Letter: A better way

Muir Miller of Peel Energy (Letters, 4 January) just doesn't get it. Our organisations are opposed to Peel Energy's plan for Hunterston because it would be environmentally devastating.

Not only would their new coal power station result in substantial new greenhouse gas emissions (even with partial carbon capture and storage or CCS), it would also destroy a large part of a nationally important designated wildlife site, when less damaging locations exist.

Our organisations would oppose any development that would be this damaging, whoever the applicant. There are other ways of meeting our energy needs, including through well-sited renewables and other proposals to install CCS to existing coal fired stations.

The plans to install CCS at Longannet and Peterhead would directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and would also avoid direct harm to important wildlife interests. Thus, government funds spent here would achieve the best outcome for Scotland and the planet. Our support for these proposals has nothing to do with who the developers are. We assess each application on its own merits, and, indeed, we have opposed schemes from SSE and ScottishPower when we consider the damage done to outweigh any benefits.

The development of CCS offers considerable opportunities for Scotland, but it must be developed to reduce existing greenhouse gas emissions - not lead to a net increase as Hunterston inevitably would - and it must not destroy the most important parts of our natural environment.

STUART HOUSDEN

Director, RSPB Scotland

DUNCAN MCLAREN

Chief Executive, Friends of the Earth Scotland

RICHARD DIXON

Director, WWF Scotland