| Re: Severn barrage
Barrages for hydropower basically store potential energy and then convert that energy into electrical power in a controlled way via turbines. The problem for the wildlife is that the estuary’s biodiversity is dependant on that energy being processed via physical processes in the same way year after year. The barrage fundamentally changes how the energy passes though the environment i.e. the barrage changes the erosion and deposition patterns within the estuary, changes the nutrient balances, water quality and temperature of the water, changes the amount of mudflat / saltmarsh available and the length of time both aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna can use the various estuarine habitats and species migration is heavily compromised.
The Severn estuary, in energy terms is a reasonably natural system. The natural processes created by the energy passing through the system have created a dynamic but naturally sustaining system (ignoring Climate Change). To compensate for this we need to map and understand how the present estuary works and then replicate that elsewhere. As far as I know we don’t have the science to do this or a spare comparable estuary to use for compensation. Therefore, I’m with the RSPB on this and definitely in the ‘anti’ camp.
I think it will be nigh on impossible to compensate for this site of international importance and if you can’t compensate, then it’s not sustainable development. It’s obviously a quick fix for one sustainability target (CO2 emissions), but we mustn’t sacrifice something that’s irreplaceable when there are other more sustainable ways of meeting our targets – it’s just that they’re not as popular because it might mean taking fewer cheap flights, walking the kids to school, running only one car per household etc.
The report on the BBC this morning was quite confusing as they said that ‘environmentalists’ were split over whether a barrage should go ahead or not. They then had the ‘anti’ view from the RSPB and then a ‘pro’ view from someone they called an ‘environmental activist’. Now we all know who the RSPB are but who does the ‘environmental activist’ represent? He let it slip that he was part of SERA, which from what I can work out is basically a labour party environmental think tank. So who was this environmental activist representing? was it himself, the government, the labour party, SERA, I have no idea apart from the fact that he was obviously partisan and not saying who he was representing i.e. it could have been the government trying to covertly influence the debate by undermining the environmental argument because they know it’ll be an environmental disaster if this goes ahead. The BBC wouldn’t do an interview saying politicians are split over an issue and here are their views, without saying which politician represented which party, so why are they doing it with environmental issues?
Cheers, Chris  |