This is a discussion article. The opinions expressed are the writer’s own.
REPLY. The industry organization Swedish Wind Energy claims that nine out of ten are not disturbed by offshore wind power. But their example is a park with 150 meter high wind turbines – far from the up to 350 meter high wind turbines that are planned, writes Riksföreningen Motvind.
The wind power industry is making another effort to create public opinion for wind power.
Through something similar to artificial respiration, they try to demonstrate that offshore wind power does not negatively affect nature and people. Kustvind AB, which wants to build 25–33 wind turbines, along the coast in the territorial sea within the municipalities of Skurup and Trelleborg, has hired a smaller opinion firm, Exquiro Market. Only 150 people have been interviewed. In a PR campaign together with the industry organization Swedish Wind Energy, they then try to show that nine out of ten Swedes are positive about offshore wind power.
It is a frivolous procedure by a trade organization in such an important matter, as they mislead the Swedish people. The debate article is signed by Kustvind, CEO Magnus Jiborn and Svensk Vindenergi, CEO Daniel Badman.
Kustvind AB’s Magnus Jiborn not only owns a wind power company but also works in various networks to promote wind power exploitation. He sits at the top of the organization Global Challenges Foundation. There are other well-known advocates for wind power such as climate celebrity Johan Rockström and Linda Burenius, former chairman of Swedish Wind Energy and head of OX2. In 2007, Magnus Jiborn was employed as a project manager at the PR agency Westander with assignments in climate and energy. One of Westander’s diligent clients is Swedish Wind Energy.
How much the wind power industry spends per person can only be guessed, but one thing is certain, if wind power had been the right solution, it would not have needed artificial respiration.
Lillgrund is what is invoked as an example of the opinion poll. An offshore wind industry that was built in 2007 with 115 m high works, which cannot be compared at all with the 350 m high works that are currently planned along the coasts of our countryside. For example, the Virgin Coast, which stretches from Gävle-Söderhamn-Hudik, where the people in Söderhamn, by the way, clearly said no to offshore wind power within the municipality’s territorial waters in a referendum.
Regarding the opinion poll used, it is noteworthy that only 150 interviews were conducted. It is also not clear how close to the water the respondents live. The basis for the survey is also lame when reference to the state of opinion before the facility was built does not show the number of people who were asked at the time.
It feels crass to refer to a distribution based on so few conducted interviews. The totally nonsensical thing about this, however, is how the representatives of the wind power industry are mixing apples and pears. They implicitly try to equate Lillgrundet, which after all is outside a big city, with other planned establishments along scenic, untouched coastal and archipelago environments.
The fact that they also use Russian gas as an argument becomes absurd. They write “It is also about not fattening Russia’s war coffers and freeing Europe from dependence on Russian gas”. It is pure untruth as the dependence on Russian gas is largely due to wind power investments. This is because wind power is dependent on base power and Europe, just like Sweden, put down a large part of its base power in order to build non-plannable wind power instead.
Their survey and PR article is just another attempt to mislead the public. At the same time, proof that reality has caught up with them.
Torbjörn Sjödinchairman of the National Association Against Wind Sweden