Wind power in sparsely populated rural areas – a Win Win Workout
Picture credit: Tom Podmore; source: Unsplash

Perry Walker writes:

This was a two-hour online event on 11th March 2026. 14 people came along. We considered both turbines and pylons. Our point of view was that of the people who live in such areas. We identified three positions that such people may hold. They appear to be in tension. Our challenge was to seek common ground between them. We started by dividing into three groups and expanding on the aims of each position.

What were the three positions and the aims of people holding that position?

  • Community Benefit – “Rural communities are being used as a resource for urban demand without proper say or fair reward.” The aims identified by the group were:
    • Ensure there are tangible benefits and the community flourishes
    • The community have agency, involvement and feel heard
  • Stewardship – “These industrial-scale installations and lines of pylons permanently industrialise our wild landscapes and rural vistas.” The aims were:
    • Protect biodiversity, landscapes and food security, public health, tourism, transport network, spirit of place.
    • Protect from central government criminality, protect residents’ interests.
  • National Need – “The climate crisis is the overriding priority. We have a national duty to generate clean energy for the grid.”
    • Security: less fuel from overseas and more self-reliance
    • There’s a moral imperative here. Firstly, to protect future generations. Second, all energy is generated in somebody’s backyard. It’s our turn now.

In sum, National Need prioritises the national, Stewardship prioritises place, and Community Benefit prioritises the people directly affected.

What happened when people representing all three positions sought common ground?

Plenty of shared aims were identified. What was fascinating was the different ways in which they were constructed: 

  1. People holding all three positions were able to agree with the aim of the Community Benefit group to “Ensure there are tangible benefits and the community flourishes”.
  2. This shared aim, “Reduce energy use in all communities” seemed to emerge from nowhere – only slightly related to any of the position aims.
  3. Most striking was the resolution of these two aims: (1) “protect residents’ interests” (Community Benefit) and (2) “There’s a moral imperative here. Firstly, to protect future generations. Second, all energy is generated in somebody’s backyard. It’s our turn now” (National Need). They seemed to me to be in tension, verging on contradiction. They were resolved by identifying principles that both positions could accept:
    • “Achieving pride, e.g. through local say and national leadership”
    • “Achieving national objectives such as survival in a way fair to all”. (Maybe also this one: “those who have lots of energy potential help those without, those without acknowledge the help”.)
    • “Resilience in cities and communities and across the UK as a whole”
    • “Security: less fuel from overseas and more self-reliance”

Could we get from shared aims to solutions?

Here we quickly ran into the question of what was achievable. This is where our expert, Alan Owen from the Centre for Alternative Technology, was invaluable. For example, one solution proposed was, ‘Wind power designed as part of a nationwide coordinated plan, that takes into account proportionate benefits/contributions for/from all.’ Highly desirable, said Alan, but not easily achievable because so much of our energy infrastructure is in the hands of private companies, for profit, often foreign owned. (Another shared aim was, “Energy generation should be not for profit”.) 

Similarly, the current government is moving in the opposite direction on this aim: “Communities affected by the solution to be involved in the decision-making process after being given a broader understanding of energy generation/options open”.

Conclusion

There are two main conclusions. First, the common ground above was reached with ease. It would be uncontroversial to many. Yet the political/economic system makes it largely unachievable. 

Second, we had some lovely feedback on the process. Wendi Lethbridge from Energy4All said, “This has been one of the best discussions I’ve had in ages”. Sophie Hadaway wrote, “There’s a lot of noise on both sides of this argument. This Win-win session gave a space to consider ‘the why’ of what matters in a very calm, open, non-judgemental space. I now have a deeper sense of my own thinking. Green energy is of paramount importance but needs to be designed in a ‘done with’ rather than a ‘done to’ manner and not be a profit driven enterprise, but rather a serious proposal for community/local benefit.”

Perry Walker, 15th March 2023