It was not surprising that some of the earliest major activity from the newly elected Labour government came from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero headed by Ed Miliband. Not only because the recent cost of living crisis underlined the importance of reduced dependence on global oil and gas markets, but also because for years Miliband has demonstrated that he understands and cares about his brief, and has real ambition to get Britain to net zero emissions.
After a decade of glacial progress under the Tories, whose primary interest in net zero was as a source of culture wars, it was refreshing to see Labour approve multiple major solar farms within two weeks of taking office, amid reforms of planning laws to facilitate solar installations on buildings. Miliband was also quick to lift the de facto ban on onshore wind farms from the National Planning Policy Framework.
While to many this was a sign of a government that, despite inertia in other areas, is at least committed to increasing clean energy capacity, these decisions haven’t gone unopposed. The criticism has been most conspicuous from disgruntled home counties Tory MPs and councillors, fuming at the idea that farmland could possibly be covered by solar panels, and grumbling about the despoiling of the landscape.
Genuine opposition to solar farms
In fairness, there has also been grassroots opposition to these schemes, which have been seeking approval for years, but this has been rather limited compared to the benefits the projects would supply. The Mallard Pass solar farm now approved in Lincolnshire, for instance, was opposed by a petition boasting 3,000 signatures, whereas the project would generate electricity sufficient to power 92,000 homes.
That isn’t to say that large solar or wind farms should be built everywhere; clearly some places should be off limits. Sites with protected area designations for conservation or natural beauty have strict restrictions on such development, as do heritage sites and listed buildings. It’s unlikely that a solar farm could be approved at these sites, and at any rate those newly approved by Miliband aren’t affecting any such areas.
Land-use inefficiencies
Critics of solar farms might just have the makings of a legitimate point when they decry the food security implications of taking fertile agricultural land out of crop production. However, that land will still be productive; it’ll still be contributing an essential national service, only in the form of increased energy security rather than food security. Furthermore, those who bemoan the loss of agricultural land to solar farms must first contend with just how inefficiently we use such land area.
Over 100,000ha of high-grade agricultural land in England is used to grow sugar beet, a crop that provides no nutritional value, is processed into sugar by a single monopoly company, and has for the past several years been given ‘emergency’ approvals for the use of a banned neonicotinoid insecticide – all while we import most of our fresh fruit and veg. By contrast, ground-mounted solar panels take up less than 25,000ha, equating to around 0.1 per cent of all UK land, around a quarter of that used for sugar beet and around 20 per cent of that used for golf courses. It must also be considered that over half of UK cereal production is currently fed to livestock instead of people.
If the three proposals, and the changes made in response to consultations, are examined, it is clear that the land on which the arrays will be built is not high-grade agricultural soil, that sheep may be grazed under some of the arrays, and that mitigation measures to reduce visual impact, by planting hedges and trees, have been included.
Far larger threats than solar farms
All of this puts the objections to ground-mounted solar arrays in context. So, if you’re concerned about food security there are far larger threats than solar farms. Prominent among these, as pointed out by Miliband in parliament recently, is the climate crisis itself. This year, for instance, many British farmers were unable to sow crops in spring, and other crops failed due to extraordinarily wet weather. This problem will only become worse as climate change drives extreme and less predictable weather patterns.
The most urgent priority to limit this threat is to cut greenhouse emissions, with clean energy being at the heart of the transition to net-zero. If we care about food security – nationally and globally – we need a lot more solar, wind and nuclear power. The Climate Change Committee warned earlier this month that to bring the UK back on track to meet its target of a 68 per cent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030, solar installations must increase by five times, offshore wind by three times and onshore wind must double, among other measures.
Installing solar on car parks and buildings
Of course, there are brownfield sites that could be prioritised for solar generation too. One such example is car parks. In 2022, the French Senate approved legislation mandating that all car parks with over an 80 vehicle capacity should be covered by solar panels. It’s estimated that British car parks have great potential for increasing solar capacity within the built environment, and the government should clearly implement a similar legal mandate to that in France.
But why aren’t brownfield sites already being prioritised for solar installations instead of farmland? Well, for a solar company, it’s generally more costly to install panels over a car park, likely on urban private land, than it is for a ground mounted solar farm in the countryside. This is potentially where GB Energy, Labour’s flagship public clean energy company, could be useful, by taking on these less attractive investments itself. In the meantime, the embrace of solar farms by the government, and the lifting of restrictions on onshore wind, is an unequivocally necessary mark of progress towards net-zero targets after years of obstruction by the Tories.
Increasing renewable capacity generally has strong public support, and once the energy security delivered by such developments – alongside planning reform for rooftop installations – begins to make itself felt in lower bills, most of the current objections will melt away. I have little time for homeowners in the leafy shires whinging that a solar farm is going to spoil their view of some fields – this is Nimbyism in its purest form, and the government will do well to ignore it.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
