Tourism Revenue & Proposed Windfarm

[mucklelaalie]

Starting BIG? well great... but before then lets continue to pollute in the same manner until that 'BIG' (coughmagiccough) CO2 emmission reducing 'VIABLE' option arises (it has to be viable to society at large not just as a means to protecting the environment... because rightly or wrongly, we live in one of these societies, locally or globally in scale, and we act on human selfish, inherent impulse generally, therefore the option has to be of a nature that will attract the natural interest of humans otherwise the 'option' will NEVER come to fruition because it won't gain enough support. Thats very anthropogentric but it appears to be how it is. This is why you don't get 'environmental rights' and the like. anywho... i'm not going to start just yet on all this)... lets make the challenge an even bigger one, just because current ones might not be perfect. uh-huh. quite. ;

[benjiesmum]

mucklelaalie said:

it has to be viable to society at large not just as a means to protecting the environment...

I think protecting the environment should be thought of as a viable option to all societies. No environment - no society. No life.

Again, that is just my humble opinion. I know there are a million and one other arguments you could lop into this debate.

And, ;D watch yer back, Nortower - Bonna's for sending you into the "bleak and wild uninhabitable reaches of the boggy hills of Shetland to take some photos. I think Arthur's Seat and the castle are much safer! Nice pics by the way.

PS: I've forgotten what the original question was now! ;D ;D

[bonna]

Nortower, I couldn't have put it better meself.

Benjiesmum, I appreciate your sentiments regarding a good debate!

[maree]

bonna said:

mhay touched on NIMBY-ism with her comment on "green and pleasant lands" which would not allow turbines. I deplore that particular -ism, for the simple reason that I deplore hypocrisy generally.
"Oh, renewable energy's a great idea, but not HERE...."
I trust we're not being even slightly guilty of that attitude in Shetland at the moment?

I think in Shetland we have a pretty balanced attitude to renewals with the information we have received so far......unlike islands to the west perhaps?

My hoop for wind-turbines would be to see an even spread of them throughout the country. Each area doin their bit for the carbon footprint. Whilst I know the North of Scotland is wind rich, England, Ireland and Wales most get breezes back an fore too! If the 5 turbines at Burradale can supply electricity for almost 20% of Shetland during the Summer months, then surely it wouldn't take too many turbines for a lot of areas of Britain to be almost self sustaining? There's always going to be some need for fossil/nuclear until the storage problem is cracked.

[Pat]

bonna said:

b) The area being suggested for a wind farm in Shetland couldn't be classed as a mountain - more like several ranges of low, featureless, boggy, hills, uninhabited and uninhabitable. Nortower might post a picture or two next time he's home.

Although not the photographer Nortower is I just have to stick up for the Lang Kames. Personally I find it one of the boaniest landscapes in Shetland Se below looking over Sandwater:



I do not hold with the arguement that you should just stick wind turbines there as it is fit for nothing else, however I do think it is the one place in Shetland where the least amount of folk might be impacted on.

Like mhay I'm not against wind turbines in principal although I do not find them elegant or beautiful in any way. I believe them to be a necessary evil that we are most likely going to have to put up with to at least go some way to being responsible for the care of our environment, helping with providing energy and cut accelerating carbon emisions.

Again, like mhay I am not convinced (as yet any way) at the necessity for us to have so many. Places like Orkney are starting to put up their own windmills so perhaps we do not need to worry about providing excess, as by the time we put them up everyone else will have one any way.

[Admin Mal]

pat said:

Places like Orkney are starting to put up their own windmills so perhaps we do not need to worry about providing excess, as by the time we put them up everyone else will have one any way.

Yes, by 2011 or 15 or whenever it's proposed, I'm guessing that things will have moved on apace. Too much too late?

[mucklelaalie]

the path isn't so singular...

I know what i'll do... i'll base my dissertation on this environmental law aspect... and come to 'the' defining study on whether our windfarm is a good idea. It'll be ready February 2008. that ok?

[Admin Mal]

I believe the Beauly-Denny line debate is being featured on next Sunday's Landward.

[benjiesmum]

I refer to the above picture suppled by Fiona*......if this is the place identified for a windfarm then, I rest my case. People should think very long and hard before they start destroyng beautiful wildernesses like this. Once it is destroyed it's gone forever.

This isn't unihabitable - this is, indeed, a particular type of habitat that will be important to birds and a whole load of other creatures including insects and also flowers, grasses etc. which will be threatened.

Can't these infernal structures be sited in the sea? Again, I'm no expert but that's where they seem to be round here. Or is the impact of them in the sea a concern too?

*Edit* sorry I mean Pat. I was half asleep still when I wrote this! ;D

[Admin Mal]

Just a minor point, but the pic was supplied by Pat.

[mucklelaalie]

I was going to do the whole counter reply thing. but i think i'm over and out on this one. My thoughts are only worthwhile if i write god knows how many thousand words on them to back them up, so that it has some weight instead of another opinion of mine... not that backing it up is going to move it beyond those realms anyway, being that it will still be my creation, and my interpretation of other peoples thoughts mixed in... ho-hum. Nobody has to pay it any attention then anyway

I hope folk going down their environmentalist trail though, understand the full argument of their approaches merits.

In the end its just another one of those moral dilema's... so its all down to the individual. But moral's are not plucked from out of the air JUST on the basis that it feels 'right'...

anyway... this is where somebody should take a picture of a terrible looking piece of the kames... a once heather covered bit of hill now absolutely destroyed by over-grazing leaving nothing but the most pathetic piece 1cm grass that not even the hungry sheep will touch, and to make the case for why windfarms are good. and then we can have a reply from the other side going, 'but think of the wildlife' and then a counter about 'how can you think keeping power stations open is any less harmful to wildlife in the first place... it might not affect 'some' wildlife as directly, but its a damn sight more damaging for wildlife in a whole and over time'... and back to the environmentalistic stance, 'yeah but everything is worth protecting'... counter from the pro side 'so whats your solution then... keep polluting the planet at the rate we are currently doing so? wheres your alternative? because wildlife in its whole is being damaged badly right this very second, and the next second and the next...'... back to the other side 'well i don't have an answer... but yes, i'd rather the world went up in smoke in the name of some wildlife... and anyway one windfarm isn't going to really make any great difference'.... counter, 'so what we don't have to start somewhere... you don't think that attitudinal changes towards green approaches is good thing to start the ball running? you think until we find a solution where no wildlife gets harmed and it makes a HUGE difference, we should sit on our hands and do nothing as the world 'turns' into an inferno... i'm sure the wildlife will be most delighted at that'... and so on and on, the whole story will go, until the thing is either built or not. Shetland Time week in week out will be full of the back and fore.

I can't wait...

**Edit**
Not that I've decided whether its a good idea or not. I, personally, don't know enough about it to make that judgement. I could jump one side or another, but it would be little better than just a guess, resulting in apparent apathy... or maybe its just self-awareness of 'I don't know' and therefore i shouldn't fuel one side or the other. Humans... letting folk who don't know enough drive decision-making which they don't know enough about... and folk think humans are 'distinct' from 'animals'... *laughs an ickle bit* whic by the way is a necessity if you want to persist down the environmentalist line. A necessity i'm yet to understand... anywho

Zzzzzzzzzzz

[Pat]

mucklelaalie said:

...Humans... letting folk who don't know enough drive decision-making which they don't know enough about...

I think you have hit the nail on the head here Nortower inasmuch as it is important to have debate. The people in the position to make the decisions on OUR future need to listen to all sides of the arguement. In the long run it's not the beauty or otherwise of the Lang Kames that's important - it's the environmental impact (this does include the multitude of wildlife that is there e.g hares, herons, ravens, starlings, redwings etc.), also equally important is the the economic viability of such a venture, and finally the views of Shetlanders to this project that really matter. These need to be weighed up by the decision makers and they can't do that if they don't listen to all sides.

From the bullet points on the front page of the Shetland Times there's a lot of work to be done yet before this project can go ahead. I think the council are doing the right thing in opening it up for consultation. As bonna rightly stated that way we all get a chance to air our views for or against. ;D

[benjiesmum]

mucklelaalie said:

I hope folk going down their environmentalist trail though, understand the full argument of their approaches merits.

In the end its just another one of those moral dilema's... so its all down to the individual. But moral's are not plucked from out of the air JUST on the basis that it feels 'right'...

.and then we can have a reply from the other side

I think both "sides" - if you can call them sides, for I am sure it is more of a spectrum of opinions in this great debate, need to consider all the pros and cons.

:)And yes it is a moral dilemma - totally agree. We need to protect our "natural greenhouse blanket" but we don't want it to thicken anymore because its thickening could ultimately wipe us out.

:)To this end most governments now understand this predicament and have agreed to set in place mechanisms to stop global warming and ultimately eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels.

:)Advocates of wind turbines see wind farms as the most affordable, workable method in our attempts to slow down global warming. Maybe they don't see it as the ultimate solution, but view it as the best, most proven way to allow us breathing space while new technologies are developed.

:)We should also consider what is more important, the sustainability of human life and the natural world or the protection of an upland site which will regenerate to some degree in time.

:)In terms of tourism - which brings us back to the opening thread remarks - actual experience in the UK to date shows that wind energy developments can have a positive effect. E.g. Delabole wind farm in Cornwall saw 30,000 visitors and this is on target to increase to 100,000 with the opening of the Centre for Renewable Energy. The Centre for Alternative Energy in North Wales received 25,000 visitors.

So, it's not all bad news!
The above thoughts (indicated with smiley faces) are not mine - they are gleaned from reading about it and listening to other folk.

I too could go either way with my thoughts. I'm swaying on the fence of moral dilemmas. No more coal on the fire if I can help it though!!!!!

EEHHH, I like a good debate.........

[mucklelaalie]

I didn't mean to make it sound like only the environmentalist side of things needed to understand, weigh and balance the pro's and con's... i just (personal opinion here, so no need to jump on it, tear it up and stamp all over it... if you don't agree just pity me with a rueful shake of the head) can't help but see one side of the debate lacking in a...ummm.... 'common sense rationale of the reality of our society' when putting across their stance. There also seems to be a distinct lack of those who are anti-environment for me to direct my thoughts towards in that regards anyway (although i'm sure many environmentalists would differ with my thoughts there...).

On the left... we have only a tiny number of anti-environment folk
On the right... we have a larger, vocal environmentalist side
in the middle... the majority who seem to be able to come to some form of a common sense solution to 'environmental' dilema's, but who are not vocal, generally, what so ever, but whom might provide viable solutions to current problems going on. But then they themselves rely on environmentalists to flag up issues, if they are not capable of understanding the full scope of the picture themselves to start with... which i would argue most can if you fall into this category. *I'M BEING QUITE POINTLESSLY SIMPLISTIC*

So... i guess i pointed my previous point you raised was towards the environmentalists as a starting point... because well... they confuse me, and as master (not at all) of little knowledge i'd like to listen to them try and coherently, morally, ethically (so on and so forth) argue their position from a start to finish and educate me... make me see why I might be wrong and for it not to result in me doing anything this --> when they fall back on principles of substance which are severely lacking... which in turn would result in me going outside to take photos or to play the piano singing "La la la, the worlds going to go boom... la la la, who cares, we are only insiginificant dots in a universe beyond massive... do what you like... i'm not frightened of death... La la la, diddly dum, i'm content doing my own thing... la la la, argue amongst yourselves... la la la"

[benjiesmum]

mucklelaalie said:

1. ....so no need to jump on it, tear it up and stamp all over it... if you don't agree just pity me with a rueful shake of the head)

2. ...the majority who seem to be able to come to some form of a common sense solution to 'environmental' dilema's, but who are not vocal, generally, what so ever, but whom might provide viable solutions to current problems going on.

3. So... i guess i pointed my previous point you raised was towards the environmentalists as a starting point... because well... they confuse me, and as master (not at all) of little knowledge i'd like to listen to them try and coherently, morally, ethically (so on and so forth) argue their position from a start to finish and educate me... make me see why I might be wrong and for it not to result in me doing anything

1. Would not dream of "jumping on it, tearing it up and stamping on it." Everybody has a point of view and we would be very foolish and short-sighted not to listen to all voices in any discussion. There is never anything to be won by telling someone else that their views and opinions have no value. By doing that, you devalue your own views and end up with a closed mind. Your views are no less valid than mine (or x's, y's and z's).

2. You are, I presume referring to "The Silent Majority" here? That has been and always will be the case.

3. Sadly, some of the "green brigade" do go a little OTT with their vociferous challenges to anything they perceive as ethically or environmentally unsound. But, I suppose it's better than being one of the above.

I suppose until recently I was one of those in the Silent Majority. But as I get older, I feel that I should make more use of my voice to challenge the things that affect all Earthly life. Which reminds me, I have a rather large bone to pick with the supermarket who professes to me in their recent advertising campaign that "Every little helps."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D