Switzerland’s Linth Region Says No To Wind Industry Landscape Blighting

Proposed wind turbines in Switzerland’s Linth region have been rejected by local communities, the media report. Parts of Switzerland want no part of blighting their landscape in the name of environmental protection.

Hit-tip: a reader from Switzerland

Little wonder!

Here’s what wind energy opposition organization Linth Gegenwind (Linth Headwind) shows what the otherwise idyllic Swiss landscape would end looking like by 2040 if the projects went ahead.

An artist’s depiction of what the Linth region would look like by 2040 if proposed wind projects were approved. Sanity appears to have returned. Image: Linth Gegenwind.

Wind energy is losing its luster for many reasons, but among them is the obvious industrial blight to the landscape they cause.

Wind turbines in Bilten rejected

In the latest step to protect the landscape from industrialization, Swiss SRF public broadcasting here reported on November 6 that the up to 5 controversial wind turbines, which had been planned to be erected in the middle of a “densely residential area”, were rejected on the grounds they would lead to “landscape blighting”.

The SRF quotes local Glarner government councilman Kaspar Becker:

We have come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily clever to pursue such things in densely populated areas.”

In response, wind energy opposition site Linth Gegenwind writes: “Common sense has prevailed!”

Honegg-Oberfeld wind park flat out rejected

Also recently the Swiss online appenzell24.ch has reported that the proposed Honegg-Oberfeld wind park was outright rejected.

On November 6, 2018, Appenzell24 wrote the local commission decided against the Honegg-Oberfeld district as a wind power location. Thus no wind farm can be built there.

On this, wind energy protest organization Linth Gegenwind writes at its website:

The reason is, above all, protection of the landscape. During the consultation process there were 60 in favor and 500 against the planned wind farm. Opponents also include Appenzell Ausserrhoden, St. Gallen, the state of Vorarlberg and the community presidents’ conference Ausserrhoden.”

According to the Appenzell24.ch, the 5 wind turbines with a hub height of 135 meters, would have resulted in “massive disadvantages for the landscape’s appearance”, according to opponents.

9 responses to “Switzerland’s Linth Region Says No To Wind Industry Landscape Blighting”

  1. Bitter&twisted

    Well done Switzerland👍
    Give ordinary people the chance and they will reject these monstrosities.

  2. Kurt in Switzerland

    The idea here is that the ordinary folk get to second-guess the would-be edicts from our so-called leaders (who think they know what’s best for the country).

    The efforts of our leaders boils down to virtue-signaling, so our politicians can brag that they’re doing everything they can to mitigate climate change and “save the planet for our grandchildren” (or something like that).

    Having driven a fair bit in Saxony, Thuringia and Bavaria, I can well imagine that our friends to the north are a bit envious of the Helvetian Direct Democracy.

  3. Pat Swords

    Agree whole heartily about Helvetian Direct Democracy.

    There are over 30,000 turbines in Germany and only a handful in Switzerland. The graphic representation below says it all, where on the Swiss map the light blue turbine symbols shown are actually microturbines, the four dark blue symbols represent regular sized turbines and six purple symbols are small wind farms.

    Swiss graphic from: https://www.energieschweiz.ch/page/de-ch/schweizer-windenergieanlagen

    German graphic from: http://www.suisse-eole.ch/de/windenergie/statistik/

    Geschichte wiederholt sich – history repeats itself and has done so this time, as unlike Switzerland with its bottom up strong democratic system, the rest of the EU, and particularly those countries which now demonstrate a considerable number of turbines, are weak democracies. In which central planning behind closed doors results in targets being set without assessment or public participation in decision-making and then one by one the projects are rapidly rammed into the landscape. Nobody has a clue what they are actually to achieve, other than a politically agreed target agreed by a limited number of so called decision makers operating behind closed doors. It was never worked out what in advance what was to be built, where it was to be built, what it was to cost, what were to be the benefits, what were the alternatives, what were to be the controls, etc. For those who are mushrooms and believe in what what is fed to you, that is fine, but don’t start asking questions and investigating, as all you will find are delusions and gross illegalities.

    The UN has five regional Commissions and the most technical advanced and resourced is the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in Geneva. It has five environmental treaties, four involving transboundary impacts
    related to air and water pollution, industrial accidents and environmental assessment. The fifth is about environmental democracy – the right to information on environmental issues, the right to participate in shaping decisions that affect your environment, and the right to justice if these rights are not respected. This Aarhus Convention originated out of the legacy of the environmental mess that was left behind the Iron Curtain – the environment belongs to the people, not the administration and the people have to be given robust procedural rights.

    The EU is flaunting a ruling of non-compliance in International Law against it in the manner in which it adopted its renewable programme bypassing the public participation requirements of the Convention. It is refusing to co-operate with the UNECE compliance proceedings on this issue:


    A decision of non-compliance in International law is also a breach of Community law and according to the established jurisprudence in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), both the Member States and the institutions of the EU should refrain from further implementation of their secondary legislation (20% Renewable Directive 2009/28/EC) until it is in compliance with the overarching Treaty requirements of the Convention. This they are refusing to do.

    They are also refusing to provide access to EU citizens to take challenges in the CJEU relating to breaches of the EU’s law on the environment. The EU Commission and its 28 Member States used its 29 votes of the 47 countries attending the Sept 2017 Meeting of the Parties in Sept 2017 to block a further decision of non-compliance against it in relation to the failures to provide EU citizens with their rights to take challenges in the CJEU. See Points 55 on below:


    I not only attended but spoke at this Treaty Convention as an observer and sat there in absolute disgust, as I listed to both the representatives of Norway and Switerland forcefully intervene to point out how completely unacceptable the double standards of the EU and its Member States were; there was one law for everybody and not special arrangements for the EU in breach of its International Treaty arrangements. Neither do I see as an EU citizen (or more to the point – economic unit), why I should have to witness Norwegian and Swiss Government officials fight for my rights, which I am entitled to in the first place by law.

    1. Newminster

      Sorry, Pat! The EU is *flaunting* its non-compliance by *flouting* the ruling! A common mistake; look it up.

      That niggle apart (I’m a pedant about these things) I’m with you 100%. Across the whole spectrum of experiences, people are being corralled into going along with political decisions “for their own good” or sidelined if they dare criticise too effectively.

      “Climate change” has provided the control freaks with a perfect scenario to interfere with every aspect of our lives.

      1. Yonason


        You’re correct that they are “flouting the ruling,” but they don’t appear to me to be flaunting (showing off) their non-compliance, as in “Hey, look at us brazenly violating our own laws at your expense.” I.e., they aren’t self consciously trying to get you to notice it. They just do it, and would probably be quite happy if you didn’t notice. But if you do notice, they don’t care, and pretend it doesn’t matter (the oppposite of showing off).

        You might argue that’s a distinction without a difference, but I would submit that if they were flaunting their power, there might be a much greater demand for them to cease and desist. So it’s really not in their interest to flaunt. There’s almost certainly a word for the treacherous disregard they have for the rights of EU citizens, but I can’t think of it off hand.

  4. Steve

    Nothing quite like improving picturesque landscapes with a bunch of wind turbines. Quite easy to see as the white stands out spectacularly against the green back drop. Unfortunately with sunspot activity quite low we may have some very cold weather covering them all up with snow.!! Cannot wait to see what all the dopey greenies say about that scenario.

  5. sasquatch

    Plaster Lake Geneva with those them thar turbines, be a sight to see and not soon to be forgotten.

    Mother Nature would be so happy.

  6. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #336 | Watts Up With That?
  7. URL

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More: notrickszone.com/2018/11/13/switzerlands-linth-region-says-no-to-wind-industry-landscape-blighting/ […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy