Argyll's online broadsheet.

Webcraft, I think Newsroom has really very adequately …

Comment posted Major environmental groups seriously compromised by wind developers’ cash by Techroom.

Webcraft, I think Newsroom has really very adequately answered your query. However, in the interests of giving you my take on things: I read the article with interest, was disquieted by much of it, have filed some of it away to research more properly and moved on.

We have a very open editorial policy here, and as Lynda says both myself and John Patrick are very much more pro-wind than she is. However, in broad terms we adhere to the idea that everyone has a voice, and a view, if that view is contradictory, if it sits in a grey area of opinion, if it espouses a different view, then that is to be encouraged because it widens the debate and gives the conclusions one draws from it depth and strength. As you have so plainly put into the public view on this thread, I am committed to the community I live in, I chair an organisation which is acquiring a forest, and that organisation is also looking at a windfarm. As for Dunans Castle, you are conflating a social enterprise with a Charitable Trust, and it should be clearly stated here, that it was the charitable trust which benefitted from the funding from the Windfarm Trust, for which the Charitable Trust was very grateful.

So to your last paragraph: there is no hypocrisy at ForArgyll, only openness, both to a multiplicity of views and people, and to the right to express them. I’ll turn this around: why is it that you want to accuse us of these things? Why are you going for the messenger? Surely, what we need here is not a picking over of the personal, but the examination of a significant and worrying issue.

Recent comments by Techroom

  • Apologies: outtage lasted 2 hours but effects remain for 24
    Unfortunately, Newsroom is still experiencing outtages. We have a story about Comar etc. which will be up today we hope – thanks Nocheesehere!
  • Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?
    Sorry everyone, I didn’t disclose all I should have: as a matter of fact I do have views of three turbines from my property and on some nights we can hear the soft whump of the blades turning.
  • Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?
    Turbines in my back yard: yes, but not likely given present planning constraints. As for its effect on tourism, well, I am not so sure it has an observable effect. There’s an accommodation provider who has good views of a big windfarm in this glen, and the business has not suffered in the slightest (but then that might be because it is a well-run business). Baseload, for now, preferably gas, but even then … Fuel poverty is defined as over 10% of income I think, and frankly if that’s the price of clean energy we should consider paying it as a society – and before you ask, I fall into that classification. And lastly, great spoof of my name…
  • Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?
    Hurrah! To Global Warming sceptics: 97% of all scientists agree. I rest.

    I agree technology will eventually come to our aid with, hopefully, fusion, non-rare earth-based pv etc. etc. but we must reduce emissions now, not in 30 years time, not in 20 years, not in 10 years time, but now. What do we have now? Wind turbines.

  • Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?
    Subsidy or not, cash machines or not, blight on the landscape or not, the point is this: if we don’t put every effort into renewable energy, these debates will become academic. Frankly, if we have to subsidise these installations ongoing, well, why not? They are presently the only game in town – for the abovementioned reasons. And to object to them on their aesthetic impact is, as I say in the article, selfish. A question: would you prefer to subsidise renewables or fossil fuels? Because that’s the choice the Tories are making…

powered by SEO Super Comments