All energy production involves risk and potentially harmfully side effects. However, it’s rather generally believed that “alternative energy” would be exempt from both hazards and liability.
Mr Jonny Fagerstrom of the landscape protection society (use translation tools for a quick view), tells another story:
– Approximately 15000 people are suffering, in Sweden, because of wind mills. Property prices are falling. Hey, we live on the country side – with all it’s hazzles – because we want peace and tranquility.
(CFACT EU): But you, the land owners, did have a deal, didn’t you, to get proper compensation?
– Yes, we, or the locals had a deal, in reality however, people are not getting the promised compensation.
Simply put; they wind companies don’t pay up. In more direct terms, they breach the contract.
Mr Fagerstrom is angry, and, I’d say, ritghly so, but we move on to other energy sources. And agree that indeed there are hazard everywhere. Mostly, however, the hazard is government, either handing out permits to pollute without asking the neighbours, or by,quite simply steeling (the euphemism here is “expropriation”) land.
It’s time to clean up the energy debate and admit that also so called alternatives can be run by rascals.