were cut to the bone and under pressure from a deadline that meant that I did my own proofing, sent a monthly newsletter round the lab I worked at that had been typed out on a keyboard where the letter 'g' only worked now and again.  I received a proof-marked copy of it back from the Lab Director pointing this out, and was copied into a note requesting that my section's budget be increased by the cost of one new keyboard.

Lesson learned, in a rather public manner.  Whatever the time pressure, I never subsequently sent out anything without it being proof-read by someone else beforehand.  

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I took it to mean that before the Victorian age the 'wild' was still a sufficient threat to much of the relatively small and unmechanised population (or at least a hindrance to subsistence) that it was seen as an adversary, rather than a refuge.

In reply to Damo:

I think yes there is some truth in that but I don’t think they need to be ‘undisturbed’, if in the age of global climate change anywhere can be considered as such. For example St Kildan’s killed thousands of sea birds a year, something that would fill us with horror today, yet the populations of sea birds thrived. It only with climate change’s effects on the availability of food more recently that populations have begun to suffer.

Arguably our jet set lifestyles are having much more of a negative effect on the environment than development in wild areas, or the activities of people who are trying to earn a living in them. Yes things like rewinding have value, however we need to ask ourselves to what extent do they address the core problems and to what extent are they about conservation or a desire to create a ‘wild’ theme park for urbanites, sometimes at the exspense of a rural population. 

In reply to Damo:

Yeah, I'm pretty unconvinced by the general thrust of this article in having a dig at rewilding as I have come to understand it. In simple terms, rewilding typically would NOT be for the purposes of creating scenic landscapes for humans to escape into.  On the contrary, they'd be relatively heavily forested, in many cases. With the benefits of taking in carbon, stabilising and improving soils and reducing flash flooding and erosion, increasing biodiversity but obscuring 'views'. The specific issue of siting renewables infrastructure aside (which, in itself doesn't necessarily conflict with rewilding anyway), I really don't see how rewilding is at odds with acting on climate change at all. I get the general point about the romanticisation of the landscape that's held sway since Wordsworth and Coleridge but I think we can move beyond that. There definitely need to be human-free regions.

In reply to sheelba:

Yes, but it's not a choice of two extremes. We can reduce our harm to the natural environment - eat less meat, fewer long-haul flights, mass transport, more renewable energy - AND leave plenty of large areas undisturbed. It's not zero-sum, there is a lot of ground in between. Often development of wild or wilderness areas is simply lazy capitalism, cronies of the government looking to exploit land or resources cheaply because they're public and they won't have to pay market rates, or actually innovate to add value.

Yes things like rewinding have value, however ...

I did not express any opinion on rewilding, because I don't have one. It's not something I've looked into or know much about, but I do see it means and requires different things in different areas.

In reply to Damo:

^ This.

In reply to Ridge:

Agree. My biggest concern is the way the SNP think that wind farms are the answer and are giving Carte Blanche to companies who wish to get their plans for large scale development through. Offshore wind farms seem to give a much better return for less damage and wave power hasn’t been given enough support. 

I walked through the new wind farm near Fort Augustus recently and it is far too big. More and more of Scotland is now like this. What happens in 20-30 years when these things are falling to bits?

People do need to change their way of living and to live (more) sustainably but renewables are not going to fix it

In reply to sg:

Yes, some of the most interesting and wildlife-rich areas we now have are rewilded post-industrial sites - old gravel pits, quarrries, canals.  And, of course, the landscapes romanticised by the Victorians were mostly man-made.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Here's one of my favourite 'wild' places.. 

http://peregrine.group.shef.ac.uk

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Conclusion:

A poorly set out argument. I can't figure out why UKC didn't go back and ask the author to address certain crazy & lazy statements aside from the need to create 'engagement' with UKC readers, i.e. the totally mad yet seemingly sincere assertion 'The bottom line is that I can't say I care about Climate Change, laud the school kids for their strike, and then systematically object to every single renewable project out there because it offends my sense of wildness, because it spoils my photos, or even because someone else is going to be making money out of it. And we outdoor folk, and the NGOs representing us, invariably do.'

Which we clearly and invariably don't do. 

Personally I objected to Glen Etive (seems scant output in terms of power generation etc. for either the disturbance and example set or money made by the landowner, especially when other forms of renewables are available for the money to be spent on) yet I also get my power from Electricity, a company that derives its electricity from wind power. Others above have also addressed this point. Pointlessly provocative.

Again, to quote from the article 'I am, by no means, wanting to argue for the Glen Etive hydro, but I am questioning our collective priorities. There are far bigger issues facing our 'wild' land today; next to the biocide that is taking place for the sake of driven grouse shooting, micro-hydro pales into utter insignificance. It is estimated that as much as 20% of Scotland's landmass is affected by the grouse industry, yet it seems somehow harder to whip ourselves up to the same level of passion to address this travesty once and for all. Perhaps it's the sight of all that heather in bloom?

Really? Has the author somehow missed the many discussions here on UKC ( its also been covered by other organisations over the years) about the biocide of the grouse moors? Not to mention this is classic 'whataboutery': the implication being that one cannot care about both. I care about both and I also care about the small triangle of green space at the end of Fotheringay Road in the heart of Glasgow and the overgrown land next to the sports school down by the M8 motorway, the verges of said motorway, the banks of the railway lines than run through my part of Glasgow.

'But if we only look at nature through the wilderness lens, we end up with fictional, oversimplified, narratives that haven't served us, and the planet, particularly well in the 117 years since those words were written. 

What hasn't served us is exploitation by those unhindered with any interest in preserving nature in whatever capacity. 

'I'll be quite honest, I have an intense dislike for wind farms, for the fact that nowadays it is virtually impossible to look from a Scottish hill and not see them in every direction. But there is a bigger picture here, which I am learning to see' - maybe this article is about the author's own personal struggles?

Enough from me, I have other things to get on with

In reply to Flinticus:

Yes. Very.

Also yes. In fact this is the third or fourth article on UKC in the last year or less that has been blatantly sub-par (the recent altitude one springs to mind). The author has not replied, nor anyone from UKC.

It's almost some kind of phishing scam - put up some mediocre fluff and get the miffed respondents to generate some actual decent content.

I know it's meant to be a discussion forum, but such things are meant to be an ongoing trading of arguments, opinions and information, to expand and enlighten, even if nobody changes their mind. Not a remedial lesson in (Subject) 101.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

You need a great big kick up the a posteriory...

In reply to Scott K:

I suspect design life of individual turbines is fairly short (20-25 years?), so they'll either be removed or more likely replaced when they wear out. When the whole development reaches end of life, then they can at least be removed, and landscape restored fairly easily (unlikely, for example, a coal fired power station, or an open cast coal mine).

We all need to reduce resource and energy use, and eventually de-carbonise the economy, and renewable energy is a  fundamental part of that.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Enjoyed the article, so good I circulated it round my local rural community, "A refreshing look at the whole wilderness topic" kind of summed it up for all of us.

So Tomas Frydrych its thumbs up, thank you.

In reply to Phil79:

Lazy reply on my part. I mean that renewables alone won’t fix the problem. I completely agree that they have an important part to play. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Strongly disagree with this article. The fact that you can build on the land doesn't mean you should. While it might not be true wilderness there are other areas, less natural which we could plaster with windfarms and other power generation facilities, so why don't we? The answer is NIMBYISM and it's alot easier to sneak through planning for this kind of project when you only have to get it past a single land owner and a couple of small special interest groups.

We should first look to plaster the sides of every motorway and large A road with turbines, firstly these areas come pre-buggered up by human beings and secondly they have vastly easier access for maintenance, which is important with every significant infrastructure project.

Our wilder areas do need protection from humans in the same way our atmosphere needs protection. Once they are gone they won't come back.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

For some of us if you go beyond Wilderness you end up at Laddow.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I read this through with interest even though some interesting grammar made it a rather hard work. Those who seek to protect the environment often come up against people with rather bizarre view points almost all of which are displayed by the author. Listing them all would be tiresome but the most irritating are :

1. "Whataboutism", summed up as "how dare you be concerned about the impact of hydro in Glen Etive when grouse shooting is worse". Well yes it is, I am personally concerned about both as I am sure a lot of people are, there is also no evidence that people aren't more concerned about grouse shooting than they are about Glen Etive, online petition against grouse shooting had received far more signatures than the petition regarding Glen Etive. Doesn't mean that building a dam on every stream on Glen Etive is ok.

2. Suggesting anyone who objects to a renewable project is a climate change denier. It is possible that people care about climate change but feel that preserving some level of ecological integrity is vital. The recent UN IPBES report listed the 5 greatest threats to the world's ecosystems. Number 1 was change in land use, this basically consists of the loss of habitat and building of infrastructure (including dams). Climate change was number 3, still critical but habitat loss and degradation has to be first in all considerations of any solution.

3. A lack of understanding of the subject they are holding forth on. "The thing is, the impact of these schemes is going to be almost entirely visual rather than ecological.". The most damaging aspect of the schemes will be the geomorphological impacts on the main  river habitat, the combined effect of this across 7 schemes almost certainly breaks Water Framework Directive (a piece of European environmental legislation). Several NGOs made this the cornerstone of their objection. It is also far from the only ecological impact. 

The other real lack of understanding is around the production of renewables in the UK  and the part that hydro plays in that. Only 14% of the UKs rivers currently reach "good" ecological status under Water Framework Directive and only 1% are considered to be completely free from dams or other man-made obstructions. Developing any of the remaining 1% of river systems (of which the Etive is one) will make no difference to the fight against climate change. All the hydro in the UK combined (big dams and tiny river of river schemes included) provides less than 1% of UK power production, even solar manages 10 times that. "I expect also a shift toward a much higher percentage energy from hydro" this just isn't possible since the resource isn't there. In Snowdonia we have had 90 run of river hydro schemes built in the last 10 years, combined they produce less electricity than 1 single windturbine. Small scale hydro has no place in a world where we require utility scale renewables and preservation of our remaining biodiversity is critical.

Dan   

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

This article does raise some important points which need discussing more widely and openly.

I know the author does not specifically mention UK National Parks but from a National Parks point of view it must be remembered that UK NPs are different from most others, in fact it could be argued that they are not true National Parks. UK parks are category five according to the IUCN protected area classification which you will see are protected LANDSCAPES or seascapes. https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories

Therefore, in the context of UK National Parks, landscape is given great weight when considering development or land use change. So the argument that many of us see the landscape like the old Romantics is true in my opinion.

I personally think this should change taking climate change into consideration and with a more holistic approach to judging impacts of proposed developments and changes of land use. With the review of NPs that is currently under way, hopefully it will.

I also think that the author greatly misunderstands the rewilding ethos. 

In reply to ROFFER:

Yeah, I'd not really noticed thisarticle before but there does seem to be a wilful mis interpreting of whats going on with rewilding, particularly wrt human interactio and climate change. Im on a phone as my laptop is borked so I'm not willing to type a huge screed, but i think this aspect of an otherwise thoughtful article needs challenging