Painful lessons on wind farms are unheeded

It also misses several vital points:

1, The methodology is open to question, as the survey was commissioned by two groups advocating wind farms - Scottish Renewables Forum and the British Wind Energy Association.

2, The wind farms in Argyll are largely off the main tourist routes, and thus not highly visible. As the rush for development increases, new sites will become more prominent, especially on the hilltops fav-oured for wind efficiency.

3, 83 per cent of those surveyed "visit Argyll and Bute because of the landscape, ie, its beautiful views and scen-ery". VisitScotland, justifiably, markets Scotland on the people, the history, and the landscape. Did the survey ask the tourists if they would contin-ue to visit if that very landscape was dominated by wind farms? Argyll alone has 21 wind farms installed or planned.

4, 43 per cent were ambivalent and 8 per cent negative to wind farms. A downturn in tourism of just 10 per cent would mean a national loss of 450 million and 20,000 jobs - financial and social disaster for rural areas such as Argyll.

The message from Denmark and Germany is that wind farms are economic and environmental failures, yet we appear not to be heeding their lessons, so painfully learnt.

Why attempt to solve one environmental problem by enforcing another onto the landscape? That very landscape is the main economic support for Argyll, and we destroy it at our peril.

ADF DALTON

Lochavich

By Taynuilt, Argyll

Your report on wind farms brought to mind an amusing observation I made while reading the report of a recent survey for Argyll and Bute Council, which contained an im-pressive array of statistics.

Respondents were asked if they thought the public generally had enough information to make informed decisions as to whether developments such as fish farming, forestry developments, wind farms, quarries, etc, would be good or bad; 73 per cent said they did not have enough in-formation to decide, yet all completed the survey, and their opinions were recorded in the statistics.

This time, we have a survey which asks people who have never seen a wind farm whether seeing one would stop them coming to Scotland.

Four out of five of those questioned were registering their opinion on that basis. Such surveys, based on dubious assumptions, elevate uninformed opinion to the level of evidence. Whatever happened to scientific method and facts? When did the public relations industry steal our democracy?

MICHAEL RYAN

Balkeerie

Eassie, Angus

The following observations need to be made about the flawed survey on tourists’ reaction to wind farms.

1, 307 people is a very small selection on which to propose that this is the opinion of the entire range of tourists’ attitudes to wind farms.

2, It failed to elicit any opinion on wildlife and possible effects. Yet this is a very important lure for our visitors interested in the rare and listed species of bird and animals which draw them back year after year.

3. There were no questions about the siting of wind farms, only the existing cluster in Kintyre is mentioned. These are well hidden from tourist routes/habitation, and are not part of the threat to our best landscapes and areas like the Lorn plateau. The map shown did nothing to show the true scale of proposals, which stands at over 150 and rising.

4, Visitor centres may have curiosity value for initial visits, but are hardly likely to be a draw in perpetuity, especially as more appear sadly on hitherto clear skylines. The For-estry Commission is no longer allowed to plant on these areas, but suddenly planners are being over-ruled and these delicate environments are being used as a mere commo-dity from which a single technology can wring a profit.

5, There were no questions about noise/effects on communities involved in tourism.

Was MORI short of time/pay-ment to do a serious survey? We are surprised it felt able to put its name to this one. I hope VisitScotland produces better.

(MR and MRS) PS METCALFE

Lochavich

Argyll