Letters: Why do we insist on destroying nature under the pretext of saving it?
WHILST fully agrees with Struan Stevenson (“Wind Farm March Destroys Scotland’s Beauty – But We Can Stop It”, The Herald, May 27) on the catastrophic effect of rampant wind farm development on beautiful Scotland’s landscapes, the opinions of people living in the central belt are largely ignored about it.
Latest figures from the Scottish Government and other databases show East Renfrewshire has by far the highest turbine density in all of Scotland, at 1,144 turbines per square kilometer, compared to 0.030 per square kilometer in the Highlands . East Renfrewshire might not be considered a scenic area, it might not be a tourist area, but it is home to a lot of people and not all of us like having turbines in view of all the directions.
We have the right to enjoy the countryside as much as anyone else, if not more, because the majority are employed in the city and need a break in this environment. Having to walk among Whitelee’s 215 turbines or avoid the Neilston and Middleton wind farms alongside the myriad of unique turbines densely scattered across the region isn’t everyone’s idea of an enjoyable day. The greenbelt has been destroyed. Why are we destroying nature under the pretext of saving it?
I am sure Mr Stevenson and I both agree that we no longer need wind turbines in any part of Scotland.
Aileen Jackson, Uplawmoor.
WIND POWER, THE KEY TO OUR FUTURE
STRUAN Stevenson’s claims about wind power are ill-informed at best.
To answer several questions: Renewable energies now provide the equivalent of 97.4% of Scotland’s electricity consumption. The wind provides the majority of this energy.
Wind power is inexpensive – in fact, quite the contrary. Large-scale wind and solar power are the cheapest forms of the next generation of energy, period.
Mr Stevenson may also want to consider the damage climate change will cause to Scotland’s flora and fauna: it is the greatest threat to their existence, and decarbonizing our energy system is vital if we are to do it. face. Wind power – which the latest UK government figures show only 10% of Scots oppose – is key to achieving this while providing year-round economic benefits to remote communities in Scotland.
Morag Watson, Policy Director, Scottish Renewables, Glasgow.
LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVES
STRUAN Stevenson’s article on wind farms points out the downsides of using them on land, but offers no suggestion of how we are going to produce the electricity that we will need in much greater quantity for our all-electric future. He uses the word “industrial” four times to describe turbines as if it were a swear word rather than an obvious statement.
He could have highlighted some of the positive aspects of alternative renewable energy production methods, such as tidal power generation at Orkney Islands and the Scottish company at the forefront of hydrogen production.
He could also have pointed out some of the most glaring negatives of the government he represented in Europe for many years.
Two obvious examples would be the abandoned Severn Valley dam that Theresa May saw as uncompetitive, and the current government’s inability to build a battery gigafactory that could address some of the objections to the intermittent nature of renewable electricity.
Sam Craig, Glasgow.
* COULD Struan Stevenson please explain his plan to “keep the lights on”?
John Fleming, Glasgow.
WILL ONLINE KILL THE CINEMA?
YOU report that Amazon bought MGM Studios, a sad day for the future of cinema with Warner also merging with Discovery (“007 enters Amazon service with £ 6 billion”, The Herald, May 27).
Online retailing has killed the High Street and it looks like the same will happen with taking the main release of films online and managing the back catalog of the film industry.
Large online businesses bring little tax to the UK, while shops and potentially cinemas will be reduced in number, resulting in job losses. The Westminster government must bring in a fair tax regime for these businesses to compensate for lost business rates and corporate taxes.
Bill Eadie, Giffnock.
LEAVE THE KILTIES ALONE
I’m afraid Mark Smith might spin his panties around wondering how many men wearing kilts would secretly like to try on “women’s clothing” (“Can Scots Admit What Kilts Really Are?”, The Herald, May 27).
In my advanced years, lingerie, naughty or not, remained pretty much a mystery, and acrobatics required a lost cause.
Let the faithful sports kilts be free to do so without questioning subconscious motives.
For me, include me. My spindle rods wouldn’t impress, and calls of “kiltie, kiltie cauld bum” when they “turned out” with no choice in the matter long ago, were more likely to be defeated.
R Russell Smith, Largs.
IT’S GOOD TO CLIMB
TINA Oakes (Letters, May 27) certainly struck a strong note of contention with her comments on the works of Gilbert & Sullivan. The hubbub that ensued following the expression of his frank views (Letters, May 28 and 29) reminded me of a few words from WS Gilbert: “Oh, doesn’t the world seem dull and flat without anything to complain about? ”
Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.