Let us be clear: Even though less energy consumption is also needed, it is crucially necessary to establish masses of RE - both at sea and on land - so that all fossil energy can be rapidly phased out. Solar and wind are, at least in the short term, the absolutely crucial fossil-free energy sources.

Resistance to “iron fields” and mega wind turbines

Does this mean that the climate and environmental movement should enthusiastically support all solar panel and wind turbine projects? Absolutely not! And this is definitely not the case in practice - at least not in rural municipalities. The problem is that in practice it is very often large investors and property owners who are allowed to decide where endless “iron fields” and 150-metre-high wind turbines should suddenly be erected. And their “planning considerations” are not about consideration for nature or people, but solely about the greatest possible economic return. This typically means:

– That projects are located on areas that are not as profitable as agricultural land (e.g. low-lying soil, bogs, etc.), but which instead often have great natural qualities, recreationally and/or in terms of biodiversity.
– That plans regarding distance to housing, turbine sizes, etc. are solely about the greatest possible energy yield, not about reasonable consideration for people in the area.
– That the local population does not get ownership of the facility and a share in the electricity, but at best some kind of replacement or compensation that - even after the government’s doubling - does not give rise to enthusiasm.
– That the electricity may instead be earmarked for dubious projects. Electricity for a massive American data centre, for example. Or even more foolishly: Electricity for heavily state-subsidised and heavily delayed PtX [1] projects that may one day succeed in making green aviation fuel from electricity and slurry from the environmentally and animal-hostile pig industry - if we haven’t managed to shut this down first.

No wonder there is often fierce local resistance in the (rural) areas where the projects are placed. A resistance that is perfect fishing waters for bourgeois parties that trivialise the climate crisis and want to continue with fossil fuels and/or create false illusions about imminent nuclear power miracles. Not least the Denmark Democrats [2] are at the forefront and score supporters on stupid, climate-deaf RE resistance. But DF [3] and others follow suit.

Alternative from the left

It is therefore urgently needed that the left and the climate movement enter the battle - and come forward with some better answers to the problems. Perhaps because both the left and the climate movement have their centres in the larger cities, this has been slow to happen. Some have exposed opponents of RE installations as “NIMBY” hypocrites (“We certainly support RE, but Not In My BackYard”) - and that’s easy enough if you live in a city where no one dreams of placing solar parks and monster wind turbines.

But slowly, demands are being formulated around the country that both address rural populations’ RE concerns and the absolutely necessary climate movement demands. This is possible - provided one breaks with the idea that “green investors” and “market forces” should handle the deployment of RE. And if one is prepared to make demands for ownership and control.

The focal points should be:

– That solar panels should generally not be placed on “nature”, but on buildings and over paved surfaces, e.g. car parks, over and along roads, railways, etc. Is this sufficient? Yes! The Danish Energy Agency [4] operates with solar panels on a total of 440 km² in a fossil-free Denmark in 2050. And there are, for example, more than 700 km² of building roofs and more than 2000 km² of roads and railways in the country. The land is needed for organic food production, nature restoration and afforestation.
– That wind energy should especially be harvested at sea, where it causes the least disturbance to nature and people.
– That the landowners and speculators who currently play the role of driving and controlling RE deployment (or in the case of offshore wind: RE delays) should be removed from control - in favour of various forms of public or collective ownership and user control.

More concretely, these are demands such as:

– Solar panel and/or wind turbine parks in nature (including cultivated land, forest, etc.) should no longer be allowed to be built by private investors.
– All public buildings and all commercial buildings (including agricultural buildings) should be equipped with solar panels over a short period. New roofs should generally be solar panel roofs. In addition, municipal solar panels should be established - financed by cheap state loans - over parking areas, railways, roads (especially over and along motorways) and other paved surfaces.
– Private detached houses, cooperative and owner associations should be able to use the advantageous net billing for electricity if they establish solar panels or house wind turbines. Rental properties get the same opportunity, but only if 90 per cent of the surplus goes to the tenants.
– Wind energy should largely be built as offshore wind parks. Investors’ extortion should be ignored: The state should take over Ørsted [5] and start massively itself (see previous weekly commentary).
– Wind turbine and solar panel parks on land should only be able to be established and controlled by local energy communities of residents in the area - and should be owned by these jointly, a self-governing foundation or the municipality.
– Stricter rules should be introduced (or reintroduced) for all RE installations on land - including distance requirements, a general limitation on the height of wind turbines and the extent of solar panel parks, respect for natural values and (as mentioned above) support from residents.

Such demands can simultaneously strengthen the fight for immediate green transition with solar and wind as the central energy sources - and represent the justified popular resistance to human- and nature-hostile RE speculation projects. Thereby, such left-wing politics can also help take the wind out of far-right populists’ advance in rural areas, which is a not insignificant side benefit.

Socialist Workers’ Executive Committee