This is an impressive document and I’m so glad to have found this as I’ve been stewing around wondering why nobody is talking louder about the plans on Substack. But the greenwashing you so rightly introduce with just goes to prove the scramble to get these island voices heard. We’ve objected, signed and are causing a commotion
This thing is utter insanity. I’m not an islander but I’ve been visiting Islay for about thirty years. They want to build it there for their “convenience”…
The power imbalance is grotesque. There’s not nearly enough news coverage of this atrocity. I only found out about it through the Ileach. I’ve objected, written to my MP and all that stuff, I’m now trying to track down environmentally inclined journalists who might be interested.
Hi Charles, this is going on all around the coast of Scotland, the UK, Europe, the world. Many of these developments seem to being going on under the radar but people are starting to take notice now. Hopefully we can turn the tide.
"The Applicant states that the Proposed Development will make a significant contribution towards Scotland’s and the UK’s Net Zero objectives, with estimated annual carbon savings of millions of tonnes of CO₂"
We are well past the point where carbon-phobic views (and indeed policies!) should be called out for being anti-scientific as well as destructive to the environments.
When the threat of CO2 is removed (for there is no threat) the Net Zero industry has no way of justifying itself.
Lucy Biggers was a carbon-phobe and activist (she interviewed Greta Thunberg) but she has cured herself by looking at the science.
Millions more like her are waking up to the fake science and getting off the Net Zero bus.
Policy makers and planners need to be made aware that Net Zero is a) unsustainable b) collapsing c) anti-scientific (science fraud) d) destined to be regarded as a crime against the environment and against humanity.
As I have pointed out in my blog, the exodus from Net Zero and the backlash against it is now so rapid it's doubtful 'Net Zero' will even exist by the time many of these proposals are scheduled to be completed (ie 5 to 10 years from now).
How bizarre. Whilst some of the arguments are interesting/may need require further investigation, its inescapable that a large part of this is speculation without the necessary scientific backing (or shaped to fit the argument), and in some cases has been proven as manageable through suitable/enforced planning condition or simply not an issue on existing sites. We’re breaking temperature records daily, under constant drought warnings (in the UK), with major cities in France/Spain at risk of full evacuation due to climate change induced wildfires ravaging vast swathes of land previously deemed safe. We’re living through dangerous heatwaves (with thousands dying as a result this year alone), in northern reaches of the UK rather than near the equator (I do wonder what you think is causing this, looking at the other comments, or if you think it perhaps this isn’t happening at all and our eyes/bodies/senses are simply deceiving us). We have the solutions to solve the climate crisis, yet prevaricate and dither, coming up with a plethora of reasons why we shouldn’t implement these solutions. The fact human activity has resulted in climate change/global heating is perhaps the most agreed upon thesis in the scientific community. It’s no longer a matter of debate (this argument is reminiscent of the smoking doesn’t impact your health line pushed in the 20th century by Big Tobacco). Perhaps the above will be put in a museum as one of many exhibits of examples of how we failed future generations (if museums still exist at that point, I imagine conflict over scarce water resources/food will be front of mind, along with other priorities) if we don’t come together to solve it.
If offshore wind farms were really about saving the planet, then why is renewable energy promoted as capable of powering hyper scale data centres in Scotland that we do not have yet and which will need fossil fuel backup. At least 24 are in the pipeline.
This is an impressive document and I’m so glad to have found this as I’ve been stewing around wondering why nobody is talking louder about the plans on Substack. But the greenwashing you so rightly introduce with just goes to prove the scramble to get these island voices heard. We’ve objected, signed and are causing a commotion
🤞
This thing is utter insanity. I’m not an islander but I’ve been visiting Islay for about thirty years. They want to build it there for their “convenience”…
The power imbalance is grotesque. There’s not nearly enough news coverage of this atrocity. I only found out about it through the Ileach. I’ve objected, written to my MP and all that stuff, I’m now trying to track down environmentally inclined journalists who might be interested.
We’re not beaten yet.
All the best.
CH
Hi Charles, this is going on all around the coast of Scotland, the UK, Europe, the world. Many of these developments seem to being going on under the radar but people are starting to take notice now. Hopefully we can turn the tide.
Go get them Lonneke!! Thank you so much for the time, work and consideration you have put into to this objection!!
Thanks Alex, I hope you will send objection yourself, deadline is 15 August!
I have signed the petition but haven’t found the location to lodge a complaint
Easiest to use the objection tool, see https://www.hebrideanhorizon.co.uk/how-to-object/
If you want to write your own objection manually, see https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/machairwind_offshore_wind_farm_-_windfarm_development_area_-_final_public_notice.pdf
"The Applicant states that the Proposed Development will make a significant contribution towards Scotland’s and the UK’s Net Zero objectives, with estimated annual carbon savings of millions of tonnes of CO₂"
We are well past the point where carbon-phobic views (and indeed policies!) should be called out for being anti-scientific as well as destructive to the environments.
When the threat of CO2 is removed (for there is no threat) the Net Zero industry has no way of justifying itself.
Lucy Biggers was a carbon-phobe and activist (she interviewed Greta Thunberg) but she has cured herself by looking at the science.
https://lucybiggers.substack.com/p/why-this-co2-chart-doesnt-scare-me
Millions more like her are waking up to the fake science and getting off the Net Zero bus.
Policy makers and planners need to be made aware that Net Zero is a) unsustainable b) collapsing c) anti-scientific (science fraud) d) destined to be regarded as a crime against the environment and against humanity.
As I have pointed out in my blog, the exodus from Net Zero and the backlash against it is now so rapid it's doubtful 'Net Zero' will even exist by the time many of these proposals are scheduled to be completed (ie 5 to 10 years from now).
This too shall pass 🙏
How bizarre. Whilst some of the arguments are interesting/may need require further investigation, its inescapable that a large part of this is speculation without the necessary scientific backing (or shaped to fit the argument), and in some cases has been proven as manageable through suitable/enforced planning condition or simply not an issue on existing sites. We’re breaking temperature records daily, under constant drought warnings (in the UK), with major cities in France/Spain at risk of full evacuation due to climate change induced wildfires ravaging vast swathes of land previously deemed safe. We’re living through dangerous heatwaves (with thousands dying as a result this year alone), in northern reaches of the UK rather than near the equator (I do wonder what you think is causing this, looking at the other comments, or if you think it perhaps this isn’t happening at all and our eyes/bodies/senses are simply deceiving us). We have the solutions to solve the climate crisis, yet prevaricate and dither, coming up with a plethora of reasons why we shouldn’t implement these solutions. The fact human activity has resulted in climate change/global heating is perhaps the most agreed upon thesis in the scientific community. It’s no longer a matter of debate (this argument is reminiscent of the smoking doesn’t impact your health line pushed in the 20th century by Big Tobacco). Perhaps the above will be put in a museum as one of many exhibits of examples of how we failed future generations (if museums still exist at that point, I imagine conflict over scarce water resources/food will be front of mind, along with other priorities) if we don’t come together to solve it.
If offshore wind farms were really about saving the planet, then why is renewable energy promoted as capable of powering hyper scale data centres in Scotland that we do not have yet and which will need fossil fuel backup. At least 24 are in the pipeline.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/25/scotland-policy-green-datacentres-emissions-impact-ai-analysis