Wrong global priorities 

When different opinions are expressed on the subject of wind turbines, very few express a balanced view and few take note of other views and opinions.

In my experience, those who hold the pro-wind farm position rarely, if ever, try to put themselves in the position of being close to a very noisy wind farm that adversely affects many aspects of their lives, and indeed the lives of their families.

Why do wind farm supporters always say “For the sake of our grandchildren”? The moral blackmail line to make people feel bad – very New Labour!

If we covered the whole of Britain with turbines, it would make close to no difference at all to global emissions.

As the chairman of E.On said in 2005, they would not erect one turbine in the UK if it was not for the massive subsidies, which are of course, taxpayers’ money.

The billions given to companies investing in wind farms should be invested in other forms of renewable energy, or other deserving causes and priorities.

They keep telling us sea levels are rising. Why not encourage wave power generation ?

From a human perspective, we have suffered with mechanical noise from the Blaen Bowi wind farm close to us, which they are trying to extend.

They treat us as if we do not matter. We experience noise disturbance, visual impact, and severe loss of the value of our home, which is a loss for our children and grandchildren.

Why should anyone have the right to decide that it is okay for others to suffer a financial loss to satisfy their own conscience?

How many politicians who preach this gospel live close to a noisy wind farm? Probably none – rather hypocritical.

If wind farms were going to save the world, I would probably feel different, but they will not make any difference whatsoever.

It is a gigantic con to allow those who invest and are involved in wind farms to make loads of money. I am just surprised that so many people fall for the propaganda.

Most global pollution will come from China, India and so on and not Europe.

Those high-polluting countries will continue to pollute at an ever-increasing rate, meaning any reductions in UK carbon emissions will make even less of a difference.

Having said that, we should all reduce our usage of energy wherever possible.

However, the notion that you are bad to have a 4×4, or to fly abroad on holiday, or whatever the latest “get on the bandwagon” issue is, lacks some serious joined-up thinking.

When you live close to a windf arm or are potentially going to have a wind farm built close to your home, it is a very emotional and extremely stressful situation.

We have had five years of noise, we get ignored by the wind farm people, and the politicians are really too busy playing politics and do not really care.

They look after their own interests, which I find very sad.

Come floods or drought, we are told it is climate change or global warming, but how many Range Rovers were about in the 1950s, in the 1930s or 100 or a 1,000 years ago?

All these natural events occurred but “man” did not get the blame then.

If only we could have an honest debate and proper joined-up thinking, we might even somewhere.

We have also had letters from local wind farm supporters telling us to “go back where we came from” just because we tell the truth about the wind farm noise and so on.

But many things are said when emotion takes over, we did not take it personally.

I believe that climate change is not man-made, but has probably been made worse by man and we should have an education process to reduce emissions. However, the Kyoto agreement, if followed through, will cost 150 billion each year.

I believe that the majority of that money should be spent elsewhere.

Climate change is big business, but should not be given priority, as it has been, before solving problems such as famine, disease and poverty.

A report, from a team made up of eight of the world’s most prominent economists, concluded that HIV/Aids, hunger, free trade and malaria were the world’s biggest and most solvable problems, and in that order.

One example – a comprehensive programme to prevent Aids would cost 27 billion. Yet it is said that the social benefits would be immense; it would avert more than 28 million new cases by 2010.

Programmes have been costed in respect of other diseases, hunger and establishing free trade, but climate change is given priority for the funding from the G8 countries.

From the little I know, I personally feel that is wrong.

John Roworth

Blaen Bran

Felindre

Llandysul

Carmarthenshire

Evening Post

10 October 2007