Comment posted Wind energy may be controversial but the logistics and the skills are mesmeric by newsroom.
This is very much part of the scenario in this ‘industry’ that is of concern. ‘Here today gone tomorrow’ is a defining characteristic, along with bald-headed subsidy chasing.
And Vestas has proved a serial ‘here today gone tomorrow’ operator.
Corporate social responsibility doesn’t get off the page,
newsroom also commented
- And that is the most serious concern. Ben Loyal and the Flow country?
- One of the issues here is the presence in Mongolia of rare earths.
Emerging economies like China’s are, at government level anyway, prepared to bear the environmental costs of market dominance.
In this case the environmental and health costs to humans and to wildlife come from the volumes of highly toxic fluid waste resulting from the process of separating the rare earths (which coexist); of which neodymium is used to make the substantial magnets needed in the turbines themselves.
As a major producer of rare earths, China – Mongolia – has also become a major manufacturer and supplier of turbines, contributing significantly to its dominance in this industry.
- Thank you, Scots Renewables, we were about to do this when we saw you’d done it.
This is a valuable and detailed record and of interest to photographers as well.
Recent comments by newsroom
- Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
Not in my control and hadn’t noticed this myself [so thanks] – and will pass on your concerns.
This us likely to be one of the consequences of recovery from recent outages which were beyond our control.
- Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
It is worth noting that in its judgment the Supreme Court said:
‘“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.’
- Bute refugees suffer from inadequately considered placement
Eveything you say above applies justly to those who radicalise – but not necessarily to those who are vulnerable to be radicalised.
When you are young, everything in life is understood in simple binary oppositions. It is only time and broad experience that introduces and embeds the tonalities of understanding.
Many of the young everywhere, from the need to belong and from the acceleration of peer pressure, are also prone to follow the accepted behavioural norms or fashions of their peers.
This is why radicalisation is most easily effected in cities and amongst the large cultural enclaves that can form there.
The young, in their uncluttered understanding, are also idealist – and extremism is a form of idealism perverted.
What you say about the safety and security that relocated refugees now possess is also correct – but is amended by two considerations.
One is the automatic perception of all refugees as having the education to hold such an understanding of their situation. Many will be educated – some very highly indeed – but by no means all will have had the opportunity of education.
The second is that, as may be the case with some of the Bute families, if they feel and look ‘different’ from everyone around them and if they cannot communicate, some will feel uncomfortable and vulnerable, even intimidated – and it is unrealistic to assume that refugees will be universally made welcome in any locality.
We had assumed that the acceptance of such refugees here would mean the automatic employment of those qualified to teach English as a foreign language and that such classes would be taught in a regular and compulsory schedule.
This would be a responsible and necessary provision if integration is to be a realistic achievement.
We do not know if such provision has been made and there seems to be no mention of it.
- Turkey’s military coup raises issues to be confronted here in Britain
This is another issue – a procedural one – and one which clearly needs to be resolved while the need can be immediately understood.
It remains a mystery why, when political party leadership elections require set percentages well above 50% to secure a win, politicians would not have reason and wit to see that decisions taking a member of a significant political union out of that union, changing the nature of the larger union [helpless to prevent that] as well as the nature of the departing member, that decisions of such weight and permanence cannot sensibly be taken by 50% + 1 single vote of an electorate.
The opportunity for due revision was not taken following the Scottish Referendum, which was run under this rule.
Something like a 60% threshold would guard decisions against the percentage of transient whim – and/or of misunderstanding and/or of misinformedness – in any vote; and these are the things that that can help to create very narrow majorities on very profound issues.
Opinion polls declare that their results are subject to a 3% margin for error.
In the EU Referendum, a 2% change of mind would have produced an even tinier – but legally acceptable – majority in the opposite direction.
- The measure of Britain – who cares about Gibraltar?
What was done to the Chagossians – under Harold Wilson’s government so not a matter of distant history but of contemporary moral dysfunction – is an enduring shame on Britain.
powered by SEO Super Comments