On THE proposed turbine-free zones, your comments and letters page (5 April) have understandably concentrated largely on the aesthetics and tourism effects of such sites; and Sir Kenneth Calman, as chairman of the National Trust for Scotland, refers to the trust’s membership survey.
In its summer 2012 magazine article initiating the survey, the trust unwisely had Donald Trump putting the case against, rather than one of the many expert Scots whose opinion would have carried much more weight than the divisive American.
The trust published only four brief replies in its autumn/winter issue, despite having “received many more letters”, and hardly touched on the many other doubts about wind turbines expressed by engineers, economists and environmentalists, such as their true total costs, unreliable generation, short life-spans, concrete coverage, and health effects.
While we should reduce pollution and support new energy sources, Scotland’s contribution to man-made global warming is negligible, at under 0.2 per cent. Many of us who regret the failed Zeta fusion project over 50 years ago would accept some landscape and tourism effects if we were convinced that the turbines will in fact generate net extra and clean electricity commensurate with all the resources used, and for a reasonable economic return.
As it is, they appear more like yet another example of taking money from the poor to give to the rich.