“Scottish government approves offshore wind farm bitterly opposed by Donald Trump“
Which of the following makes more sense: A Luxury Hotel to increase traffic, and profits, to Donald Trumps holdings, or a Wind Farm consisting of 11 turbines which could supply energy for almost half the residents of Aberdeen Scotland?
Scottish energy minister Fergus Ewing said the project will boost the local economy, test new technologies and be capable of providing energy to meet the electricity needs of 49,000 homes — almost half the number in Aberdeen.
Donald Trump claims this clean and efficient alternative to fossil fuels would ruin “tourism and the natural beauty of Scotland.”
He said in a statement:
We will spend whatever monies are necessary to see to it that these huge and unsightly industrial wind turbines are never constructed,” and “vowed to bring a lawsuit to stop the 230 million pound ($349 million) development.
Numerous reports around the web suggest a divide between those who want clean energy alternatives and those who want to protect the natural beauty of the landscape. However, I don’t understand how Mr. Trump’s proposed building of “a 450-room hotel and holiday homes along 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) of coast” would do any less for the natural beauty of the contested coastal area.
While it is reported that:
Trump is concerned that the turbines will spoil sea views for golfers at his sprawling, 750 million pound ($1.2 billion) resort at Menie Estate, which opened last summer despite strong local opposition.
and:
The tycoon criticized Tuesday’s approval as a “purely political decision” and claimed it would ruin tourism and natural beauty in Scotland….
Trump himself has been criticized by local residents and environmentalists, who protested that his golf resort threatened the coastal sand dunes and wildlife in the area.
A March 2008 policy report, “The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism,” lends some support to Mr. Trumps claims. The full 305 page report is available at the following link: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf.
Conclusion and planning implications [state] Whilst it is clear that there is an impact, this impact is very small.
And still, this debate is really over the choice between a luxury golf resort which benefits a select group and relatively small amount of people, or a clean alternative energy source that can have a much broader social impact.
Original article source is the Associated Press.
Sources:
Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment
Related Posts
![BDS2006 at the English language Wikipedia [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], from Wikimedia Commons](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Windfarm_%2844%29.JPG){kind=link}