In the last two years the number of large windfarm projects gaining approval from local councils in England has slumped from 57% to an all-time low of just 25%, according to the British Wind Energy Association.

"We are concerned that the number of applications being rejected indicates that politics have become more and more entrenched at the local level," said Gemma Grimes of the BWEA. "We can't stop local authorities rejecting schemes for political reasons."

Grimes used the words "political reasons" rather than "democratic reasons". However, the plain truth is that rural voters have shunned the government's promotion of inland wind energy projects and are now expressing very hostile views via their local elected representatives.

Opinion polls consistently show strong public support for wind power in the UK with around 80% of people expressing support and only 10% opposed. Yet when this translates into local voter reaction to onshore wind development, particularly in England and Wales, support seems to evaporate. It is often replaced by deep anger and opposition. Why is this? I believe there are two reasons.

Firstly, the government has subcontracted the job of creating support for inland wind energy projects to commercial power generation firms. This decision guaranteed dogged resistance from a rural population wary of commercial exploitation by big business.

The notion that commercial electricity providers would be able to win large-scale public support for inland wind projects was completely misconceived. As a starting point, organisations that make vast fortunes from producing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations are not well positioned to lecture voters on saving the planet. Moreover, power suppliers are widely distrusted by most consumers as a result of windfall profits and a history of dubious doorstep sales practices.

It was clear from the outset that Labour's hugely ambitious plans for inland wind power would involve forcing through the most visible and controversial changes in rural land use since the Enclosure Acts. It was entirely predictable that this would create deep waves of social and political anxiety, yet nothing was done to calm the legitimate fears of rural people. The government made no attempt to create protective zoning arrangements or reassuring planning safeguards. As a result, rural communities felt at the mercy of an energy sector lashed into a feeding frenzy by state-devised market incentives. To cap it all, the commercial wind energy developers further inflamed the situation by adopting an arrogant, hard-sell approach to community consultation.

The second and more fundamental reason for rural voters' reticence was the deeply unattractive deal being offered to them. Unlike gas, coal or even nuclear power stations, wind turbines bring no jobs and little else materially worthwhile to the local economy. Power suppliers were arrogantly demanding community support for their commercial developments but they were offering absolutely no incentives in return.

Thanks to energy-switching websites, yesterday's compliant power consumers are today's empowered customers. They choose which electricity deal they support. In turn, empowered customers have become empowered voters, accustomed to rejecting unattractive business propositions from the energy sector.

So inland wind energy development simply looked like a toxic deal for local people. Negative impacts are unacceptable if they are not exchanged for compensating benefits. As the polls suggest, most rural voters remain in favour of renewable energy and even wind turbines, providing it is clear that these are planned in the national interest and are not simply a cynical scheme to line the pockets of big business.

The wasteful and unnecessary battle being fought out across the heart of this country was caused by a catastrophic failure of political foresight. Empowered rural consumers are democratically resisting what they regard as a crude attempt to unfairly exploit them, under the pretext of legitimate concerns over climate change.

Rural voters are not to blame for slowing wind energy expansion, as some in the media and environmental pressure groups suggest. In the end, politicians cannot blame the electorate for their own mistakes.

Adrian Snook is chief executive of Stop the Spin, a group that opposes inappropriately sited wind turbines.