While comparisons between offshore and onshore wind suggest that the latter is cheaper economically, this is only half the picture as it does not take into account the price of environmental impact.

I believe that we must not turn our backs on offshore wind before it has been decided that onshore turbines will be built close to populated areas, not in the woods or other wilderness (it is much easier to negotiate with people than with eagles), lest the price of wind turbines proves too much for our environment.

I doubt we can calculate the value of an eagle killed by a wind turbine, their impact on habitats or diversity. It is possible that relying on onshore wind farms alone will run an environmental price we simply cannot afford.

People do not live in the sea, which is why the NIMBY or "not in my backyard" effect is much smaller there. Harnessing offshore wind also has a price and negative environmental impact, but trying to generate all of our wind power on land might prove too much for terrestrial ecosystems (or people) and result in system failure. Marine ecosystems are usually larger/more capacious and so is their tolerance (so-called scale effect).

We could limit ourselves to onshore wind if people take a step back and turbines are only erected near settlements or in fields as their environmental impact is smaller in areas that are already heavily affected by human activity.

It is dangerous when decisions that directly impact the environment are made solely based on economic calculations. Examples are myriad. Rather, we should proceed from the realization that the economy must not exceed the environment's tolerance. From this perspective, looking also at the possibilities offered by offshore wind is sensible.

We are not wealthy enough to be able to afford ecological shortsightedness. I agree with Arvi Hamburg in that energy needs smart, not ideological decisions.

I'm not contesting Hamburg's claim that Estonia could do with just onshore wind developments, but only if we can accept the turbines being constructed in our near vicinity. Building them far away from populated areas is sensible neither economically nor ecologically.

The price of fossil energy generation is much greater still, which is why I cannot agree with Rain Epler's position, according to which we should be relying on oil shale for several more decades.

Because the price of environmental change is difficult to put in financial terms, we should proceed from the principle of caution, which in this case stands for spreading out environmental risks over offshore and onshore options. It is unwise to keep all of your eggs in the same basket.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!