Your open cast exemple is actually a good one - please consider an offshore wind farm and think about how it could damage the environment for you, or for more nearby stakeholders (fishermen, wildlife). Does it continually spew garbage into the sea? Does it generate massive volume of refuse? Is it very hard to uninstall?

Wind power

If you're running a PR campaign against something that has an excellent public image, it's no use fiddling about at the fringes. You identify the strong points and you turn them upside down.

Wind power is environmentally positive (little or no CO2 or other pollution)?
You say: wind power harms the environment (birds, bats, marine mammals, emits noise pollution, causes human health problems)

Wind power uses a free source of energy?
You say: it is diabolically expensive and fills the pockets of rich criminals

Windmills look clean, elegant, reassuring?
You say: windmills are a hideous encroachment on the landscape the sight of which causes anxiety.

Use the usual mix of think tanks, MSM compliance, political accomplices, campaigning associations, astro-turfers, and little by little you will create a "debate" or sow doubt in people's minds. Including the environmentalists who might once have been in favour of wind power.

Now, I'm not arguing that there is absolutely zero merit in these ideas, or that environmental impacts don't need to be assessed and dealt with (of course they must be). But mostly, these ideas do not correspond to reality (to be polite). And, over the last few years, they have gained increasing currency and can be come across pretty much everywhere.

Conspiracy theory? No, just the convergence of powerful vested interests. Exaggeration about criminals? Not even.

My skepticism is actually towards the decision makers.  There is a sense of wanting to rush forward on approving proposals (renewables targets, job creation) before firmly establishing the evidence base or ascertaining where protected zones are necessary to protect marine life.

In my experience if a project (a road, a building, a city bloc, a powerplant) is needed those in political power wants to build quickly so they get to finish it. Thus they get to set their stamp on it and have it as a monument of their time in power (and depending on political system, gather the larger share of the kickbacks). The opposition does not want to build right now, further studies are needed the alternatives need exploring and so on. If power shifts, so does the roles. Left and right does not appear to matter as much as in power and in opposition.

So in my experience it is perfectly normal for the decision makers to want to rush things. This of course says nothing about wheter further studies are needed in a particular case.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se