Unesco director voices concerns over £3billion Navitus Bay wind farm project

Unesco director voices concerns over £3billion Navitus Bay wind farm project

HOT TOPIC: Pro and anti-wind farm demonstrators in Swanage

INSTRUMENTAL FIGURE: Kishore Rao

First published in News by

THE director of Unesco’s World Heritage Centre has voiced concerns about the controversial £3billion Navitus Bay wind farm project.

Kishore Rao, who is an instrumental figure in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, has written to the head of heritage policy at the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

The Jurassic Coast, where the wind farm is proposed to be constructed offshore, became a Unesco World Heritage site in 2001.

Unesco’s concerns on the project come after the respected advisory body – the International Union for Conservation & Nature (IUCN) – reviewed relevant documentation connected to the wind farm application.

In his letter to Leila Al-Kazwini, Mr Rao said potential impacts from the wind farm proposals – to put up to 194 turbines with a maximum tip height of 200m – could be, according to the IUCN report, in contradiction to the “overarching principle of the World Heritage Convention as stipulated in its Article 4.”

Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention, which the UK is signed up to, spells out that individual countries have a duty to ensure the “identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage” of World Heritage Sites within their borders.

Mr Rao does not elaborate on what would happen with regard to the Jurassic Coast’s current World Heritage Status, should the Navitus Bay application become a reality as it is.

But he did stress that the IUCN report concluded: “The completion of the project would result in the property being presented and transmitted to future generations in a form that is significantly different from what was there at the time of inscription and until today.

“Specifically, the property will change from being located in a natural setting that is largely free from human-made structures to one where its setting is dominated by human-made structures.”

The IUCN also said the wind farm will have a “significant impact on important views.”

Earlier this month the Planning Inspectorate confirmed the wind farm application, from French energy giant EDF and Dutch firm Eneco, had been accepted. The inspectorate now has three months to examine the proposals.

Plans for the sprawling wind farm have been subject to numerous public exhibitions, which have divided local opinion.

On this latest twist in the Navtus Bay saga, Dr Andrew Langley, from wind farm opposition group Challenge Navitus, said: “We welcome IUCN’s conclusions, which are in line with our own concerns. “The Navitus Bay wind farm would completely change the character of views from the main visitor centre at Durlston Castle.

“The decision by the Crown Estate in 2009 to designate this zone so close to England’s only natural World Heritage Site, two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a national park, was extremely surprising.”

Work of organisation

THE United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) was established in 1945, shortly after the end of the Second World War.

It was formed to create lasting peace on the basis of “humanity’s moral and intellectual solidarity.”

It works to build networks among nations through a range of initiatives, including creating protection and support for cultural diversity.

Unesco created the idea of World Heritage to protect sites of outstanding universal value

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:58am Sat 24 May 14

billy bumble says...

Cool!!!! - this might be a real breakthrough
Cool!!!! - this might be a real breakthrough billy bumble
  • Score: 6

10:08am Sat 24 May 14

Ivy says...

Following yesterday’s announcement about the massive oil/gas reserves along the South coast that will require fracking for extraction, will Unesco be voicing concerns about this especially when currently Infrastrata has permission for an exploratory well 500 metres from Durlston Castle.

If we don’t turn to renewables now future generations won’t have a safe coastline to visit due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. The view should the least of our concerns.
Following yesterday’s announcement about the massive oil/gas reserves along the South coast that will require fracking for extraction, will Unesco be voicing concerns about this especially when currently Infrastrata has permission for an exploratory well 500 metres from Durlston Castle. If we don’t turn to renewables now future generations won’t have a safe coastline to visit due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. The view should the least of our concerns. Ivy
  • Score: -11

11:15am Sat 24 May 14

Tictock says...

Come on then Echo, lets have some balance reporting on this please. Oh sorry, forgot you only report negatively about this subject don't you?
Come on then Echo, lets have some balance reporting on this please. Oh sorry, forgot you only report negatively about this subject don't you? Tictock
  • Score: -6

11:38am Sat 24 May 14

billy bumble says...

Tictock wrote:
Come on then Echo, lets have some balance reporting on this please. Oh sorry, forgot you only report negatively about this subject don't you?
This is neither negative nor positive reporting

It is a factual report
[quote][p][bold]Tictock[/bold] wrote: Come on then Echo, lets have some balance reporting on this please. Oh sorry, forgot you only report negatively about this subject don't you?[/p][/quote]This is neither negative nor positive reporting It is a factual report billy bumble
  • Score: 7

12:35pm Sat 24 May 14

Phixer says...

Ivy wrote:
Following yesterday’s announcement about the massive oil/gas reserves along the South coast that will require fracking for extraction, will Unesco be voicing concerns about this especially when currently Infrastrata has permission for an exploratory well 500 metres from Durlston Castle.

If we don’t turn to renewables now future generations won’t have a safe coastline to visit due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. The view should the least of our concerns.
Have you had the snake oil salemen knocking at your door?
[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote: Following yesterday’s announcement about the massive oil/gas reserves along the South coast that will require fracking for extraction, will Unesco be voicing concerns about this especially when currently Infrastrata has permission for an exploratory well 500 metres from Durlston Castle. If we don’t turn to renewables now future generations won’t have a safe coastline to visit due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. The view should the least of our concerns.[/p][/quote]Have you had the snake oil salemen knocking at your door? Phixer
  • Score: 1

2:15pm Sat 24 May 14

coster says...

It seems some people are confused between Reserves (stock) and the presence of fuels. We now hear that all reserves will be taken up within 5 years, but no mention of the trillion tons of coal we are sitting on, that all gas product will also be gone without any mention of the vast amounts available .
I realise that the facts of the so called 'global warming' scam are a political move pushed by the agenda 21 followers but could we stick to fact. There has been NO overall temperature rise over the past 17 years.
It seems some people are confused between Reserves (stock) and the presence of fuels. We now hear that all reserves will be taken up within 5 years, but no mention of the trillion tons of coal we are sitting on, that all gas product will also be gone without any mention of the vast amounts available . I realise that the facts of the so called 'global warming' scam are a political move pushed by the agenda 21 followers but could we stick to fact. There has been NO overall temperature rise over the past 17 years. coster
  • Score: 4

4:16pm Sat 24 May 14

bobthedestroyer says...

I bet this excuse for a government will force the plan through regardless all under the guise of renewable energy and nothing to do with money
I bet this excuse for a government will force the plan through regardless all under the guise of renewable energy and nothing to do with money bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 3

6:00pm Sat 24 May 14

Abc1970 says...

Ivy wrote:
Following yesterday’s announcement about the massive oil/gas reserves along the South coast that will require fracking for extraction, will Unesco be voicing concerns about this especially when currently Infrastrata has permission for an exploratory well 500 metres from Durlston Castle.

If we don’t turn to renewables now future generations won’t have a safe coastline to visit due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. The view should the least of our concerns.
I completely agree with you. Renewable energy is not our future, it's the future of our children and their children. We should be welcoming this wind farm with open arms, along with setting aside areas of land for solar farms. If every house in the UK had their own solar panels or a small domestic windmill, we would not need to rely on energy companies at all. I get so cross with the muppets in this area opposing this development. I am also very cross with the echo for only ever finding "experts" who oppose it and never once have they printed an article in favour
[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote: Following yesterday’s announcement about the massive oil/gas reserves along the South coast that will require fracking for extraction, will Unesco be voicing concerns about this especially when currently Infrastrata has permission for an exploratory well 500 metres from Durlston Castle. If we don’t turn to renewables now future generations won’t have a safe coastline to visit due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. The view should the least of our concerns.[/p][/quote]I completely agree with you. Renewable energy is not our future, it's the future of our children and their children. We should be welcoming this wind farm with open arms, along with setting aside areas of land for solar farms. If every house in the UK had their own solar panels or a small domestic windmill, we would not need to rely on energy companies at all. I get so cross with the muppets in this area opposing this development. I am also very cross with the echo for only ever finding "experts" who oppose it and never once have they printed an article in favour Abc1970
  • Score: -2

1:05am Sun 25 May 14

mooninpisces says...

"The Navitus Bay development does not threaten the geology that is protected under criteria VIII of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. You can't stop everything that goes on in a world heritage site. Just because it's on the list, doesn't mean it has an exclusion zone around it.," (UNESCO press spokesman).
"The Navitus Bay development does not threaten the geology that is protected under criteria VIII of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. You can't stop everything that goes on in a world heritage site. Just because it's on the list, doesn't mean it has an exclusion zone around it.," (UNESCO press spokesman). mooninpisces
  • Score: 0

6:25am Sun 25 May 14

K5054 says...

Ivy wrote:
Following yesterday’s announcement about the massive oil/gas reserves along the South coast that will require fracking for extraction, will Unesco be voicing concerns about this especially when currently Infrastrata has permission for an exploratory well 500 metres from Durlston Castle.

If we don’t turn to renewables now future generations won’t have a safe coastline to visit due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. The view should the least of our concerns.
I`m sorry Ivy dear but this is just hysterical nonsense.

You have

(1) No scientific proof that overall the sea levels are rising at a rate that will wipe away the our historic Jurassic coast line in under one thousand years. The UK is still tilting on a rebound from the last ice age.

The south and east coast is sinking into the sea along with London while the North and west coast are still rising from the sea.

2) No scientific evidence that mans emissions are causing your forecasted rise of metres.

(3) and last but not least absolutely no evidence that the fitting of a £3 billion intermittent energy source will make the slightest difference to sea levels in the short term that it will be operational..

(4) On balance there is no evidence that this huge wind farm as seen on a local human level but insignificant and tiny on a global level will make even 1 days difference to the outcome you suggest.

For you to ask us to believe that mankind can tinker around with tiny levels of a natural biogenic gas and through this tinkering can alter or control earths temperature or climate is an arrogance of unbelievable proportions and in the best tradition of Voodoo.

If you do truly believe than man is responsible for climate change then talk about the run-away human population that annually drowns out the effects of all your proposed wind turbines that will ever be fitted or just talk about humans consuming no more than 1,750 calories each a day and through this control CO2 emissions.

as it is your so called Navitus effect , if it ever existed, is gone with the wind in less than a day.
[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote: Following yesterday’s announcement about the massive oil/gas reserves along the South coast that will require fracking for extraction, will Unesco be voicing concerns about this especially when currently Infrastrata has permission for an exploratory well 500 metres from Durlston Castle. If we don’t turn to renewables now future generations won’t have a safe coastline to visit due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. The view should the least of our concerns.[/p][/quote]I`m sorry Ivy dear but this is just hysterical nonsense. You have (1) No scientific proof that overall the sea levels are rising at a rate that will wipe away the our historic Jurassic coast line in under one thousand years. The UK is still tilting on a rebound from the last ice age. The south and east coast is sinking into the sea along with London while the North and west coast are still rising from the sea. 2) No scientific evidence that mans emissions are causing your forecasted rise of metres. (3) and last but not least absolutely no evidence that the fitting of a £3 billion intermittent energy source will make the slightest difference to sea levels in the short term that it will be operational.. (4) On balance there is no evidence that this huge wind farm as seen on a local human level but insignificant and tiny on a global level will make even 1 days difference to the outcome you suggest. For you to ask us to believe that mankind can tinker around with tiny levels of a natural biogenic gas and through this tinkering can alter or control earths temperature or climate is an arrogance of unbelievable proportions and in the best tradition of Voodoo. If you do truly believe than man is responsible for climate change then talk about the run-away human population that annually drowns out the effects of all your proposed wind turbines that will ever be fitted or just talk about humans consuming no more than 1,750 calories each a day and through this control CO2 emissions. as it is your so called Navitus effect , if it ever existed, is gone with the wind in less than a day. K5054
  • Score: -1

8:37am Sun 25 May 14

a.g.o.g. says...

mooninpisces wrote:
"The Navitus Bay development does not threaten the geology that is protected under criteria VIII of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. You can't stop everything that goes on in a world heritage site. Just because it's on the list, doesn't mean it has an exclusion zone around it.," (UNESCO press spokesman).
I would think director Mr Roa pulls rank over ``press spokesman``.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: "The Navitus Bay development does not threaten the geology that is protected under criteria VIII of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. You can't stop everything that goes on in a world heritage site. Just because it's on the list, doesn't mean it has an exclusion zone around it.," (UNESCO press spokesman).[/p][/quote]I would think director Mr Roa pulls rank over ``press spokesman``. a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

9:01am Sun 25 May 14

save energy says...

This is a partial view (just 18 of 160 turbines) of Gwynt y Môr wind farm Colwyn Bay, they are 9 miles off the coast !! http://adamswalk.com
/day-35-27-apr-2014-
llandrillo-yn-rhos-t
o-prestatyn/
Gives you an idea what it will look like,

UNSCO are correct, it would threaten the Jurassic Coast, England’s only natural World Heritage Site.
Kiss goodbye to 25% of tourists.
This is a partial view (just 18 of 160 turbines) of Gwynt y Môr wind farm Colwyn Bay, they are 9 miles off the coast !! http://adamswalk.com /day-35-27-apr-2014- llandrillo-yn-rhos-t o-prestatyn/ Gives you an idea what it will look like, UNSCO are correct, it would threaten the Jurassic Coast, England’s only natural World Heritage Site. Kiss goodbye to 25% of tourists. save energy
  • Score: 2

9:07am Sun 25 May 14

save energy says...

As for rising sea levels, do you know the history of Harlech Castle ??
When it was built in 1283 (the end of the Medieval Warming), the sea washed up at the base of the outcrop of rock. Fresh supplies were sent from Ireland by sea, arriving via Harlech's water gate as the artistic reconstruction below shows.
http://upload.wikime
dia.org/wikipedia/co
mmons/thumb/f/fe/Rec
onstruction_of_Harle
ch_Castle.jpg/250px-
Reconstruction_of_Ha
rlech_Castle.jpg

Since then, the sea has receded to form a broad sandy shoreline, about a mile away. See -
http://upload.wikime
dia.org/wikipedia/co
mmons/thumb/a/ab/Har
lech_Castle_-_Cadw_p
hotograph.jpg/330px-
Harlech_Castle_-_Cad
w_photograph.jpg -

& Satellite map - http://www.british-t
owns.net/attractions
/castle/harlech-cast
le -

If you look around you will find numerous examples of sea rise & fall, read your history, study geology.
Climate, tectonic plates, sea levels, temperature have all been constantly changing (usually violently ) for 4+ billion years, we’ve only been here for a few million, (some believe only 6,000 !!).

Nature does what nature does, we can’t control it, IT controls us.
So enjoy life for the short time you are here.
As for rising sea levels, do you know the history of Harlech Castle ?? When it was built in 1283 (the end of the Medieval Warming), the sea washed up at the base of the outcrop of rock. Fresh supplies were sent from Ireland by sea, arriving via Harlech's water gate as the artistic reconstruction below shows. http://upload.wikime dia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/thumb/f/fe/Rec onstruction_of_Harle ch_Castle.jpg/250px- Reconstruction_of_Ha rlech_Castle.jpg Since then, the sea has receded to form a broad sandy shoreline, about a mile away. See - http://upload.wikime dia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/thumb/a/ab/Har lech_Castle_-_Cadw_p hotograph.jpg/330px- Harlech_Castle_-_Cad w_photograph.jpg - & Satellite map - http://www.british-t owns.net/attractions /castle/harlech-cast le - If you look around you will find numerous examples of sea rise & fall, read your history, study geology. Climate, tectonic plates, sea levels, temperature have all been constantly changing (usually violently ) for 4+ billion years, we’ve only been here for a few million, (some believe only 6,000 !!). Nature does what nature does, we can’t control it, IT controls us. So enjoy life for the short time you are here. save energy
  • Score: 2

11:23am Sun 25 May 14

K5054 says...

save energy wrote:
As for rising sea levels, do you know the history of Harlech Castle ??
When it was built in 1283 (the end of the Medieval Warming), the sea washed up at the base of the outcrop of rock. Fresh supplies were sent from Ireland by sea, arriving via Harlech's water gate as the artistic reconstruction below shows.
http://upload.wikime

dia.org/wikipedia/co

mmons/thumb/f/fe/Rec

onstruction_of_Harle

ch_Castle.jpg/250px-

Reconstruction_of_Ha

rlech_Castle.jpg

Since then, the sea has receded to form a broad sandy shoreline, about a mile away. See -
http://upload.wikime

dia.org/wikipedia/co

mmons/thumb/a/ab/Har

lech_Castle_-_Cadw_p

hotograph.jpg/330px-

Harlech_Castle_-_Cad

w_photograph.jpg -

& Satellite map - http://www.british-t

owns.net/attractions

/castle/harlech-cast

le -

If you look around you will find numerous examples of sea rise & fall, read your history, study geology.
Climate, tectonic plates, sea levels, temperature have all been constantly changing (usually violently ) for 4+ billion years, we’ve only been here for a few million, (some believe only 6,000 !!).

Nature does what nature does, we can’t control it, IT controls us.
So enjoy life for the short time you are here.
you are quite right of course.....The UK is a tilting board, sinking on one corner and rising on the other...The FoE use the sinking bit to highlight sea level rises to advertise their pet theory of Global warming and rising sea levels that will cause London to sink beneath the waves( which of course it will do quite naturally..

The only way to save London is to do what the Dutch do and use dykes and huge pumps like the ones we hired from them earlier to pump out the "Somerset - below the sea- " levels.
[quote][p][bold]save energy[/bold] wrote: As for rising sea levels, do you know the history of Harlech Castle ?? When it was built in 1283 (the end of the Medieval Warming), the sea washed up at the base of the outcrop of rock. Fresh supplies were sent from Ireland by sea, arriving via Harlech's water gate as the artistic reconstruction below shows. http://upload.wikime dia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/thumb/f/fe/Rec onstruction_of_Harle ch_Castle.jpg/250px- Reconstruction_of_Ha rlech_Castle.jpg Since then, the sea has receded to form a broad sandy shoreline, about a mile away. See - http://upload.wikime dia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/thumb/a/ab/Har lech_Castle_-_Cadw_p hotograph.jpg/330px- Harlech_Castle_-_Cad w_photograph.jpg - & Satellite map - http://www.british-t owns.net/attractions /castle/harlech-cast le - If you look around you will find numerous examples of sea rise & fall, read your history, study geology. Climate, tectonic plates, sea levels, temperature have all been constantly changing (usually violently ) for 4+ billion years, we’ve only been here for a few million, (some believe only 6,000 !!). Nature does what nature does, we can’t control it, IT controls us. So enjoy life for the short time you are here.[/p][/quote]you are quite right of course.....The UK is a tilting board, sinking on one corner and rising on the other...The FoE use the sinking bit to highlight sea level rises to advertise their pet theory of Global warming and rising sea levels that will cause London to sink beneath the waves( which of course it will do quite naturally.. The only way to save London is to do what the Dutch do and use dykes and huge pumps like the ones we hired from them earlier to pump out the "Somerset - below the sea- " levels. K5054
  • Score: 0

11:28am Sun 25 May 14

mooninpisces says...

The Statement of Outstanding Value, the key UNESCO document, makes it crystal clear that the Jurassic Coast's World Heritage status depends on its geological significance, not its sea views.

3 questions:

1. Why is the Echo running this story, but not including the UNESCO spokesman's response (essentially that the World Heritage status is not affected by the wind park)?

2. What role did mischief making by Richard Drax MP play here?

3. How does Andrew Langley, quoted here as a defender of the Jurassic Coast, explain his November 2011 article in the Purbeck Gazette? There, he suggested changes to the position of the wind park to reduce its visual impact. One of his favoured alternatives was moving it further west - hidden from Swanage, but right beside the Jurassic Coast!
The Statement of Outstanding Value, the key UNESCO document, makes it crystal clear that the Jurassic Coast's World Heritage status depends on its geological significance, not its sea views. 3 questions: 1. Why is the Echo running this story, but not including the UNESCO spokesman's response (essentially that the World Heritage status is not affected by the wind park)? 2. What role did mischief making by Richard Drax MP play here? 3. How does Andrew Langley, quoted here as a defender of the Jurassic Coast, explain his November 2011 article in the Purbeck Gazette? There, he suggested changes to the position of the wind park to reduce its visual impact. One of his favoured alternatives was moving it further west - hidden from Swanage, but right beside the Jurassic Coast! mooninpisces
  • Score: 2

2:28pm Sun 25 May 14

K5054 says...

Try this for a thought..:

Never mind about UNESCO and mischief making which is all the greens have ever done about AGW except now they don`t like it when it begins to backfires on them..

Do we want to support this monstrosity in the bay when it could be fitted elsewhere , and perhaps where even bigger developents have now puilled out, and where it does not impinge upon five or more nearby sea side resorts

With nearly 200 towers up to 650 feet tall spanning an area greater than Manchester we could all insist that that the £3.5 bn French Dutch Navitus Bay development that will dominate the area go somewhere less sensitive..
Try this for a thought..: Never mind about UNESCO and mischief making which is all the greens have ever done about AGW except now they don`t like it when it begins to backfires on them.. Do we want to support this monstrosity in the bay when it could be fitted elsewhere , and perhaps where even bigger developents have now puilled out, and where it does not impinge upon five or more nearby sea side resorts With nearly 200 towers up to 650 feet tall spanning an area greater than Manchester we could all insist that that the £3.5 bn French Dutch Navitus Bay development that will dominate the area go somewhere less sensitive.. K5054
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Sun 25 May 14

Flusters says...

Surely the wind farm must be cancelled in the light of what Unesco and other specialists and Marine biologists say. There must be a more appropriate site if we need to go with a foreign company.
Surely the wind farm must be cancelled in the light of what Unesco and other specialists and Marine biologists say. There must be a more appropriate site if we need to go with a foreign company. Flusters
  • Score: -1

8:44pm Sun 25 May 14

K5054 says...

mooninpisces wrote:
"The Navitus Bay development does not threaten the geology that is protected under criteria VIII of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. You can't stop everything that goes on in a world heritage site. Just because it's on the list, doesn't mean it has an exclusion zone around it.," (UNESCO press spokesman).
I would on this occasion have to agree with mooninpices. You can`t stop development round a world heritage site either inland or offshore.

So exactly how UNESCO thinks that the view towards the Isle of Wight being blocked out by a 650 foot tall Navitus Wind farm the size of Manchester is going to alter the designation of the site is hard to see! sea?

Further clarification is required.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: "The Navitus Bay development does not threaten the geology that is protected under criteria VIII of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. You can't stop everything that goes on in a world heritage site. Just because it's on the list, doesn't mean it has an exclusion zone around it.," (UNESCO press spokesman).[/p][/quote]I would on this occasion have to agree with mooninpices. You can`t stop development round a world heritage site either inland or offshore. So exactly how UNESCO thinks that the view towards the Isle of Wight being blocked out by a 650 foot tall Navitus Wind farm the size of Manchester is going to alter the designation of the site is hard to see! sea? Further clarification is required. K5054
  • Score: -2

9:27am Mon 26 May 14

yet_another_one says...

coster wrote:
It seems some people are confused between Reserves (stock) and the presence of fuels. We now hear that all reserves will be taken up within 5 years, but no mention of the trillion tons of coal we are sitting on, that all gas product will also be gone without any mention of the vast amounts available .
I realise that the facts of the so called 'global warming' scam are a political move pushed by the agenda 21 followers but could we stick to fact. There has been NO overall temperature rise over the past 17 years.
For goodness sake, people should acquaint themselves with & read the IPCC report that has been debated & presented by experts worldwide.
What will you say to your kids when so much irreparable damage has been done to the infrastrata ?
[quote][p][bold]coster[/bold] wrote: It seems some people are confused between Reserves (stock) and the presence of fuels. We now hear that all reserves will be taken up within 5 years, but no mention of the trillion tons of coal we are sitting on, that all gas product will also be gone without any mention of the vast amounts available . I realise that the facts of the so called 'global warming' scam are a political move pushed by the agenda 21 followers but could we stick to fact. There has been NO overall temperature rise over the past 17 years.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake, people should acquaint themselves with & read the IPCC report that has been debated & presented by experts worldwide. What will you say to your kids when so much irreparable damage has been done to the infrastrata ? yet_another_one
  • Score: 0

10:56am Mon 26 May 14

K5054 says...

yet_another_one wrote:
coster wrote:
It seems some people are confused between Reserves (stock) and the presence of fuels. We now hear that all reserves will be taken up within 5 years, but no mention of the trillion tons of coal we are sitting on, that all gas product will also be gone without any mention of the vast amounts available .
I realise that the facts of the so called 'global warming' scam are a political move pushed by the agenda 21 followers but could we stick to fact. There has been NO overall temperature rise over the past 17 years.
For goodness sake, people should acquaint themselves with & read the IPCC report that has been debated & presented by experts worldwide.
What will you say to your kids when so much irreparable damage has been done to the infrastrata ?
Oh for goodness sake!

This comment is yet another example of over hype and hysterical non-science and repeats the political mumbo jumbo science coming from the USA,and EU and others who can make a fortune out of the premise that humans can control the climate via tinkering with TINY LEVELS OF A COMMON GAS CO2 and bears little relevance to actual reality.

The writer has been sucked in by Western propaganda designed purely for the purpose of control and curtailing eastern expansion as well being used for financial purposes by promoting the expensive profit making wind turbine and the new solar farming industry. Better then growing food since it makes more profit.. See Drax et al jumping loudly on the bandwagon...

Your kids won`t notice any difference since all they will have is just repeats of the weather patterns of the last 450 years

.Bristol, the Somerset levels and the East coast will vanish underwater again in the next 300 years just as they have in the previous 300 years since nothing changes.
[quote][p][bold]yet_another_one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]coster[/bold] wrote: It seems some people are confused between Reserves (stock) and the presence of fuels. We now hear that all reserves will be taken up within 5 years, but no mention of the trillion tons of coal we are sitting on, that all gas product will also be gone without any mention of the vast amounts available . I realise that the facts of the so called 'global warming' scam are a political move pushed by the agenda 21 followers but could we stick to fact. There has been NO overall temperature rise over the past 17 years.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake, people should acquaint themselves with & read the IPCC report that has been debated & presented by experts worldwide. What will you say to your kids when so much irreparable damage has been done to the infrastrata ?[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake! This comment is yet another example of over hype and hysterical non-science and repeats the political mumbo jumbo science coming from the USA,and EU and others who can make a fortune out of the premise that humans can control the climate via tinkering with TINY LEVELS OF A COMMON GAS CO2 and bears little relevance to actual reality. The writer has been sucked in by Western propaganda designed purely for the purpose of control and curtailing eastern expansion as well being used for financial purposes by promoting the expensive profit making wind turbine and the new solar farming industry. Better then growing food since it makes more profit.. See Drax et al jumping loudly on the bandwagon... Your kids won`t notice any difference since all they will have is just repeats of the weather patterns of the last 450 years .Bristol, the Somerset levels and the East coast will vanish underwater again in the next 300 years just as they have in the previous 300 years since nothing changes. K5054
  • Score: 1

5:11pm Mon 26 May 14

TheDistrict says...

Is'nt the international waters 12 nautical miles off the coast, about the same distance as the beginning of the Navitus Windfarm. If this is the case then we really have no say in the matter, as the distance was pushed out to that distance. As for damage to the Jurassic Coast, I am at a loss as to how damage will be caused to the coastline. Its not being built on the Jurassic coast.

Is it not about time that the Challenge Navitus groups shut up and stop trying to find excuses to stop the go ahead.

Navitus will be further out that the farm off Clacton, and other east coat projects.
Is'nt the international waters 12 nautical miles off the coast, about the same distance as the beginning of the Navitus Windfarm. If this is the case then we really have no say in the matter, as the distance was pushed out to that distance. As for damage to the Jurassic Coast, I am at a loss as to how damage will be caused to the coastline. Its not being built on the Jurassic coast. Is it not about time that the Challenge Navitus groups shut up and stop trying to find excuses to stop the go ahead. Navitus will be further out that the farm off Clacton, and other east coat projects. TheDistrict
  • Score: -1

6:44pm Mon 26 May 14

K5054 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Is'nt the international waters 12 nautical miles off the coast, about the same distance as the beginning of the Navitus Windfarm. If this is the case then we really have no say in the matter, as the distance was pushed out to that distance. As for damage to the Jurassic Coast, I am at a loss as to how damage will be caused to the coastline. Its not being built on the Jurassic coast.

Is it not about time that the Challenge Navitus groups shut up and stop trying to find excuses to stop the go ahead.

Navitus will be further out that the farm off Clacton, and other east coat projects.
It doesn`t look as though Dr.Martin Rogers or your view are environmentally worth the paper they are written on..

2011 Mont St Michael. A UNECSCO site on the French coast.
At 22 Kms (13.75 miles) out Light pollution from the offshore wind electricity generators will turn the medieval pilgrimage site into a "Christmas garland", according to Environment and Landscape, an environmental group.

2012 UNESCO director threats to de-clasify the site causes the French government to abandon the plan and instead create an exclusion zone around the area.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Is'nt the international waters 12 nautical miles off the coast, about the same distance as the beginning of the Navitus Windfarm. If this is the case then we really have no say in the matter, as the distance was pushed out to that distance. As for damage to the Jurassic Coast, I am at a loss as to how damage will be caused to the coastline. Its not being built on the Jurassic coast. Is it not about time that the Challenge Navitus groups shut up and stop trying to find excuses to stop the go ahead. Navitus will be further out that the farm off Clacton, and other east coat projects.[/p][/quote]It doesn`t look as though Dr.Martin Rogers or your view are environmentally worth the paper they are written on.. 2011 Mont St Michael. A UNECSCO site on the French coast. At 22 Kms (13.75 miles) out Light pollution from the offshore wind electricity generators will turn the medieval pilgrimage site into a "Christmas garland", according to Environment and Landscape, an environmental group. 2012 UNESCO director threats to de-clasify the site causes the French government to abandon the plan and instead create an exclusion zone around the area. K5054
  • Score: 1

9:00pm Mon 26 May 14

mooninpisces says...

Perhaps K5054 can let us know what medieval pilgrimages take place on the Jurassic Coast, and how they would be affected by lights from Navitus Bay? I have lived in Purbeck, but have never seen them publicised.
Perhaps K5054 can let us know what medieval pilgrimages take place on the Jurassic Coast, and how they would be affected by lights from Navitus Bay? I have lived in Purbeck, but have never seen them publicised. mooninpisces
  • Score: -1

5:46am Tue 27 May 14

K5054 says...

Think your smart Eh? Perhaps too smart! Be careful you don`t live to rue the day you ever supported the building of such a huge, short lived, intrusive, industrial complex off shore when the area still sits on gas and oil reserves and is open to exploitation by offshore drilling platforms the refusal of which becomes ever more difficult to deny on visual grounds.

The 2013 untouched and licensed Beacon gas and oil field sit a mere 5kms off Hengistbury head and falls well within the zone licensed for cracking even to the creation of an new island, Hook island, if required or just further out sits the untouched gas migration field that feeds the seepage fault lines at Durlston head.

Once the flood gates are open all can and will follow. Far smarter people than you or the Doctor have been watching the area for years ,just waiting for a chance and Navitus might create the undeniable chance they have all been waiting for.
Think your smart Eh? Perhaps too smart! Be careful you don`t live to rue the day you ever supported the building of such a huge, short lived, intrusive, industrial complex off shore when the area still sits on gas and oil reserves and is open to exploitation by offshore drilling platforms the refusal of which becomes ever more difficult to deny on visual grounds. The 2013 untouched and licensed Beacon gas and oil field sit a mere 5kms off Hengistbury head and falls well within the zone licensed for cracking even to the creation of an new island, Hook island, if required or just further out sits the untouched gas migration field that feeds the seepage fault lines at Durlston head. Once the flood gates are open all can and will follow. Far smarter people than you or the Doctor have been watching the area for years ,just waiting for a chance and Navitus might create the undeniable chance they have all been waiting for. K5054
  • Score: 1

7:53am Tue 27 May 14

mooninpisces says...

Do I understand this right? UNESCO would withdraw World Heritage status from the Jurassic Coast as a result of Navitus Bay, because if Navitus Bay went ahead this would open the floodgates (nice image) for oil and gas rigs in Poole Bay?

It will be interesting to see what the Planning Inspectors make of that one.
Do I understand this right? UNESCO would withdraw World Heritage status from the Jurassic Coast as a result of Navitus Bay, because if Navitus Bay went ahead this would open the floodgates (nice image) for oil and gas rigs in Poole Bay? It will be interesting to see what the Planning Inspectors make of that one. mooninpisces
  • Score: 0

9:32am Tue 27 May 14

K5054 says...

mooninpisces wrote:
Do I understand this right? UNESCO would withdraw World Heritage status from the Jurassic Coast as a result of Navitus Bay, because if Navitus Bay went ahead this would open the floodgates (nice image) for oil and gas rigs in Poole Bay?

It will be interesting to see what the Planning Inspectors make of that one.
A bit of smart leads to a bit of smart but your not that smart Huh!
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: Do I understand this right? UNESCO would withdraw World Heritage status from the Jurassic Coast as a result of Navitus Bay, because if Navitus Bay went ahead this would open the floodgates (nice image) for oil and gas rigs in Poole Bay? It will be interesting to see what the Planning Inspectors make of that one.[/p][/quote]A bit of smart leads to a bit of smart but your not that smart Huh! K5054
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Tue 27 May 14

mooninpisces says...

mooninpisces wrote:
The Statement of Outstanding Value, the key UNESCO document, makes it crystal clear that the Jurassic Coast's World Heritage status depends on its geological significance, not its sea views.

3 questions:

1. Why is the Echo running this story, but not including the UNESCO spokesman's response (essentially that the World Heritage status is not affected by the wind park)?

2. What role did mischief making by Richard Drax MP play here?

3. How does Andrew Langley, quoted here as a defender of the Jurassic Coast, explain his November 2011 article in the Purbeck Gazette? There, he suggested changes to the position of the wind park to reduce its visual impact. One of his favoured alternatives was moving it further west - hidden from Swanage, but right beside the Jurassic Coast!
An update of the story this morning seems to have gone straight into the Archive, for some reason. It gives a partial answer to the second question I posed.

SOUTH Dorset MP Richard Drax has backed concerns raised by the World Heritage Centre involving the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposal.
Mr Drax said: “I wrote to UNESCO in July 2012 about the threat that such a vast, industrial, offshore complex could pose to this, the sole World Heritage Site of Outstanding Universal Value in England.
“I am delighted that they seem to agree with me although I am concerned that our designation may be threatened.”
Mr Drax said the wind farm would have far reaching repercussions, including sediment disturbance, constant sound, low frequency hums, light flicker, rain shadows, radar shadows and physical obstacles to bird and marine life.
He added: “When proposals for just three wind turbines threatened another World Heritage Site, the Mont Saint Michel in France, UNESCO threatened to withdraw their world heritage status. The French government was forced to draw a 20km exclusion zone around the Mont.
“At the very least, I hope for a similar result here. Better still, Navitus Bay will follow UNESCO’s suggestion and place this monstrosity of a wind farm elsewhere.”
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: The Statement of Outstanding Value, the key UNESCO document, makes it crystal clear that the Jurassic Coast's World Heritage status depends on its geological significance, not its sea views. 3 questions: 1. Why is the Echo running this story, but not including the UNESCO spokesman's response (essentially that the World Heritage status is not affected by the wind park)? 2. What role did mischief making by Richard Drax MP play here? 3. How does Andrew Langley, quoted here as a defender of the Jurassic Coast, explain his November 2011 article in the Purbeck Gazette? There, he suggested changes to the position of the wind park to reduce its visual impact. One of his favoured alternatives was moving it further west - hidden from Swanage, but right beside the Jurassic Coast![/p][/quote]An update of the story this morning seems to have gone straight into the Archive, for some reason. It gives a partial answer to the second question I posed. SOUTH Dorset MP Richard Drax has backed concerns raised by the World Heritage Centre involving the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposal. Mr Drax said: “I wrote to UNESCO in July 2012 about the threat that such a vast, industrial, offshore complex could pose to this, the sole World Heritage Site of Outstanding Universal Value in England. “I am delighted that they seem to agree with me although I am concerned that our designation may be threatened.” Mr Drax said the wind farm would have far reaching repercussions, including sediment disturbance, constant sound, low frequency hums, light flicker, rain shadows, radar shadows and physical obstacles to bird and marine life. He added: “When proposals for just three wind turbines threatened another World Heritage Site, the Mont Saint Michel in France, UNESCO threatened to withdraw their world heritage status. The French government was forced to draw a 20km exclusion zone around the Mont. “At the very least, I hope for a similar result here. Better still, Navitus Bay will follow UNESCO’s suggestion and place this monstrosity of a wind farm elsewhere.” mooninpisces
  • Score: 1

11:35pm Tue 27 May 14

K5054 says...

mooninpisces wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
The Statement of Outstanding Value, the key UNESCO document, makes it crystal clear that the Jurassic Coast's World Heritage status depends on its geological significance, not its sea views.

3 questions:

1. Why is the Echo running this story, but not including the UNESCO spokesman's response (essentially that the World Heritage status is not affected by the wind park)?

2. What role did mischief making by Richard Drax MP play here?

3. How does Andrew Langley, quoted here as a defender of the Jurassic Coast, explain his November 2011 article in the Purbeck Gazette? There, he suggested changes to the position of the wind park to reduce its visual impact. One of his favoured alternatives was moving it further west - hidden from Swanage, but right beside the Jurassic Coast!
An update of the story this morning seems to have gone straight into the Archive, for some reason. It gives a partial answer to the second question I posed.

SOUTH Dorset MP Richard Drax has backed concerns raised by the World Heritage Centre involving the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposal.
Mr Drax said: “I wrote to UNESCO in July 2012 about the threat that such a vast, industrial, offshore complex could pose to this, the sole World Heritage Site of Outstanding Universal Value in England.
“I am delighted that they seem to agree with me although I am concerned that our designation may be threatened.”
Mr Drax said the wind farm would have far reaching repercussions, including sediment disturbance, constant sound, low frequency hums, light flicker, rain shadows, radar shadows and physical obstacles to bird and marine life.
He added: “When proposals for just three wind turbines threatened another World Heritage Site, the Mont Saint Michel in France, UNESCO threatened to withdraw their world heritage status. The French government was forced to draw a 20km exclusion zone around the Mont.
“At the very least, I hope for a similar result here. Better still, Navitus Bay will follow UNESCO’s suggestion and place this monstrosity of a wind farm elsewhere.”
The elsewhere has already been undertaken after moving it further out and is now where it was always meant to be from day one, but one must play games with the public to give them a chance to think that their protests have had the democratic effect.
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: The Statement of Outstanding Value, the key UNESCO document, makes it crystal clear that the Jurassic Coast's World Heritage status depends on its geological significance, not its sea views. 3 questions: 1. Why is the Echo running this story, but not including the UNESCO spokesman's response (essentially that the World Heritage status is not affected by the wind park)? 2. What role did mischief making by Richard Drax MP play here? 3. How does Andrew Langley, quoted here as a defender of the Jurassic Coast, explain his November 2011 article in the Purbeck Gazette? There, he suggested changes to the position of the wind park to reduce its visual impact. One of his favoured alternatives was moving it further west - hidden from Swanage, but right beside the Jurassic Coast![/p][/quote]An update of the story this morning seems to have gone straight into the Archive, for some reason. It gives a partial answer to the second question I posed. SOUTH Dorset MP Richard Drax has backed concerns raised by the World Heritage Centre involving the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposal. Mr Drax said: “I wrote to UNESCO in July 2012 about the threat that such a vast, industrial, offshore complex could pose to this, the sole World Heritage Site of Outstanding Universal Value in England. “I am delighted that they seem to agree with me although I am concerned that our designation may be threatened.” Mr Drax said the wind farm would have far reaching repercussions, including sediment disturbance, constant sound, low frequency hums, light flicker, rain shadows, radar shadows and physical obstacles to bird and marine life. He added: “When proposals for just three wind turbines threatened another World Heritage Site, the Mont Saint Michel in France, UNESCO threatened to withdraw their world heritage status. The French government was forced to draw a 20km exclusion zone around the Mont. “At the very least, I hope for a similar result here. Better still, Navitus Bay will follow UNESCO’s suggestion and place this monstrosity of a wind farm elsewhere.”[/p][/quote]The elsewhere has already been undertaken after moving it further out and is now where it was always meant to be from day one, but one must play games with the public to give them a chance to think that their protests have had the democratic effect. K5054
  • Score: 0

8:02am Wed 28 May 14

save energy says...

K5054 says... " but one must play games with the public to give them a chance to think that their protests have had the democratic effect."

How cynical.....But how true !!
because sadly you CAN fool most of the people most of the time.

Although judging by last weeks election results people are increasingly fed up with being taken as fools.

Navitus Bay is NOT about -
1 - Generating reliable electricity - ( intermittent unpredictable energy has a negative effect on the grid.)

2 - Creating jobs - ( most jobs will be foreign based)

3 - Security of supply - ( ironically wind (& solar) make us more reliant on imports of gas & oil from unstable areas - as gas-turbines are the only practical way of following the unpredictable outputs from wind. We've known this for 30yrs & still haven't learned !!)

Navitus Bay is all about -
Loadsa money !!!!
Long term profits to foreign developers, £billions....paid for by me & you

You may find these links useful-
• RWEs European Windfarms – Live production map, note Capacity in MW, but output is in kW (cos it looks bigger), so ÷ 1,000 to compare.
http://standortkarte
.oroe.info/index2.ht
ml?lang=en

• What’s happening on the grid NOW, demand & production; here -
http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/
K5054 says... " but one must play games with the public to give them a chance to think that their protests have had the democratic effect." How cynical.....But how true !! because sadly you CAN fool most of the people most of the time. Although judging by last weeks election results people are increasingly fed up with being taken as fools. Navitus Bay is NOT about - 1 - Generating reliable electricity - ( intermittent unpredictable energy has a negative effect on the grid.) 2 - Creating jobs - ( most jobs will be foreign based) 3 - Security of supply - ( ironically wind (& solar) make us more reliant on imports of gas & oil from unstable areas - [middle east, north Africa etc ] as gas-turbines are the only practical way of following the unpredictable outputs from wind. We've known this for 30yrs & still haven't learned !!) Navitus Bay is all about - Loadsa money !!!! Long term profits to foreign developers, £billions....paid for by me & you You may find these links useful- • RWEs European Windfarms – Live production map, note Capacity in MW, but output is in kW (cos it looks bigger), so ÷ 1,000 to compare. http://standortkarte .oroe.info/index2.ht ml?lang=en • What’s happening on the grid NOW, demand & production; here - http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/ save energy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree