The first para is just chippy, anti-normality, divisive bigotry of the type the article is specifically warning us to steer clear of. Nobody normal cares about "diversity", apart from companies being paid by Blackrock to pursue an ESG policy. The voice of a community is the voice of a community, as "diverse" or otherwise as the community…
The first para is just chippy, anti-normality, divisive bigotry of the type the article is specifically warning us to steer clear of. Nobody normal cares about "diversity", apart from companies being paid by Blackrock to pursue an ESG policy. The voice of a community is the voice of a community, as "diverse" or otherwise as the community itself. Certainly some of the meetings I attended in Rochdale and Halifax were as far away from your cliched stereotype as you could imagine.
Nobody is blocked or prevented from having their voice. The house price metrics give everyone, home owner or not, a guide as to the general wellbeing of an area. It's in literally nobody's benefit that the housing stock of a community depreciates, and it does near wind farms, according to the LSE's Gone With The Wind report.
The proof of community opposition to wind farms lies in the fact that there is no "ban" to onshore wind farms. Communities are perfectly free to have them in their own community, if that's what they want. But since 2015, nobody has availed themselves of this opportunity!
Good chatting Matthew. None of this is aimed at you personally, just making counterarguments for the benefit of readers. I hope this is an interesting debate for you all!
Blackrock are a multi national financial investor. Their investors pretty much exclusively care about results.
If they are pushing diversity it will be because they believe it drives results.
With regards to my point do you believe that older homeowners are representative of the views of families or the poor who are highly unlikely to go go community meetings?
Thanks again Matthew. Good points/questions. It's good that together we're looking into these issues and bringing them into the debate. Re diversity, Vanguard have now pulled out of ESG claiming it does more harm than good, and we've all seen the bank failures of recent days. The jury is out on whether the ESG policy caused or contributed to the collapses. One theory is that it's basically a cartel, forcing businesses to pay over the odds from "approved" suppliers. Time will tell... Follow the money is generally a good policy. Who benefits, and who pays?
Regarding the attendance of community meetings: these are open to everyone, and if there is a large number of older homeowners, logic dictates it's because they're more settled in an area, more invested in its best interests, more attached to the local environment, more aware of what's going on, generally more connected to local policy decision-making than the more transient sections of the community. I see nothing wrong with that.
However, as we're seeing with the ULEZ protests, it's counterproductive to sideline or namecall those people who turn up and get involved in these meetings. Indeed, that was the very point I got from this article: the climate movement needs these people on board, it needs to reach out to their needs and priorities and address them.
Rural populations will just stick their fingers in their ear, at best, or vociferously campaign against, so-called "environmental" policies that directly make their local environment worse, tangibly affecting their senses negatively. There's a common belief that the countryside is just a dumping ground for urban infrastructure.
As I said, the meetings I was involved with really were open to everyone, and the strength of feeling regarding the wind farms was far-reaching, affecting all the community. Rochdale for example is the home of the co-operative movement, and the anti-wind farm (Rooley Moor and the Scout Moor extension) protests were totally in keeping with that original pro-working class, anti-corporate standpoint.
TLDR: I'm trying to divorce opposition to wind farms from any kind of "climate denial" or "right wing" agendas. I want people on the left to see wind turbines as the bourgeois tool of oppression over the proletariat that they really are.
Ironically, I believe by going back to these Marxist principles and applying them to Big Energy (wind or otherwise - let's not forget the Peel Group who operate Scout Moor are also interested in fracking; it's the same people!), you are more likely to form a coalition across the political spectrum. Now there may well be some communities that do want wind farms, again time will tell. But by imposing them on people against their will, by minimising their legitimate concerns instead of trying to fix the technology to better address these flaws, you will just make them think the entire climate agenda is nothing but a money-making, citizen-harming scam.
If we must have wind power, it needs to be deployed much more compassionately and less corporately.
The first para is just chippy, anti-normality, divisive bigotry of the type the article is specifically warning us to steer clear of. Nobody normal cares about "diversity", apart from companies being paid by Blackrock to pursue an ESG policy. The voice of a community is the voice of a community, as "diverse" or otherwise as the community itself. Certainly some of the meetings I attended in Rochdale and Halifax were as far away from your cliched stereotype as you could imagine.
Nobody is blocked or prevented from having their voice. The house price metrics give everyone, home owner or not, a guide as to the general wellbeing of an area. It's in literally nobody's benefit that the housing stock of a community depreciates, and it does near wind farms, according to the LSE's Gone With The Wind report.
The proof of community opposition to wind farms lies in the fact that there is no "ban" to onshore wind farms. Communities are perfectly free to have them in their own community, if that's what they want. But since 2015, nobody has availed themselves of this opportunity!
Good chatting Matthew. None of this is aimed at you personally, just making counterarguments for the benefit of readers. I hope this is an interesting debate for you all!
Blackrock are a multi national financial investor. Their investors pretty much exclusively care about results.
If they are pushing diversity it will be because they believe it drives results.
With regards to my point do you believe that older homeowners are representative of the views of families or the poor who are highly unlikely to go go community meetings?
Thanks again Matthew. Good points/questions. It's good that together we're looking into these issues and bringing them into the debate. Re diversity, Vanguard have now pulled out of ESG claiming it does more harm than good, and we've all seen the bank failures of recent days. The jury is out on whether the ESG policy caused or contributed to the collapses. One theory is that it's basically a cartel, forcing businesses to pay over the odds from "approved" suppliers. Time will tell... Follow the money is generally a good policy. Who benefits, and who pays?
Regarding the attendance of community meetings: these are open to everyone, and if there is a large number of older homeowners, logic dictates it's because they're more settled in an area, more invested in its best interests, more attached to the local environment, more aware of what's going on, generally more connected to local policy decision-making than the more transient sections of the community. I see nothing wrong with that.
However, as we're seeing with the ULEZ protests, it's counterproductive to sideline or namecall those people who turn up and get involved in these meetings. Indeed, that was the very point I got from this article: the climate movement needs these people on board, it needs to reach out to their needs and priorities and address them.
Rural populations will just stick their fingers in their ear, at best, or vociferously campaign against, so-called "environmental" policies that directly make their local environment worse, tangibly affecting their senses negatively. There's a common belief that the countryside is just a dumping ground for urban infrastructure.
As I said, the meetings I was involved with really were open to everyone, and the strength of feeling regarding the wind farms was far-reaching, affecting all the community. Rochdale for example is the home of the co-operative movement, and the anti-wind farm (Rooley Moor and the Scout Moor extension) protests were totally in keeping with that original pro-working class, anti-corporate standpoint.
TLDR: I'm trying to divorce opposition to wind farms from any kind of "climate denial" or "right wing" agendas. I want people on the left to see wind turbines as the bourgeois tool of oppression over the proletariat that they really are.
Ironically, I believe by going back to these Marxist principles and applying them to Big Energy (wind or otherwise - let's not forget the Peel Group who operate Scout Moor are also interested in fracking; it's the same people!), you are more likely to form a coalition across the political spectrum. Now there may well be some communities that do want wind farms, again time will tell. But by imposing them on people against their will, by minimising their legitimate concerns instead of trying to fix the technology to better address these flaws, you will just make them think the entire climate agenda is nothing but a money-making, citizen-harming scam.
If we must have wind power, it needs to be deployed much more compassionately and less corporately.