Labour lifts Tories’‘absurd’ ban on onshore windfarms - eviltoast

And while the Greens are doing what they do best (opposing green development), the Labour government has already lifted the Tory ban on onshore windfarms.

This is odd, because Labour are the same as the Tories, as we all know, and the Greens are a radical new force. But in this case, Labour are doing the direct opposite of the Tories, while the Greens are doing the same things the Tories did! Most curious.

EDIT: Here’s the official government statement confirming this.

EDIT 2: And this isn’t all! Rachel Reeves is also planning to do more to make onshore wind simpler to build.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Last September, Michael Gove, then communities secretary, said the ban would be lifted; rules put in place by David Cameron in 2015 decreed that a single planning objection could scupper an onshore wind project.

    Analysis of the government’s renewable energy planning database found that no applications for new onshore wind projects were submitted after Gove’s announcement.

    The end of the ban was promised in Labour’s election manifesto and trailed by the new energy secretary, Ed Miliband, when he was in opposition, but campaigners were surprised by the speed at which it has been implemented.

    Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said: “By ending the onshore wind ban in England, Labour is making an important stride towards delivering on our climate goals, while also paving the way for lower bills, as renewables produce some of the cheapest and cleanest energy available.

    By harnessing the country’s vast renewable power potential, the new government is staking its claim as a global leader in the green energy transition.”

    Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace’s chief scientist, added: “As the recent gas price crisis shows, this ban was self-defeating for energy security, costly, and lost opportunities to cut emissions.


    The original article contains 625 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!