“Its difficult for me to understand, why the goverment intends to build thousands of windturbines, (In many cases, far too close to peoples houses,) and trashing the countryside. Supposedly in the cause of saving CO2 emissions. And, at the same time, increasing flights to Heathrow, which will produce considerably more CO2 than the Turbines will 'save'. As well as affectng people living near Heathrow. Altough I cannot see why people who enjoy Yoga, should not fly on airoplanes?”

“I am happy if there are no turbines to destroy the peace of those meditating - as long as not one of those who intend to meditate have ever flow into or out of Heathrow. When I lived in London I was right under the flightpath. Very noisy, and a lot more than turbine murmer.

As for "aromatherapy", it is on a par with vodoo clap-trap, astral crystal healing and ley-line energetic sharkra natal-scream therapy”

“Although the response from Mr. Blince of Torquay has now been removed, presumably because of its abusive tone, I should still like to offer the ill-informed chap a little advice. Mr. Blince is, sadly, representative of a number of onshore wind farm supporters who resort to abuse and name calling at the outset to cover for the fact that they have no robust, objective or rational arguments to back up their claims. This makes them feel frustrated, hence the abuse.

Mr. Blince would do well to educate himself by reading the arguments of people wiser and better informed than he. He could do no better than start with West Devon's own internationally-renowned scientist James Lovelock. Mr. Lovelock, creator of the Gaia metaphor now accepted as an important contribution to the Global Warming/Climate Change debate, is even more apocalyptic than Mr. Blince. He believes that 90% of the human race will not survive the next few centuries. So does he then rant and rave and slander everyone who does not share his views? Of course not. He tells us what we should do about it and reminds us that there is no time to lose.

He tells us that the most important thing to do now is get on and build those NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS. He dismisses some of the renewables schemes, particularly wind farms, as little more than scams. Mr. Blince can read about the logic of this advice in Chapter 5 of Mr. Lovelock's book, 'The Revenge of Gaia'.

In an interview in New Scientist in January, Mr. Lovelock had yet another idea which could quickly shift large quantities of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. It requires farmers to burn all of their biomass in restricted oxygen to form charcoal, which is then ploughed into the land. A little carbon dioxide is released in the process, but an awful lot more is removed from the atmoshphere. The farmer also gets a small biofuel by-product which he can sell, so this process doesn't need a subsidy.

So you see, Mr. Blince, not all people who share your concerns for the planet are prepared to believe the lies and misinformation peddled by the British Wind Energy Association and others. Instead, they are analysing the problem for themselves and proposing practical, workable solutions.

How about you and I work together on this one. You have a new, much-needed nuclear power station next to your house in Torquay, and I'll take all the waste from it and bury it in my back garden at Ar**ville in North Devon. You see, the nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you might have been led to believe. How about It?”

“This loss of jobs at a time when jobs are harder to come by will be really tragic.
If the landowner lives locally somebody should be asking him what he thinks, and why he wants to put his neighbours out of a job.”

“The HBs of this world, with little scientific knowledge, will always want to stick their oar in in debates such as this. Little (or no) knowledge is, as they say, a bad thing. For that, HB gets an MSc. HB cites the German experience as an exemplar of good harvesting of the wind. Why, then, when the Greens in Germany thought they had banished nuclear power to the history books, does Mrs Merkel hint at a renaissance? HB's references to windpower in Germany are also highly selective. This forum is not the place to do it, but I could show him references that would give a different view.
Why did HB not mention Denmark? Denmark was more energetic in embracing windpower, but is now sanguine in its conclusion, that windpower is/was just a sideshow; an entertaining experiment that has failed to deliver big time. It is expensive, has to be subsidised, and for much of the time doesn't work. It represents an eyesore for all but the blind, and is by no means carbon neutral.
That's not to say that windpower doesn't have a place in power generation - minimally. But is like profiteroles ending a good meal - makes you feel good momentarily, but the beef Wellington main course was outstanding.
And I'd like to draw the misguided HB to the following: in 2003 (that'll be six years ago, and half-way through the Labour govt, Henry) the government published a White Paper on energy, in which it stated windpower was the way ahead and that nuclear power stations were not on the agenda. Funny how times change - how do you explain this, from your Green living room view of global warming? Do you think this was simply political expediency to win over the Greens at a time when Climate Change (doh!!!) was in every newspaper headline?
Get a grip Henry; if we don't have nukes, you won't be able to file online for much longer. Hang on, though, that might not be a bad thing!”