In the ambient discourse surrounding wind power development, when we raise our hands to question the ways of doing things of promoters or our political decision-makers, or quite simply to highlight the inconsistency of this sector in agricultural and inhabited environments, the response is always: “it’s “not in my backyard””!
But how can we talk about “not in my backyard” when the backyard in question is the backyard of all Quebec families? Let’s be clear, when it comes to installing industrial wind turbines on agricultural land, the feeding potential of the entire population is undermined. And how can we accept wind development on agricultural land when food autonomy is in decline, but is also a government priority? Where is the consistency ?
When, collectively, we do not take the time to ask ourselves all the questions and hear all the voices before jumping on a solution that seems, for some, to be a jackpot, we miss out on a real social debate. and a process worthy of our democracy.
We should also not underestimate the collective intelligence of our communities. Why don’t we look at the range of possibilities available to us instead of settling for a few financial scenarios? Why are citizens not offered choices, but first and foremost, the possibility of choosing?
According to Marie-Ève Maillé and Pierre Batellier, authors of the book Social acceptability. Without yes, it’s nothe use of “not in my backyard” (or PDMC) “serves as a screen and prevents any real substantive reflection on the other potential reasons and motivations for opposition to a project”.
Maillé and Batellier go as far as calling the use of the PDMC a “social gag” and I completely agree. In all the MRCs concerned, there are citizens and elected officials who oppose wind projects, but these same citizens and elected officials propose solutions and other options. By qualifying all these people as simple opponents, we eliminate the possibility of creating innovative projects that would undoubtedly contribute to the energy transition in a concrete and unifying way.
It is certain that it is easier and much quicker to put aside all debate, to not want to take the time to evaluate the options available to us. But to participate in the energy transition, we will have to readjust, rethink our ways of doing things and move forward together instead of dividing, as we are doing now. When a project is not acceptable to citizens and there are alternative solutions, what are we waiting for to act in this direction?
It’s possible, but we must humbly take a step aside, look at things objectively, in concert with citizens, and put decision-making power in the hands of the people who will suffer the consequences of our political decisions. We cannot simply dismiss the “opponents” by labeling them with an invented syndrome when these same citizens and elected officials are rather innovators and promoters of socially acceptable solutions.
In closing, I give the floor to M.me Maillé and Mr. Batellier, who brilliantly summarize this phenomenon of the PDMC and who demonstrate to what extent it has no reason to be: “What we forget in the end is that by constantly paying our attention on people who oppose a project and seeing it only as an expression of individual interests, we avoid the following questions: why would people support this project? What is its relevance? What meaning does it have? What does it bring beyond hypothetical economic benefits or supposed energy independence? Is it the right project in the right place at the right time? Of course, this requires more arduous reflection than decreeing: it’s just “not in my backyard”! »