Simon Hoggart’s ‘dogmatic and irrational’ mistake
Yesterday in the Guardian Simon Hoggart referred to the environmental movement as a ‘religion - dogmatic and irrational’ in a small aside about wind power as the last entry in his week’s sketch. The full quote:
We are to have across our still beautiful countryside thousands more ghastly, noisy, hideous wind turbines, which produce very little energy at enormous cost. Proof that the environmental movement has become a religion - dogmatic and irrational - in that it has now persuaded government that to save the environment, we must first destroy it. [my emphasis]
Not the kind of environmental journalism you expect from the Guardian, which has delivered a consistent and well-researched line of sober alarm on climate change. In contrast, Jeremy Leggett’s piece took apart the government’s ‘green revolution’ in a far more measured way. Wrapped up in the safety net of opinion with no need to check facts, Hoggart has got it all wrong. For example:
- which produce very little energy…
According to Research Energy Solutions and the British Wind Energy Association, “Modern wind turbines are operational for 70-85% of the time and over the course of the year they will generate, on average, up to 35% of the theoretical maximum output. The exact figure is dependent on the location, technology, size, turbine reliability and wind conditions. By comparison, the load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%2. A typical modern 2.3MW wind turbine can produce enough power for over 1,000 homes - and that is taking into account the fact that the wind doesn’t blow all the time.”
- at enormous cost…
According to both the British Wind Energy Association and the US Electric Power Research institute, prices are competitive with both coal and nuclear. In the UK, “An average for a new onshore wind farm in a good location is 3-4 pence per unit, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p).”
- still beautiful countryside…
Hoggart’s use of the ’still’ here is a linguistic rhetoric device to stir up emotive reactions, making the beautiful countyside live in the continuous present tense, and therefore providing the threat that this continuous present is under threat. And personally, I think wind farms are pretty stunning and beautiful themselves.
- the environmental movement is a religion - dogmatic and irrational…
Which is pretty ironic, really, as Hoggart’s piece has ‘proved’ (another rhetorical device) that his opining is, well, rather dogmatic (‘asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated’) and irrational (‘not in accordance with reason’) . No, environmental action is not a religion. Unless, of course, religion is based on science. Or if religion is a focus on the present world, not a future transcendental. Or if religion is a way to justify the dismantling of the military-political complex, rather than a way to excuse its gross expansion. The modern environmental movement began with Rachel Carson’s highly scientific and focused study on pesticide use and its impact on the environment (Silent Spring). Driven by passion and justice, yes. A blind faith in a cognitive myth, no.
Such a shame that this old and buried meme is stil circulating.
Comments
Leave a Reply
