Wind supporters

Am I the only one to notice the local press bias against potential wind farm developments? I live in Perthshire, which has and will get many more applications to build wind farms. Some are unsuitable for the locations suggested and are quite rightly denied planning consent. But in the rush to say no, there is a great deal of scaremongering about smaller-scale, well thought-out plans.

If we are to avoid dependence on gas and oil from outside the UK, which could be cut off at any point, we need to develop a strategy for the development of renewable energy sources. We have the opportunity to lead the world in this field but we will not be able to do this if a small handful of Nimbys continue to prevent clear, informed discussion about the use of alternative technology in small communities.

In my area at the moment there are plans for an eight-turbine development. This is well planned and fits its location, but the press only wants to hear from the opposition, even though I have yet to meet anyone who is not either a strong supporter or is not bothered either way.

It is time to face facts. If we want to continue to use all those gadgets everyone got for Christmas, they need a power source. If we don't act now we will not have the power we need in 20 years' time.

Onshore wind farms are in many cases a short-term solution that will allow us to develop offshore wind and wave technology and will be removed at some point in the future. Yes, we need to sort out how to give a baseload, but we must start somewhere.

If we are to pass on to our children an environment that is fit to live in, we all need to make compromises.

KATHARINE HUGGETT

Moray Street

Blackford, Perthshire

Steuart Campbell's Platform article (4 January) is a masterpiece of analysis, but what precisely is his point? "Scottish consumers are being misled" is a very anticlimactic conclusion to such a battery of facts and statistics.

The relevant fact, surely, is that the Scottish Government is, most laudably, taking determined initiatives to increase the contribution of renewable sources to our total energy consumption, and is having some success in doing so. Perhaps the degree of success is less than we are being led to think; perhaps it is impossible to quantify it precisely, but what is much more important is that the government is actively working to reduce the rate at which we are draining away the planet's finite resources. Mr Campbell's use of such heavy artillery to undercut our perfectly reasonable approval of this – if this is what he is doing – seems churlish to me.

DERRICK McCLURE

Rosehill Terrace

Aberdeen