Thousands of acres despoiled by wind farms

Having followed the debate on global warming/climate change with interest, I was intrigued that Miranda Fettes (Property, 18 July) should assume it is a fact. She also assumes that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, when in fact it is essential to life on Earth.

She takes this a stage further by assuming that the Kyoto protocol is cast in stone, and from this takes a massive leap to saying that renewable energy, in particular wind and solar, are the answer.

This, of course, is exactly what the British Wind Energy Association would have us believe, hence the reason for the massive subsidies available for wind power, and the consequent 130-plus applications for wind farms in some of the most highly-scenic areas of Scotland.

Companies have been allowed to despoil many thousands of acres of our world-famous landscape by covering it with wind turbines in excess of 300 feet high. The association even managed to have planning rules eased significantly for wind farms.

I am all for renewable energy. In the Highlands and Islands, we have our electricity needs met from hydro-power. Scotland as a whole already exports 24 per cent of the electricity it generates.

The question must be asked, therefore, why are we rushing headlong into a seriously-flawed technology and, in the process, destroying massive amounts of blanket peat bog in locations such as Barvas moor, Lewis, and also in Skye, when there are much more socially and environmentally acceptable methods of power generation, such as tidal and wave power?

BEN PALMER

Arnisort

Skye

Mrs Constance Millar (Letters, 18 July) has got the wrong end of the stick.

Throughout the Earth’s history, there have been ice ages, interspersed with interglacial warm spells. The warm spells usually lasted about 10,000 years. The present Holocene has already lasted about that time and, accordingly, the next ice age is coming very close indeed.

During the early 1970s, when all sorts of cold indicators were about, there was speculation about its imminence. However, things changed, and these indications disappeared. There was a jump in temperature between mid-1976 and mid-1977, although what caused it is unknown. The only people who blamed industry were those in the "Green" movement.

I am glad Mrs Millar mentioned the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That was the one all the scandal was about; IPCC reports are not holy writ.

It said: "The evidence suggests (not "shows") a discernible human influence on global climate."

Surely, if it is discernible, it can be measured. Why was it not? Because it was just opinion, not fact. The ice cores Mrs Millar mentions show that the increased temperatures al-ways came before increased carbon dioxide.

ROBERT M PATE

Minnigaff

Wigtownshire

Steuart Campbell (Letters, 18 July) says that most of the time the wind will not be blowing at all. However, there is consistent tidal power everywhere, and solar radiation is constant.

It is appropriate to criticise the present effectiveness of natural energy sources. Is it not equally appropriate to continue experimentation with these? They have no known harmful residues.

By all means, let’s throw out the bath water, but spare the baby. It might grow up.

DONALD M MANSON

Broompark Avenue

Prestwick, Ayrshire