The campaign against wind turbines is just pure, selfish
Nimbyism. Finding and implementing clean, alternative enery
sources is vastly more important than petty concerns regarding
the conservation of 'the view from my garden'.

These small sacrifices are absolutley necessary if we want to
have an inhabitable planet for near future generations.

Stop your selfishness, get your heads out of the sand and show
some consideration to our children.

The proposed windfarm in South East Kent on a very small part of Romney Marsh has
had to go to a Public Inquiry after both Kent County Council and Shepway District
(Folkestone) opposed it.
KCC have even altered their Draft Structure Plan for the county to try to stop the
development.
One of the farmers on the Marsh opposing is apparently a good friend of KCC's odious
Tory leader Sir (cur?) Sandy Bruce-Lockhart.Mmm Hmmm...
(S B-L is also the new leader of the national local government asso' following the
Tories local council result 'success' and also behind the retention of a remnant of the
old anti-gay Section 28 in KCC's education policy.)
Shepway DC's,then new Lib Dem councillors rejected it following a development control
meeting where, in the authors and other attendees opinion,they discussed it without
having done their homework-one Lab Cllr opining he wanted to see Dungenes C nuclear
power station rather than a windfarm !!

The public inquiry into the Romney Marsh windfarm is due to start on 12th October this
year.

Proposal is for 27 turbines at Little Cheyne Ct Farm on the Walland marsh part of the
area,covering approx 1.5 miles overall, (the whole marsh is over 100 miles in area)
built by NationalWindPower.
See their website for further info.

there's been a lot of debate around wind farms especially in the "green circles". they are certainly divided on the issue.

wind farms are noisy and do infringe on communities and peoples lives. it would make sense to have wind farms out in the sea, but of course are expensive. but cost should not get in the way of enviroment damage. the less we rely on oil and nuclear power the better. we need to look to other ways to decrease co2 levels and wind farms are very unlikely to do this.

the fastest growing polluting industry is air travel, it relies totally on oil and it is very ineffient compared to train travel. every time a plane goes to the US and back it spews out tonnes of co2 into our air. if air travel continues at present rates we cannot sustain the enviroment we enjoy.

given that we want to continue to use planes as a means of quick transport, we need urgently to put the burden on the airline companies.this can be done very cheaply and effectively ,the answer lies with the future forest company.

the concept of future forest carbon neutral; if you travel from UK to USA and back again on a boeing 747 it is equivelent to burning 2 mature trees. to be carbon neutral you would pay future forest to plant 2 trees costing £18.00 . very simple

govt should make it compolsory for airlines to add this cost and in an instance millions of trees would be grown and counter act the c02.

i am pressing to make this policy for green party and possibly RESPECT and campaign for existing govt to make it law. UK is 1 of the biggest airline country , image the impact we could make if this was law

Across Europe, where wind farms are more common, environmentalists are fighting against these projects, because of their negative effects on the natural world.
Frequently the turbines are sabotaged as communities don't want to live near these megamachine projects. In Northern Spain and the Basque Country many people are angry about development of these huge infrastructure plans, and see them as intruding upon their lives in the same way that massive dam projects wreck the land.

The real issue is energy consumption, and the consumer society that is completely unsustainable and completely out of control. Wind farms cannot meet societies demands! Until we radically alter our way of life to remove ourselves from the electrical grid, and reject modernity entirely, civilisation will continue to destroy the Earth and domesticate us into being perpetuatually dependant on a system of exploitation.

Switch off the computer.

NUCLEAR LOBBY

The anti-wind lobby is headed by a group called Country Guardian. Whilst it strongly denies accusations of having close links with the nuclear industry, its chair is Sir Bernard Ingham, who is a paid lobbyist for British Nuclear Fuels. Its arguments are supported by elements of the Labour movement and trade unions with links to Britain's nuclear industry, and by other interests who foresee, quite accurately, that wind power could scupper plans for new nuclear stations.


ANTI - 'GREEN' LOBBY

These antis have been joined by anti-environment "contrarians" who have long waged a separate war against green groups over GM crops, nuclear power, organic food, overseas development and trade. One of the more influential in Britain is Philip Stott, professor emeritus of geography at London university, who is a hero to the anti-wind lobby for his regular denouncements of proposed wind developments.


CONSERVATIVE PARTY

The Conservative party, longstanding supporters of the nuclear lobby, is expected to shortly come out against windfarms, with Theresa May, the shadow secretary of state for environment and transport, promising "a very strong position."


NEED FOR URGENCY

The wind industry has been given the chance to deliver carbon-free energy for the first time - and has very little time to prove itself. If it cannot meet the ambitious targets set by government within four years and reduce Britain's growing carbon emissions, it is widely expected that it will have its financial support unplugged. Powerful pro-nuclear forces, arguing that nuclear power is reliable and climate friendly, are fervently hoping that wind fails.

The government will have to decide in a few years' time whether they put their eggs in the nuclear basket or renewables. In 2005-6 it will step back and review whether the wind industry is meeting its targets. If it isn't then they have got a lot of old nuclear stations ...


Wind is about displacing fossil fuels, saving carbon and greenhouse gases. That is the driver. Every kilowatt of wind power generated is one less of polluting power. Wind power can do a lot quickly. If in 30 years' time someone comes up with something better, the turbines can be easily taken away.

The future will be a mixture of tidal power, solar, biomass and other renewables. But these technologies still have some way to go and are where wind energy was 12-15 years ago.

We can’t just sit back and wait for these technologies to come on stream – to wait for the perfect alternative technology to be developed. Wind power is a necessary and urgent first step, which can be easily abandoned in the future if better alternatives are developed.

Referring to opponents of wind power, Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, is quoted as saying (7th May 2004 – article in ‘The Guardian’), "They are parochial, shortsighted, selfish, peddling falsehoods and misconceptions. Climate change is no longer a theory. It is the world's most pressing environmental problem and the anti-lobby, helped by nuclear interests, is trying to undermine Britain's role as a leader in tackling it and to fatally delay action. Wind is the most advanced of all the renewable technologies, but it needs to be followed quickly by solar, wave, tidal, biomass and others."

the saddleworth moors have a debate raging in the local press about how evil wind farms are. its quite amusing to watch Dr david bellamy siding with sir bernard ingram to high light the dangers of this renewable energy source. obviously only heretics point out the effect of wind farms on land prices.............

Ordinary people are being steered by stories from scaremongerers about alleged noise issues in their local papers, and other forms of media... People hear horror stories and then pass them on, it called viral marketing. Corporations with a vested interest pay Trolls to disseminate misinformation where ever they can.

However, in reality I can assure you those living next to BP et al would much prefer wind farms to toxic rain. Look at Port Talbot in South Wales, I am told the local commonly refer to it as Port Toilet because of all the shit covering their cars, conservatories, and washing on the clothes line.

There are plenty of places wind farms could be situated throughout industrialised areas - provided the locals have not been conditioned to reject the idea, especially when the rejection is based on irrational fears instilled in then by professional scaremongerers.

Besides all the pollution from industry, if we can have toxic landfill sites, and waste incinerators situated in the heart of communities, not forgetting radiation emitting mobile phone mast next to schools, surely we can have wind farms on the outskirts of communities.

I have no time either for Nimbyists or for negative propaganda by vested interests when it comes to people trying to scupper progressive forms of technology.

What would you rather have...the radioactive waste and Carbon Monoxide that are being churned out by contemporary energy generating technology, or, something more sustainable like wind farms (and other forms of renewable energy creation: Solar Power, Wave Power, Geothermal Power etc).

Conversely, it's too late and we've come too far to go backwards, so, I also have no time for the 'let's all drop out and live in huts' mentality either, as this is equally reactionary and unhelpful to constructive debate, nor is it facing up to reality and dealing with the current problems we have - quite the opposite.

The most practical solutions are usually the ones that will hurt in the short term, but, make sense in the longer term.
This means investment not only in technological fixes like windfarms, but also a radical reassessment of how much we need to do that car journey, how much packaging do you want to take home and so on - basically, a revolution in attitudes (as well as infrastructure).

It's all well and good talking about wanting change, but, you've got to be big enough to do it yourself when it's your turn.

So, Nimbyists and lobbyists - LISTEN UP, WAKE UP, STOP JERKING OFF THE PLANET, ASSHOLES!!

speaking as someone who lives with wind farms either side of them havin moved back to the wirral. i know that are's are on one side mounted on old dock land and the other out to sea (the wirral is a pennisular) but not very far jus over a mile. yes these can 'spoil' the landscape an putting them on the coast spoils the scenery jus as much as in land but they are neccesary we hav to find alternative energy sources. i do not know about the specfic siting of these proposed turbines but i do know that u soon become used to them. an they are no where as unsightly as a growing hole in the ozone layer.

Anyone actually thought of the radical idea of USING LESS ENERGY! That is the real problem. The Wind Farm issue is a side-issue really, however important. Yes they may not look great but anyone who has seen the cement factory in the High Peak will realise that wind farms are a thing of beauty in comparison. (My own preference is for them to be out at sea and for them to be combined with using tidal power so they prodcue more energy if that is the only option) However, getting back to my original point. Until governments seriously start challenging our incessant selfish demands for energy then we will always be heading for disaster. Using cars to go a mile down the road, leaving the TV on constantly, heating up our homes to a sweltering heat until we have to stick the air-conditioning on, ever more useless kitchen gadgets doing a job that can be done just as easily by hand, the list goes on. That's the issue and it's even more sickening when we consider the poor of the world struggling for even a small scrap of energy.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that people should be 'against' wind turbines that will be generating electricity from a source that is not predicted to run out any time soon...the wind! They are far from eye sores as suggested by the locals in Boxworth I personally think they are just as beautiful as windmills, if not more - and windmills have been part of our landscape for centuries.
The locals seem more worried about aesthetics and doing things as they have always been done than doing our bit to prolong the life of the planet. They should stop being so selfish!

Each situation should be looked at on its own merits as regards windmills. I don't think you can generalise as broadly as people seem to. Renewable energy is obviously to be desired, but what about the environmental impacts wind farms can have if put in the wrong place?

The Cambridge farm is dangerously close to a key wetland reserve which is still in its ten year aftercare period which was put in place "to ensure it develops to its maximum ecological potential", as stated by Hanson, who quarried the area for years and then oversaw it's conversion to nature reserve. It's a key site for rare migrating birds in particular. The farm will generate maybe 3% of the total area's electric requirements if they go ahead with it. If Your Energy built the farm at sea then they'd get much more power generated, but the outlay would be greater. Or, if they built it a couple of miles up the road, on the other side of the A14, that would be some sort of compromise, but discussion and compromise doesn't really seem to be on the table at the moment.

I admit I wouldn't want one in my garden, but they have to be somewhere. Also they aren't in your garden, I know they must be covering someones land and that person has a right to be against the project. From a distance they look quite post-modern. If you live near to the turbines ask yourself this how dramaticly will this effect your life (this last bit doesn't really apply to people who live or own the land right next to the turbine.