For a taste of your wind ‘powered’ future, look no further than the Scottish Highlands – where some 4,500 of these things have polluted a once majestic landscape.

Traverse any Highland Glen these days in the hope of finding peace and tranquillity, and you’ll be hard-pressed to avoid Scotland’s hundreds of wind factories and their looming industrial presence. To make way for them, more than 17,000 acres have been cleared and 14 million trees have been clear-felled in the process, adding to a morbid sense of pointless, industrial-scale environmental destruction.

But, right now, it’s another feature of these 300-tonne monsters and their 50-60m blades that has highlanders up in arms.

And that’s their habit of constantly shedding toxic microplastics and spreading them far and wide.

Ben Borland reveals that littering the landscape with toxic plastic junk with complete impunity, is yet another example of how the wind industry gets a free kick on every environmentally harmful aspect of their subsidy-soaked operations.

Wind farm fears as SNP ministers admit they don’t monitor ‘toxic’ leading edge erosion
Scottish Daily Express
Ben Borland
1 January 2023

Energy minister Michael Matheson also admitted that no wind farm operators have been fined for failing to maintain their turbines and there is no scheme in place to monitor microplastic pollution.

A Scots Tory MSP has hit out after the SNP Government admitted it had no idea how many of Scotland’s 19,000 wind turbines may be releasing dangerous chemicals.

There have been concerns for years about the environmental impact from the erosion of microplastics from the colossal turbine blades, which are made with fibreglass and epoxy resin.

One of the chemicals is called Bisphenol A, which has been linked with fertility problems in humans and wildlife. Campaigners say a single turbine can emit up to 62 kilos of microplastics annually, although this is disputed by the renewables industry.

Highlands and Islands MSP, Donald Cameron, has attempted to find out more information about the issue with a series of questions at the Scottish Parliament.

In one, he asked the Scottish Government “how it currently monitors leading edge erosion on wind turbines, and whether it has any plans to increase this monitoring”.

Energy minister Michael Matheson replied the SNP-Green administration “is not responsible for taking action in this area”.

Mr Matheson also said the Scottish Government “does not provide funding for continued maintenance of wind turbines” and “has not issued any fines relating to the failure to maintain wind turbines”.

Finally, the Conservative MSP asked the “Scottish Government whether it has any plans to conduct a study on the impact of microplastic pollution and toxic compounds from wind turbines”.

Once again, the minister replied in the negative. “The Water Framework Directive does not currently include the requirement for the monitoring and assessment of microplastic pollution and specifically Bisphenol A in the water environment,” he said.

Speaking to the Scottish Daily Express, Mr Cameron said: “The dangers of microplastics and toxic substances from wind turbine erosion are well-documented, so it’s surprising that the SNP Government isn’t even bothering to monitor this.

“Despite their enthusiasm for windfarms, it appears that the SNP have washed their hands of any potentially harmful effects wind turbine erosion might have on the environment.

“The responsibility for wind turbine maintenance may lie with private companies, but the SNP must at the very least monitor the state of Scotland’s turbines and sanction any companies that don’t comply with safe upkeep.

“Otherwise we could end up facing an environmental hazard as a result of the very same turbines that are supposed to be helping us tackle climate change.”
Scottish Daily Express

Tuesday Open Thread

The results of the study prove that global warming is leading to a redistribution of species not only in the tropics, but also in polar areas

Peer-Reviewed Publication

INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIES DEL MAR (ICM-CSIC)

A new study by the Nord University (Norway) in which the Institut de Ciències del Mar (ICM-CSIC) in Barcelona has participated has confirmed that the high temperatures in the Arctic and sub-Arctic seas -especially affected by global warming- are promoting the settlement in these waters of species that previously lived in warmer areas located further south.

Details of the research are reported in a paper recently published in the journal PNAS. To carry out the study, data acquired from more than 20,000 trawl surveys in the Norwegian and Barents Seas between 1994 and 2020 were analysed.

“In 1994, an average of 8 fish species were caught in each trawl in the Norwegian and Barents Seas, while in 2020 the number rises to more than 13, which represents an increase of 66%. The results of the study also shown increases, albeit less significant, in the richness of adjacent areas,” explains lead author Cesc Gordó-Vilaseca, from the Nord University. 

This proves that the warming of waters due to climate change is leading to a redistribution of species, not only in the warmer areas -much more studied- but also in colder areas such as the polar zones, that are warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet.

Different responses to warming

On the other hand, the study shows different species’ responses to warming. Of the 193 species included, 71 relatively warm-water species are now more common in the northern seas, while 23 species that were previously more common in the study area are now less common.

However, the study also shows the expansion of some Arctic species that may be adapting well to the rising temperatures. Among the relatively warm-water species that are increasing are some of great commercial interest, such as the common cod (Gadus morhua). In contrast, according to the study, most of the Arctic species that have declined are not fished on a large scale, although they may play key ecological roles, such as the Arctic cod (Arctogadus glacialis).

“The shift in frequency of species, sometimes favoured by high temperatures and sometimes not, could lead to a reconfiguration of ecological interactions and, therefore, could cause changes in the structure and functioning of the entire ecosystem,” warns Marta Coll, researcher at the ICM-CSIC and co-author of the study.

Studies like this one are essential, as they can contribute to the design of more effective conservation and management strategies. For this reason, for future research, researchers will delve deeper into the changes at the level of the entire ecosystem that may be caused by the increase in temperatures in polar areas. The possible effects on fisheries management and protection measures that these changes may cause will also be analysed.

JOURNAL

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

DOI

10.1073/pnas.2120869120 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

Three decades of increasing fish biodiversity across the northeast Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean

From EurekAlert!

Essay by Eric Worrall

Is Zurich charging too much? If Zurich has enough spare cash to reward for climate action, perhaps everyone should demand a discount?

Insurers may cut premiums for climate action: Zurich chair Summerhayes

Aleks Vickovich Wealth editor
Jan 30, 2023 – 5.00am

Former regulator Geoff Summerhayes says providing incentives to reduce carbon emissions, such as lower insurance premiums, will be a key focus of his tenure as chairman of Swiss insurance giant Zurich’s Australian operations.

…

Mr Summerhayes said he was lured back to the insurance industry in part because of its broader social role in helping to mitigate key social risks, including climate change.

…

“The insurance sector needs to recognise where advances have been made with the consumers and or businesses in those mitigations … and recognise that in the premiums that we’re charging those customers,” he said.

…

Read more: https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/insurers-may-cut-premiums-for-climate-action-zurich-chair-summerhayes-20230126-p5cfmw

Why do I think offering a discount to green customers is evidence Zurich could be charging their customers lower premiums?

The reasons – climate friendly actions like adding solar panels to your roof or building a few wind turbines do not reduce the risk of a customer making a claim. If anything, renewables likely increase the insurance risk. Solar panels can catch fire, and wind turbines can fall and damage property and innocent bystanders.

Turbine which fell on a lorry;

Rooftop solar panels burning;

If the new chairman of Zurich Insurance feels his company has enough cash to offer a discount for reasons as arbitrary as a green thank you, the obvious inference is either they are charging too much, and have the excess profit to offer discretionary discounts for actions which have no significant bearing on insurance risk. Either that, or they are cross subsidising any additional risk incurred by green customers from other people’s premiums.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood, and there is another explanation for why Zurich feel able to offer arbitrary discounts. But if I was a Zurich customer outside their magic circle of favoured green customers, right now I would be ringing my insurance agent and demanding my own insurance premium discount.