Sue H (of BATTLE)

Contents

  1. Sue H original letter of 29/09/05
  2. Peter Walker’s reply of 30/09/05
  3. Sue H reply of 30/09/05
  4. Peter Walker’s reply of 01/10/05
  5. Sue H reply of 06/10/05
  6. Peter Walker’s reply of 07/10/05
  7. Sue H reply of ???
  8. Peter Walker’s reply of 11/10/05
  9. Johal Bhandari’s letter of 12/10/05
  10. Sue H reply of 14/10/05
  11. Johal Bhandari’s reply of 15/10/05
  12. Peter Walker’s reply of 17/10/05
  13. Sue H reply of 21/10/05
  14. Peter Walker’s reply of 22/10/05
  15. Sue H reply of 26/10/05
  16. Peter Walker’s reply of 26/10/05
  17. Sue H reply of 27/10/05
  18. Peter Walker’s reply of 27/10/05
  19. Sue H reply of ???
  20. Peter Walker’s reply of ???
  21. Sue H reply of 28/10/05
  22. Peter Walker’s reply of 28/10/05

On 29/09/05, Sue H wrote:-

Excuse me, Peter, but why are you telling the people of Bradwell and Tillingham that they need a windfarm, when you are advocating visiting farmers markets in Southend ? No way we could cycle there.

And exactly how did you get to Bradwell to deliver those scaremongering leaflets and to the very informative meeting that David Brierley addressed – bet you didnt use a bike!!

If you want a windfarm so much, you are very welcome to have one in Southend – perhaps I’ll contact npower and give them your address

Sue


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 30/09/05, Peter Walker replied:-

Sue,

Do you not have farmers’ markets in your area? If so, do you use them? And if you do, do you leave your car at home? And as a matter of fact, I have often cycled from Southend to Bradwell & Tillingham for a day out, and that’s without using the train or the Wallasea Ferry. It’s a doddle if you use the ferry: only about 8 miles from Creeksea to Southend (less if you go to the Rochford Farmer’s Market). Train it from Southminster to Burnham if you want to save your legs for part of the journey.

As a matter of fact, the car we used was converted to an environmentally friendly fuel (LPG) whose emissions of greenhouse gases are considerably lower than a petrol car and there were 5 of us in it. By the way, the leaflets were not scaremongering – they are a pretty realistic assessment of where we currently are in the process of Climate Change. All the info on them was sourced to thoroughly reputable and authoratitive bodies.

We have indeed been campaigning for a windfarm in Southend. The Thames Array is (hopefully) to be built here and all associated with wewantawindfarm.org have written to our local press to say how much we are in favour of this development. Admittedly offshore, but I would have not problem with onshore windfarm. There are two absolute beauties at the Ford works in Dagenham.

My experience, having visited many windfarms in Scotland, Wales & N. England as part of this campaign, is that I have yet to hear one. They are just silent. Whatever happened to David Brierley’s windfarm I don’t know, but if it makes the noise he says it does (and no-one in their right mind would have gone to the lengths he has unless it does) it is thoroughly atypical.

Just bear in mind that every one of us has a duty to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. USA is the worst culprit, W. Europe is also bad. Katrina would not have done the damage it did unless fuelled with high sea temperatures to make it a Cat. 5 hurricane – a direct result of CC. Just remember that the Bay of Bengal also has massive storms but our media is just not interested even though a really bad one could cause 30,000,000 people to be misplaced. How many of them should we take in this country? It’s not their fault that one day soon much of their land will be under the sea – it’s ours. They produce far fewer emissions than we do.

Every weather-related natural disaster in the past 25 years has been exacerbated by climate change. Here’s a few:

El Nino.

Floods in Mozambique.

Danube & Elbe bursting banks

Every time an aeroplane takes off or a car journey is made, we contribute towards these disasters. Of course, not every natural disaster can be attributed to CC but a good analogy is the loaded dice: you know it’s going to come down on a six more often than a fair dice – you just don’t know which six is down to the loading and which would have happened anyway.

Windfarms are not the whole answer – we have never argued that they are. However, a great deal of domestic electricity could be produced locally by wind power and we should all do everything possible to reuce our “carbon footprint”. wewantawindfarm.org is intended to help people do this no matter where they live.

Best wishes,

Peter Walker, 30/9/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 30/09/05, Sue H replied:-

1. There are farmers markets in our area, mostly held on weekdays when, unfortunately I have to work. Actually, I buy organic vegetables locally, and I have a compost heap, and I recycle everything, including plastic bags.

2. Lucky old you, being able to afford to convert your car to LPG. The public transport to where I work involves a trip right round the Dengie peninsular, a change of bus in Latchingdon, then a half mile walk (a journey of about one and a half hours), so I am obliged to drive, especially as riding a bike on narrow country lanes in rush hour involves risking ones life. And as no-one I know works anywhere near there, I am obliged to drive on my own. However, I have a 1.5 litre car with catalyser which, although it will produce some emissions, is not sitting in traffic in crowded Southend chucking noxious fumes all over the neighbourhood.

3. The leaflets were scaremongering. Whether the turbines go up in Bradwell or not will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to climate change. Yes, people need to think and do something about waste/electricity usage, etc., but turbines are not the way. Did you know, for instance, that if everyone in the country changed just four 100w bulbs for energy saving bulbs, this single act would take account of the entire output from every single turbine currently in this country? Did you also know that the entire lifetime output from a 16 turbine windfarm can be produced by Dinorwig power station (which uses nothing but water) in just days (40 I believe)?

4. Whether the turbines go up in Bradwell or not will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to climate change. The issue is not “have a windfarm and no nuclear power station will be built”, but rather “have a windfarm, and a nuclear power station as well”.

5. Whether the turbines go up in Bradwell or not will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to climate change. For every scientist saying “the end of the world is nigh”, there are others saying “it’s just a normal thing”. For example, did you know that there was a hurricane in the south of America in 1900 which killed 6,000 people? Or that there was a mini Ice Age between 1940 and 1970?

Luckily, most people (whether they want the windfarm or not) felt that the two leaflets were just a badly presented joke. So, unless you can come up with a reasoned argument, i.e. giving both sides of the argument, don’t bother with any more, unless you want to deprive the world of even more trees.

Sue H, 30/9/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 01/10/05, Peter Walker replied:-

1. Well done. It always amazes me how few people care enough to compost / recycle etc.

2. I bought my car second hand (it had already been converted) precisely because I wanted to create less pollution (it’s a 1.6 Astra). I still drive too much but am cycling as often as possible. There are government grants available to convert a car provided the car is new or almost new. I reckon mine has saved me about £1000 a year in fuel in the 3 years I have had it. (Incidentally, I also have a Solartwin hot-water solar panel on my roof – paid for by part of my mother’s legacy. I reckon it should have paid for itself within 5 years. The only gas I’ve used since 4/4/05 when it was installed is for cooking – 13 units).

3. You are wrong about Dinorwig: it is a net consumer of electricity and one wind turbine produces more electricity net in one minute than Dinorwig does in a lifetime. Dinorwig’s beauty is that it is the only power station in the UK which can go from zero to full power in less than 16 seconds simply by opening the valves – great for dealing with massive power surges which conventional power stations find a problem, e.g. at half-time in football internationals when all the electric kettles in the country go on. It makes money because it produces electricity and sells it to the National Grid at peak hours (when it’s expensive) by allowing water to flow from a high-level lake to a low-level one but uses electricity at low hours (which it buys from the Grid when it’s cheap) to pump the water back up to the top lake again. The pumps / turbines are the same piece of equipment just used in reverse. It consumes more electricity than it produces as otherwise you would have perpetual motion. See Dinorwig website.

4. Nuclear fuel will, according to experts, run out in about 40 years at current usage. There’s nowhere to put the waste from reprocessing. It’s true that one wind turbine will have only a small effect and that wind power is not the whole answer, but it is a vital part of the answer.

5. Wrong. For every scientist saying that our current extreme climate change is part of a natural process there are 50 saying it’s man-made. And pretty well all of the 2% are in the pay of oil companies. I am aware of the 8000 (the figure I heard) who died at Galveston in 1900. Not every massive hurricane is down to climate change, I agree. But most of those deaths are down to the fact that 105 years ago forecasting was not good and the facility to evacuate pretty much non-existent, not because the storm was necessarily as big as Katrina or Rita. In 1953, 40 or 50 people died on Canvey Island, deaths which would be entirely avoidable today because communication is much better.

All the paper used in the leaflets was recycled, so don’t worry about trees.

So I still don’t know what you’ve got against wind power.

Regards,

Peter Walker, 1/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 06/10/05, Sue H replied:-

1. One final comment on farmers markets – providing they are local to where you live, the savings are astronomical. The Daily Mail carried out a survey on how many “food miles” a Sunday Roast Lamb and veg would take. Result : Supermarket 21,000, local shops 1,050, farmers markets 119. They provide an excellent service, but if you are at work on the days when they are open, or have to travel 25 miles to get there, not so economical. I also heard a report somewhere that the supermarket delivery services are good for “green purposes” as one van is delivering to several houses, rather than one car from each of those houses visiting the actual supermarket. I must admit that this is a service I do use. Also, there is the scandal of the milk trade where 110,000 tons of British milk are sent to Europe, yet we imported 106,000 tons to 2002.

2. I think you will find that the payback for your solar panel is nearer 20 years, but this would depend on which one you have ndhow much you paid for it in the first place.

3. Re Dinorwig – I think I picked the wrong power station for an example, but it was the only one I could remember from the attached list. However, leaving that particular installation aside, the other power stations knock wind power into a cocked hat. You also have to remember that wind power is only cheap because it is subsidised (by us – stealth tax ?). There was a recent meeting of the Public Accounts committee which showed extreme concern with the subsidies being thrown at the wind power people when other more viable renewable sources are struggling, and that adjustments to the subsidies should be made to take account of the actual amount of energy that can be produced. With a lower subsidy, would the wind companies still be so keen.

4. Reserves of nuclear fuel are about one millennia, not 40 years. Also, a nuclear plant has been developed by a Frenchman that re-uses its own and other power stations spent fuel, thus extending the known reserves considerably.

5. There is no scientifically grounded proof that man is a major cause of global warming. There is only a consensus of opinion, but it is usually quite dangerous to believe “scientific consensus”. For example, ice cores covering thousands of years have been analysed and have proven that an increase in CO2 FOLLOWS a rise in temperature – it does not cause that rise.

6. The residents of Bradwell and Tillingham are not against wind power per se. We just do not think that the Dengie (with all its historical, scientific, environmental and other benefits) is the right place for a series of 400ft tall industrial structures, even if they could actually manage to achieve what they say on the tin! We have no objections to the London Array, the Kentish Flats, and even Gunfleet Sands. If you are going to put huge turbines up, they should be offshore, not half a mile from people’s houses. I attach a copy of a sheet entitled “Wind Power in the Dengie” which explains the position more clearly – any comments ?

What do I personally have against onshore wind power stations (I refuse to use the word ‘farm’ in this context, because that implies that it is something natural, i.e. in tune with nature)? Although the wind may be natural, to dig 100m x 100m x 12m holes in protected marshland (together with associated roads and other infrastructure), in a remote and tranquil location, just half a mile from my home, fill these holes with steel bars and concrete, then erect several 400ft steel/glass fibre/carbon fibre (whatever) industrial machines, with 1000 lorry movements per turbine (npowers figures, not mine), with the inevitable issue of huge amounts of greenhouse gas emission for all of the above, is rape and pillage of the worst order. Especially when you realise that the figure given by npower of powering so many thousand homes is a joke (or at least I hope it is a joke). Their idea of a “home” actually constitutes a one bar electric fire !!! Npower’s boast of helping afflicted communities by “refurbishing a village hall” or “providing violins for the local schools” will not offer the villages compensation for the noise and upheaval during construction and during the life of these monsters. These are not cutesy little windmills with a chap in clogs, grinding corn for the local farmers, they are huge, inefficient, money making (for the developers) machines, and I am really not surprised that a lot of people around the country are so angry about the whole issue.

I really had not taken much notice of the invasion of the turbines until this particular circumstance came along. I just saw them as what the publicity machine told me “they are nice, and good for the environment”. However, it did not take me long to realise, from my own research (not what other people have told me), that they are not the saviours of the known world they are purported to be. They may have a very small part to play in the renewable energy scenario, but this must be balanced against the destruction of valuable rural locations. For example, if we really, really, really must have them, why not put them in an urban location where the noise should not have such a great effect as it will effectively be masked by traffic. Also, big urban conurbations are where the power is needed. Everyone mentions the two turbines at Fords, but these are much smaller than the proposed Dengie ones, and were installed by Fords exclusively for their own use, and they are right next to the A13. Put them on the Dengie marshes and it is a whole different matter.

So, Peter, why do you still want us to have a wind (farm) power station?

Regards
Sue, 6/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 07/10/05, Peter Walker replied:-

1. I don’t think we have any disagreement on the necessity to use local produce as much as possible.

2. Domestic hot water solar panels’ payback period has dropped a great deal with the reduction in interest rates and the massive increase in fuel charges. They are amazingly efficient (highest water temperature achieved in our tank greater than 70 deg C in summer. Even this week it reached 45 deg C – too hot for a comfortable shower). We fill our washing machine from it so it doesn’t just save gas, it saves electricity as well. It’s very hard for me to give an accurate figure for our savings because this time last year there were 8 of us living in this house but now there are only 3.(Mother died, father moved to a home, 3 children went to university / moved away). Just one son & my wife & me left! We time our showers for sunny days, although if we start to smell a bit during the winter we still have an elecric shower we can use!

3. I don’t know what list you are referring to. I am particularly familiar with Dinorwig – my sister used to work there as a guide/ bus driver. Wind power is actually more expensive to the consumer than gas-fired – I pay Good Energy and my price goes up with the increase in gas costs. No justice there. Re subsidy, see Physics World . I quote “Indeed, if nuclear power were to compete commercially with a natural-gas-fired power station, it would need a subsidy of more than £1bn per gigawatt.”

On subsidies, read BWEA

4. I repeat, the current rate of use of uranium for nuclear power will exhaust the earth’s resources within 40 years or so – more quickly if more countries “go nuclear” as Iran wants to do and as Blair is threatening to do. Your statement about one thousand years’ worth of nuclear fuel relies on building loads of reprocessing plants like Sellafield, which are unacceptable because a) they pollute dreadfully; b) no-one knows how to store the waste for a million years or so; c) there is greater risk of nuclear fuel getting into the hands of terrorists. (Incidentally, I heard recently that in Sellafield there is a huge freezer room with hundreds of dead birds in it. They try and shoot every bird that comes near the place because they end up radioactive and fly off to contaminate somewhere else. Trouble is – all these corpses are now low-level nuclear waste and they don’t know what to do with them! See Independentarticle 11/9/05)

So far as the “French” fusion reactor is concerned – it hasn’t been built yet and will be at an experimental stage for years yet. It’s not just French, but backed by a consortium. See BBC article

5. There is ample proof that climate change is man-made. It’s called cause & effect – how every scientific discovery was ever made. Why have World Governments set up the IPCC, which is staffed by leading scientists if there is no scientific proof? Every day we are faced with more extreme climatic variations, reductions in ice level etc. Unfortunately there are some who continue to deny this for commercial reasons and will continue to do so even though we affluent western countries are destroying the Earth with our profligate waste of energy. Can you give me a scientific source denying climate change?

There is no longer any doubt about climate change being caused by human activity. However, even if there were some doubt, even the *possibility* that human activity causes CC should be enough to make us change our ways because of the increasing natural disasters the Earth is suffering.

We know that CO2 follows an increase in temperature: tundra melting & peat bogs decaying are clearly going to push up the methane levels in the atmosphere. But the trigger for these events has been the man-made influx of greenhouse gases causing a temperature rise in the first place. What happens next is that it become too late for us to stop CC because CO2 / CH4 locked in the environment is released and accelerates a process we started. That’s why it’s so dangerous.

6. Everyone uses electricity and therefore everyone should have the means to produce it within their own community. If you don’t want the power plants, then don’t use the power. There is a strong argument for abolishing the National Grid because of the wastage through resistance and putting all electricity production over to local plants. If that happened, which sort of plant would you choose to build in Bradwell? In effect we have to choose from a limited selection. Fossil fuel power is killing the planet; nuclear power likewise; not much hydro power in flat, dry old Essex; photovoltaic cells are v. inefficient. Of the renewables, wind power is the most researched. I think there should have been a lot more research on tidal & wave energy (see BBC article) but wind is the best we’ve got so far.

But again, the means of producing electricity is just one part of the CC argument. We have to get out of cars and stop using planes: that is the best policy. But we still want to light our houses and watch television so we need to produce electricity.

Please let me know which method of producing your electicity you would choose if the proviso was that the power plant had to be within half a mile of your house.

Regards,

Peter Walker, 7/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 10/10/05, Sue H replied:-

Hi Peter

In haste :

Did you not get the two attachments to my last email ? One of them was a list of various power stations. Would be interested in your comments on either attachment.

Asking me which power station I would like within half a mile of my home rather hits the crux of the matter, as these huge wind turbines are the only things that will force rural locations to become industrial. No other installation would be allowed under planning laws, unless perhaps it was PV cells (which are not 400ft high, and do not move).

However, there is such a rush to pretend that the Kyoto protocol is being adhered to, and so much subsidy money is being thrust at the windpower companies, that both they and the Government have become blinkered. This means that they are pushing through installation of onshore turbines (with their pathetically small output), instead of pushing forward more viable renewable energy sources.

A much better option for everyone would be to install a tidal turbine in the Blackwater estuary. After all, in the old days, the millers using wind were always way behind the millers using tidal water mills !!

Sue


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 11/10/05, Peter Walker replied:-

I have seen your attachments now.

How about comparing like with like? You try to compare an insignificant 16-turbine wind farm to absolutely huge, megapolluting monstrosities. How familar are you with any of these power stations? I know some of them very well and you wouldn’t want them anywhere near you! Just remember that people live in Ferrybridge (close to the junction of the A1 and M62) whose power station has 8 cooling towers. They have to put up with this all the time just so that we can get electricity on the grid. See these pictures if you think that a few elegant wind turbines are a blot on the landscape!! More pictures which compare. The Drax cooling towers are 84 metres in diameter and 115 metres high. Just get things into perspective will you? I remember driving past Ferrybridge when our children were small, on a humid, thundery day. The vapour from the cooling towers just joined up with the heavy clouds overhead and produced pretty much the heaviest rain I ever remember driving through. It was about 3 p.m. on an August afternoon and it was dark. Once we were away from the shadow of the cooling towers, everything brightened up and the rain stopped. OK, I can’t prove how much of that was down to the power station, but it was horrific.

A useful figure would be the length of time each power station took to produce its own construction cost in electricity. Your table fails to give the CO2 output of each station.

I have already demonstrated that Dinorwig is a consumer, rather than a producer, of electricity so I question the entire validity of this table. Who produced it? Let me guess – a Battle / Seige member?

Indeed, just as a check, the Scottish Power website about Cockenzie shows that your table is wildly wrong concerning its output. SeeCockenzie Power Station. I haven’t researched any further than that.

So far as the Battle sheet is concerned, just spend a little time thinking about the damage to all of the things that you hold dear by all of the alternatives to wind power. I have already referred you to what happens to wildlife near Sellafield. You want nuclear power so you must want that. How much damage is done to wildlife by a coal-powered station and, come to that, by the digging & transporting of coal? Remember that since the deep mines were closed much of the coal produced in this country comes from open cast mines. They are terribly damaging, with whole hillsides being scraped away by massively noisy machinery, in many cases not at all far from where people live and in parts of the country which would otherwise be considered beautiful.

Indeed, I am afraid that the Battle sheet is riddled with lies. Wind power is for the benefit of the greater community and wind power is one of the means by which climate change can be alleviated. Does your greater community include all the poor so-and-so’s in New Orleans whose city has been devastated by a climate-change-enhanced hurricane? Or all the starving millions in sub-saharan Africa whose crops continually fail because their climate has been changed by our activity? Or the fact that people who live in industrial areas of Britain have lower life expectancies than those in the prosperous areas, admittedly due to a variety of factors, but one of the greatest of which is the air pollution to which they have been subject all their lives because we have relied for so long on fossil fuel power? And the fact that the Scandinavians were up in arms a few years ago (and may still be for all I know) because of the acid rain all our coal-burning produced? Many of the low-lying areas around the Essex coast are under threat from flooding. According to the Essex RSPB website, a combination of climate change & sinking land causes a 6mm rise in the Essex sea level every year. How happy are you about the prospect of flooding due to climate change?

Indeed, every argument against wind power is, by its very nature, an argument for the status quo and all the damage which conventional / nuclear power stations do in their own locality (i.e. not where you live). Those arguments represent the absolute perfection of Nimbyism, by your own definition.

Wind turbines will have no effect on the flora or fauna of Dengie. A large tidal power station will, however (that’s not to say that it isn’t a good idea – I agree with you that too little government money has gone into the research of tidal / wave power). Huge conventional power stations which power the National grid are indeed a Nimby’s charter. They ensure that electricity is produced a long way from where rich people live, usually where poor people live.

I remain unconvinced by the noise issue – I have been close to many wind turbines and I have yet to hear any noise and am inclined to think that it is grossly exaggerated by the detractors. I don’t deny that there are other incentives for developers to build wind turbines – just as there are for any development. That, however, is a different issue. Big business is rife with corruption and that’s nothing to do with the environmental damage done by different forms of electricity production.

Planning laws are put there for a reason – to protect people’s quality of life. The fact that you believe that they would protect you from the worst excesses of conventional power indiates that you would indeed favour a wind farm to any other alternative on offer (mind you, planning laws didn’t keep nuclear power off Dengie, did they?)

And please stop abusing the English language! Wind farms are not “industrial”. Industry is, according to Chambers, “The business of producing goods”. The countryside of Dengie is already industrial. The Agricultural industry with all of its accompanying noises & smells? Bradwell Aggregates with their gravel pits and massive lorries thundering down narrow lanes? Windfarms involve no workforce, negligable traffic once the installation is complete, no noise, no pollution, no goods in, no goods out. They remain a visually attractive, pollution-free, quiet, reasonably effective way of producing the electricity on which we all depend.

Regards,

Peter Walker, 11/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


Johal Bhandari had beed copied into the correspondence…

On 12/10/05, Johal Bhandari wrote:-

Peter/Jon,

Thanks for the note regarding Linda’s correspondence.

Linda,

For info, I’ve agreed to use BCCJ resources in an attempt to encourage the residents on the Dengie peninsular to think again on this issue.

Can I stress a few facts: –

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has examined all the science relating to the rise in CO2 levels and increasing global temperatures. That body of the world’s 2,500 leading international scientists has looked at studies on ice core samples, solar activity, the planet’s orbit around the sun/tilt upon axis, the impact of other pollutants, and has concluded that the evidence that the various greenhouse gases are altering the planet’s climate rapidly is overwhelming.

The scientific academies of all G8 countries, Brazil, India and China have all recognised the overwhelming evidence that proves global warming is being caused by human activities and have called for action to avert catastrophe.

The United Nations Environmental Panel has warned that billions of people face hunger and starvation this century unless dynamic action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The World Health Organisation has confirmed that 150,000 people are dying annually due to the increased spread of disease caused by global warming & that this death rate will escalate exponentially.

The UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has called for 60% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050, some years before the evidence on “positive feedbacks” began to emerge.

In 2007, the IPCC will publish their next assessment, which will include modelling which factors in the various positive feedback mechanisms – this will show what a dire situation humanity is now in. We are on the verge of a global tipping point, which will result in more methane hydrates and carbon dioxide being released that humanity has managed to achieve in the last 150 years.

So, the science is done!

Our options are limited. The is enough uranium for 1,000 nuclear power plants for 25 years. A lot less energy than the world consumes. Fast Breeder reactors are incredibly expensive and dogged by technical faults. The UK’s Thorp plant has been an enormous drain upon the public purse, and has brought the whole technology into disrepute.

Quite part from the terrorist threats associated with nuclear proliferation, and the availabilty of nuclear materials for the construction of nuclear bombs, nuclear fission can do nothing but buy a handful of western governments a few years of time. Meanwhile the world will continue to warm and we will pass the global tipping point.

So, the only way we can avert massive loss of human life is to throw the full range of measures we have avaialble at the unprecedented threat of global warming. That includes a massive increase in wind power. Wind power could buy humanity 50 years until tidal, solar, geothermal, biofuel and possibly even nuclear fusion reactors come online in sufficient quantities.

There will be people who simply lack the courage to face up to the scale of the threat. They can’t face the issue because it means making significant personal sacrifice – visual intrusion (a subjective issue) and using less energy – giving up their gas-guzzling lifestyles.

You simply won’t ever convince such selfish people to change. So, don’t bother trying. Put your efforts into the decent majority who worry about the effect global warming will have on their children and grandchildren. Remember, this issue is not a fught between BCCJ and the BATTLE/SEIGE campaigners. This fight is between the likes of Linda and her own family. When, in 2070 St Peter on the Wall chapel is under water and agricultural damage is beginning to affect the food supply here in the UK, Linda’s offspring will want to know what the hell she did to fight for them. Let’s hope they never find out the truth.

Regards

Jo, 12/10/05

Back in the 1930s Winston Churchill had this to say about a government that didn’t believe a threat was real. As the Chamberlain Cabinet dithered about Hitler, Churchill warned: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”

And he concluded: “The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 14/10/05, Sue H replied:-

Well hello Johal (and Jon and Peter),

I must say, I really cannot now take you seriously. You obviously never read anything that is sent to you. If you check out my email address and the name at the bottom of my email, you will see my name is Sue – so who is Linda ?

So, if you cannot even get a name right that is mentioned twice in the same document, how on earth can I believe what you say about anything else.

I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their view, but you and your colleagues seem very blinkered regarding renewable sources of energy. The only reason that npower want to put 10 turbines near Bradwell is that they make a lot of money (and I mean a LOT of money). They don’t care about the planet – if they did they would be investing in renewable options that actually produced an effective amount of electricity.

With regard to climate change, the question is, “Is man a MAJOR cause of global climate change and if so can we combat it?”. Bear in mind that 97% of CO2 is produced by nature. Also bear in mind that the amount of man made CO2 emitted by the UK is so minimal that, even if we switched off the whole of the UK, it would make absolutely no difference to the global climate. However, we have to be seen as being leaders in the renewable energy stakes, so that other countries can look at us, see how successful we are, and say “Yeh – we want some of that”. Onshore wind energy is not the way to achieve this, or the Kyoto protocol.

You keep referring to the IPCC, but did you know that, recently, the Vice President of this august organisation stated “there is NO proven link between human activity and global warming”.

Yes, we should be looking at our usage of energy, but your scaremongering leaflets are not the way. You would do much better to buy a job lot of energy saving bulbs and go door to door selling them and talking to people (reasonably) about how much energy they could save. (ooo – thought just crossed my mind, perhaps I should set up in business doing just that. If npower can make a load of money out of conning people into renewable energy, how much could a simple person make selling something that will actually make a difference).

Regards Sue, 14/10/05

PS I wonder what Winston Churchill would have said about the disgusting waste of taxpayers money being paid to the developers as a subsidy on wind energy ROC’s (£67 per megawatt). Perhaps something on the lines of “we will fight them on the Dengie, we will fight them on the marshes, we will never give up, we will never surrender”.


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 15/10/05, Johal Bhandari replied:-

Duly noted Sue.

What has typified your campaign is the inability to face difficult facts. I do accept, though, they are exceptionally unpalatable facts.

BCCJ set out all our references in our leaflets, so those who care can research the facts for themselves. I’ve not seen the quote you attribute to the IPCC “Vice President” but I’ve seen the Deputy Chairman’s comments on the degree of consensus that body has on the issue – he says fewer than 10 people disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions. That’s a body to which over 3,500 scientists contribute! Recently Yale University conducted a wider survey and concluded that less than 1% of climate scientists disagree with the fundamental conclusions on global warming – that human activities are the primary cause of the warming which has occurred, and that unless tackled future warming will result in the mass loss of human life.

I’ll see if I can find the quote you’ve come up with – it certainly contradicts everything else coming out of the IPCC. It is certainly at odds with the United Nations Environment Programme, The World Health Organisation, the scientific academies of all G8 countries (plus India, China and Brazil)! It runs counter to the science coming from the UK Climate Impacts Programme.

I was sent some material that was put round at the Bradwell (David Brierley) public meeting which demonstrated that some BATTLE campaigners were in denial over global warming. Obviously, the flat-earthers, supporting this denial over global warming, aren’t going to convince many. But that isn’t the point is it? Isn’t it the case that they have to try to undermine the science on global warming in order to avoid the appalling truth – that they simply can’t face up to their responsibilities? Isn’t it just a sham – just to save face within the community – with the neighbours? No one wants to admit to just being plain selfish with a total disregard for others do they?

You mention energy efficient light bulbs.

I’d remind you that in our second leaflet we said “write to your MP and to the Prime Minister. Demand a programme of energy efficiency to reduce energy consumption by 30% by the year 2025” Virtually everyone and every group in the environmental movement see that as the single most important step governments can take. However, John Whittingdale MP indicated he wasn’t at all keen on that option when he wrote to me!

So, this winter, when it gets cold, I’ll still see retail outlets in London leaving their doors open, heating the high street with heaters on full. And, when I come back to Bradwell next year, I’ll see just as many gas-guzzling cars around.

I’d have more respect for your group if you actually did something constructive. You could get up a petition, delivering it to John Whittingdale and the PM, demanding a dynamic programme of energy efficiency action. You could set up local car-sharing schemes. You could get everyone to pledge that their next car will be fuel efficient. You could ask everyone in Bradwell and Southminster to fit energy efficient light bulbs. But you and I both know you won’t do any of these things.

BATTLE and SEIGE could set an example – come up with solutions, but the evidence suggests you won’t do anything. I won’t mince my words – I think many in BATTLE are the ultimate scroungers. They want to enjoy the fruits of oil and gas, having a great lifestyle; but leaving their grandchildren to pick up the utter misery and devastation caused by global warming. They’re even willing to use up the remaining uranium, leaving a poorer, more volatile world which has to contend with highly radioactive waste that will remain deadly for thousands of years.

So, you’ll either get a new nuclear power station or a wind farm. If Governments opt for nuclear, the uranium will soon be used up – and they’ll then go back to wind power! Yes, there are other options but, at the moment, they all look a lot more expensive than wind.

BCCJ will continue to press ministers for more wind farms. The children now born to your family desperately need us to do so. We won’t fail them

Jo, 15/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 17/10/05, Peter Walker replied:-

Sue,

I have been away and although I copied in Jon & Jo to our correspondence, you have not answered any of my points. I have done my best to answer your questions and have referenced websites to back up my arguments.

You remember that you copied to me a Battle newssheet which I said was riddled with lies and illustrated that assertion with some examples. You also copied a grid trying to compare some massive fossil & nuclear installations designed to supply millions of homes with electricity to a small windfarm designed to supply only a few thousand. My first two pieces of research checking this sheet were “bullseyes” (Dinorwig & Cockenzie) in which the information supplied by you was shown to be false. It’s now up to you to demonstrate that these attached sheets are anything other than lies designed to sway the undecided & ignorant.

You began by arguing that the current extreme rate of climate change was natural. When I supplied evidence that the top scientists (98% of them) stated the opposite, you appeared to change tack and state that windfarms would make no difference and that they were totally ineffective. This too is untrue: they will make some difference to CC but, on their own, nowhere like enough. I also share your view, and have said so, that Big Business is intrinsically corrupt and I have no doubt that if someone thinks they can make a quick buck out of Gov. subsidies to wind energy, then so they will. Just as our farmers have been accepting Euro money for leaving land fallow for years. Just separate the corruption argument from the environmental one. It’s a red herring and you know it.

So go on then. Buy a job lot of low-energy light bulbs and sell them around Dengie. While you are about it persuade everyone to stop flying abroad for their holidays and driving vehicles with an engine size over 2 litres. But don’t pretend that your objection to the erection of wind turbines is anything other than a desire to protect property prices and lifestyle.

And that, I am afraid, sums up SIEGE & BATTLE in a nutshell. Oh no, one other thing: in small communities like Tillingham & Bradwell, a well-organised, well-funded vociferous campaign can, and does, intimidate residents who disagree with the loudmouths. Now here are facts I am not going to give you the source to, but when we were delivering leaflets, we met plenty of people who agreed with our side but were frightened to say so (BATTLE Bully Boys was the expression one person used); and I have also received more emails responding to our leaflets who are supportive of our case than those received who are against us.

Regards,

Peter, 17/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 21/10/05, Sue H replied:-

Hi Peter

Sorry not to come straight back to you, but have been rather busy, and write this in haste.

With regard to my assertion that the VP of IPCC stated “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming”, check out Friends of Science

This whole Friends of Science puts a different case, and is supported by some very eminent scientists. You may find it interesting.

Best wishes
Sue, 21/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 22/10/05, Peter Walker replied:-

Sue,

In the same article he stated “Therefore I believe that the link between man’s activities and rising temperatures has not been proved completely. Natural factors and the impact of man seem to be interlinked.” Both quotes taken out of context. Even so, this did not stop Russia signing up to Kyoto (this Yuri Israel is, apparently, one of Putin’s top men).

The Conservative government in 1980 denied a link between lead in petrol and the poor academic performance of children whose schools were close to major road junctions. Everyone knows that any one child might just be unintelligent. We also know that such schools *tend* to be in relatively poor areas and that there is a link between poverty / deprivation and poor educational performance. But that did not account for the general very poor performance. The common factor was lead. However, after a period in which they were in denial, they still enforced a ban on lead in petrol. CC is the same, as I have explained: no one single event can be put down to CC but the pattern can.

By the way, I did a Google search on Dr. Tim Ball, the “main man” of friendsofscience.org. It gave his main website as envirotruth.org. I did a “whois” on both sites. friendsofscience is registered in Canada to a Charles Simpson whereas envirotruth.org is actually registered in Washington by the National Centre for Public Policy Research!!!!!

Next one, sallie Baliunas:- “A darling of the anti-climate movement, Baliunas has been a central scientist in the fight against action on climate change. She is used by virtually all of the Exxon-funded front groups as their scientific expert.” Sallie Baliunas refers.

Chris d Freitas: New Zealand Herald dishes pro-Bush dirt on him.

I suggest that you try to find out about some of the others.

So the only point of interest about these sites is that the “scientists” are a bunch of charlatans in the pay of G. W. Bush!

Please do a bit more homework. By the way, how are the light bulb sales going?

Regards,

Peter Walker, 22/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 26/10/05, Sue H wrote:-

KNOWN FACTS :

GWG warm our planet by about 35oC with over 97% coming from clouds and water vapour, and only 0.7% attributed to CO2.

Man made gwg constitutes less than 0.1% of gwg present in our troposphere.

For every 1 tonne of CO2 produced by man, nature produces at least 30 tonnes.

Worldwide man made gwg = 27,600,000,000 tonnes (2003) (Source REF) So, every day man produced 75,000,000 tonnes. Natural production each day is 2,250,000,000

According to Sir David King, growing energy demand is more than 2% per annum (around 1.5m tonnes per day) which is equivalent to UK emissions of 550 million tonnes in 2003 (source REF).

Even “turning off the CO2 tap entirely” (source BCCJ) would make no difference to the overall atmospheric concentrations !

GWG – A PERSPECTIVE

Both natural and man made events contribute to gwg, plus the destruction of ‘sinks’

The natural gwg total would include : Erupting volcanoes such as Krakatoa, Mt. Pinatuba, Mt. St. Helens.

The manmade gwg total would include the following : Wars – including the Gulf War (with the Kuwaiti oil fields being set alight), and the Vietnam war where vast amounts of jungle were destroyed.

Burning coal mines in china

Both the soil and the oceans are showing signs of depletion.

Methane is emitted from the Pergau Dam in Malaysia and 3-Gorges Dam in China.

Forest cover has dropped from 60% in the 1700’s to 30% today.

The rain forest destruction is around 20 million hectares annually

It is guestimated that 900 million ha of tropical broadleaved forest remains out of 1600 million ha.

In 2003 over 3 million sq.km. went up in flames. The Indonesian first of 1997/98 along are estimated to have released 10 billion tonnes of CO2.

The BSE outbreak culminated in the release of 14 million tonnes of methane.

So, if all this man made activity is only adding a minute proportion of gwg’s, how on earth can you say that man is a ‘major’ cause of global warming, and that by reducing man made emissions climate change can be averted. The numbers just do not add up.

Yes, we have to do something to reduce emissions, but the potential saving of only 10,000 tonnes of CO2 pa from these turbines will have no effect whatsoever on climate change, NOR will it generate the ‘significant’ amounts of electricity the developers claim. The turbines will, however, have an enormous detrimental effect on the residents of Bradwell.

With regard to light bulbs, as Morrisons are currently doing a buy one get one free promotion on low energy bulbs, and the bulbs are only 99p each anyway, I don’t think it would be worth my giving up my day job.

And my quote for the day “Man-made global warming is a falsehood that has evolved into a perceived truth through the magic of constant long-term misleading rhetoric”.

Sue H


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 26/10/05, Peter Walker wrote:-

These are not facts at all.

They are propaganda taken from a website (ref.org.uk) set up by a Cambridge poetry expert who is motivated by the fact that some wind turbines were planned for an area near his Suffolk farm (his name is John Constable (!) and he comes from the village of Great Glemham, near Saxmundham). The discredited TV personality Noel Edmunds was also instrumental in setting up this organisation (remember that a member of the public died on Edmunds’ TV show when doing an unsafe bungee jump?).

The organisation gives itself the misleading title “Renewable Energy Foundation” to give it an appearance of authority when it is just a front for people who have a selfish reason for not wanting a wind farm near their house (if 700 yards away is “near”). In effect, it is just the same as BATTLE & SIEGE but with a grander title.

See Sunday Times Article .

Take your two totally self-contradictory statements:-

“Man made gwg constitutes less than 0.1% of gwg present in our troposphere.”

“For every 1 tonne of CO2 produced by man, nature produces at least 30 tonnes.”

Since CO2 is the third most plentiful gas in the troposphere, and by far the most plentiful greenhouse gas, you have already stated that 3% of is is man-made (1 tonne/30= approx 3%). How does that suddenly reduce to .1%?

Wikipedia shows the extent to which greenhouse gases have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. The Keeling Curveindicates that approximately 10% of the CO2 in the troposphere is as a result of man’s activity.

I concede that many websites which provide information have axes to grind and it is difficult to achieve impartiality. However, you know exactly where you are with organisations like the British Wind Energy Association. The name tells you precisely what stance to expect. Not so with “friends of science”, “envirotruth” and “renewable energy foundation”. They pretend objectivity whereas in fact they are mere front organisations for people who wish to disguise their true intentions, i.e. they set out to mislead.

Regards,

Peter, 26/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 27/10/05, Sue H wrote:-

and The British WIND ENERGY Association is not biased ?????????


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 27/10/05, Peter Walker wrote:-

Sue,

Of course it is. Read my last email – I said it was. Just in case you missed it, I re-send the relevant paragraph.

“I concede that many websites which provide information have axes to grind and it is difficult to achieve impartiality. However, you know exactly where you are with organisations like the British Wind Energy Association. The name tells you precisely what stance to expect. Not so with “friends of science”, “envirotruth” and “renewable energy foundation”. They pretend objectivity whereas in fact they are mere front organisations for people who wish to disguise their true intentions, i.e. they set out to mislead.”

It just doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t.

Yours slapping my head in disbelief,

Peter, 27/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 27/10/05, Sue H wrote:-

And this from the Warmwell site :

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Back to basics: “Tackling climate change”…..

>From Sir David King to Prince Charles, and daily on the Today programme, we hear repeated calls for us “to do more to tackle climate change.” Now, I foolishly believe I know how to tackle a rampaging prop forward, but I would still think twice about attempting to do so. With climate change, I have no idea how to stop so rumbustious a natural phenomenon in its multifarious tracks. Even greater caution is therefore required with respect to any naive call “to tackle climate change.” We need desperately to return to basics, and to think through this mantraic phrase.

First, humans can never halt climate change. This is a simple, unchallangeable, Canutian reality. Climate has always changed, is always changing, and will always change. Whatever we do, climate will continue to vary, and sometimes dramatically. Between 1695 and 1733, for example, annual mean temperature in Britain rose from 7.25°C to 10.47°C. What would the ‘global warmers’ have made of this? Thus, when some well-meaning soul declaims, “We must do more to tackle climate change”, we must always remember that there is no way we can ever halt this particular prop forward. Even if, worldwide, we closed every factory, shut down every power station, crushed every car, grounded every ‘plane, and put 4 billion people out of work, climate would still change. C’est la vie climacique!.

We must thus be precise. What is meant is that we must do more to alter the human factors which may be a part of climate change. But what exactly does this involve? First, we are not just talking about emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, but about a whole gamut of human factors, from urban heat island effects through the emission of aerosols to long-standing landscape changes (albedo effects), from the first use of fire to the development of agriculture and cities. Secondly, we must never forget that our human impacts are indeed only one set of factors in a vast array of factors, largely natural, which drive climate, which is, overall, the most complex, linked, non-linear, chaotic system known.

But worse: in “tackling climate change”, we are not even contemplating “tackling” all of the human factors, but only one, politically-selected factor out of the thousands, both natural and human, involved. And, for a system as complex and chaotic as climate, this forces us to enter a fundamental caveat: changing one factor at the margins can have no predictable long-term effect on climate. Indeed, both emitting and not emitting gases at the margin is equally unpredictable in terms of long-term outcomes. To put it simply: taking either of the above actions will not, in the light of the thousands of drivers involved in climate change, result in any given ‘stable’ climate. Indeed, the very concept of a ‘stable’, or, to employ the neologism, ‘sustainable’, climate is a breathtaking oxymoron.

Moreover, precisely what climate are we trying to produce, remembering that ‘this climate’ will itself change? Do we want a Medieval Warm Period, a Little Ice Age, the Climatic Optimum of 8000 years ago, the ‘Year without Summer’, this or that period of an Interglacial, or this or that period of an Ice Age? Who knows?

Put in these basic terms, the fatuousness of “tackling climate change” becomes glaringly apparent. This hegemonic agenda is deeply misguided and very dangerous.

The only way humans can respond to inexorable climate change is by maintaining strong, flexible economies that can adapt to whatever climate throws at us, hot, wet, cold, dry, or all at once.

It is time to re-learn our human limitations where climate is concerned. Humility, rather than hubris, is the order of the day.

Philip, absolutely fed up of the mindless mantras on climate that emanate from the bien pensant media and ‘liberal’ elites (who actually want to control everything we do). A big, strong coffee. I do hope you are enjoying the nice warm weather in the UK? Posted by: _Philip / 9:50 AM_ (http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2005_10_23_greenspin_archive.html#113040432456259313) / E-mail this post to a friend: (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=5896442&postID=113040432456259313)

Monday, October 24, 2005 Wind power: it’s just like letting your money blow away in the breeze…..

A new report from _EEF_ (http://www.eef.org.uk/UK/) , the leading manufacturer’s group in the UK, demonstrates all to starkly the economic folly of supporting wind energy. It really shouldn’t even be a starter.

(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5633/247/1600/turbine1.jpg) The new EEF report shows that, when gas and carbon prices are high, nuclear power is the most cost effective energy provider, at under £40 per Megawatt hour (MWh). Gas comes a close second (also under £40 per MWh), followed by conventional coal and clean coal (both under £50 per MWh). By contrast, onshore wind is nearly £60 per MWh, while offshore wind, at over £70 per MWh, is just punitive. A government must have money to burn to contemplate offshore wind.

These rankings and differentials remain effectively the same even when fossil fuel prices are low, except that gas then replaces nuclear as the most cost effective (at under £30 per MWh). This, however, makes offshore wind more than 3 times the cost of gas. Yet more money to burn.

Wind energy is thus the surest way to undermine UK competitiveness and growth (not to mention punish the poor domestic consumer – and voter). Unsurprisingly, EEF regards wind farms as an unrealistic option for providing a fifth of UK energy needs. Quite so. Instead, they call for an urgent rethink on nuclear power: _’Manufacturers call for nuclear build as part of balanced long-term energy strategy’_ (EEF Press Release, October 24):

“EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation has urged the government to back replacement nuclear build as part of a balanced sustainable long-term energy strategy for the UK.

The call is made in a major report published today which sets out a wide-ranging future energy strategy for the UK, to deliver a secure, reliable and competitive low carbon energy supply and which does not rule out any options.

The UK’s energy supply has taken on a renewed sense of urgency given large rises in prices (50-80% for manufacturers contracting since the summer) and fears over supplies in the next two winters…”

We are going to pay dearly for the government’s prevarications over a realistic energy policy. To date, New Labour’s approach to energy has been a disgraceful shambles and one which has not even succeeded in meeting its own farcical ‘Green’ targets (carbon dioxide emissions have risen markedly since Labour came to power). But worst of all, along with all the other political parties, there has been a culpable failure to address our central energy requirements for the next 50 or so years. These must comprise some mix of gas, clean coal, and nuclear power.

The rest is ephemeral, just blowin’ in the wind.

I feel extremely sorry for manufacturing and industry in this area of public policy. It will lead to tears, perhaps even before this winter is out.

See also: the leading article in the ‘Business’ Section of today’s The Times; for once a relatively good piece in The Guardian (October 24): _’The answer is not written in the wind’_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1599241,00.html) ; and, _’Manufacturers urge Government to take action to solve power crisis’_ (The Daily Telegraph, October 24).

Finally: _’Fission returns to fashion’_ (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1122056,00.html) (Time, October 23).

Philip, increasingly angry at the damage ‘Green’ utopian twittering has done to our energy policy in the UK. A strong, black coffee is required this morning. And, how can we trust the government over energy, when, with a stated lead policy of “Educashun! Educashun! Educashun!”, it can’t even spell key words: _’FURTHER ACTION NEEDED TO CUT EMMISSIONS ACROSS EUROPE, MORLEY TELLS EUROPEAN COMMISSION CONFERENCE’_ (http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=174585) ? [Hat tip to Barry Hearn for spotting this dire bit of Defranese.] Watch to see if they change it! Espresso doppios all round. Posted by: _Philip / 10:03 AM_ (http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2005_10_23_greenspin_archive.html#113014513268332541) / E-mail this post to a friend:


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 27/10/05, Peter Walker wrote:-

Sue,

I am much more interested in what *you* have got to say on this issue rather than what you are capable of cutting & pasting from s.o. else’s website. By all means link to sites to back up your argument, but don’t fill my inbox with them!

Peter


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 28/10/05, Sue H wrote:-

Peter, you are such a rude man.

I do know that the bwea is dedicated to wind power. It’s just that they promote the wrong message and give misleading information. Turbines are intrusive – they do make noise (otherwise why are they holding huge conferences on the subject) – they are expensive to install – they are expensive to the general public because of the huge subsidies allotted to them rather than investment in more viable renewable sources – the land cannot be reinstated (how do you get rid of huge chunks of concrete and steel 100 x 100 x 12m plus piles) – they will not have any effect whatsoever on climate change – the developers take no notice of local opinion – I could go on and on.

John Constable may be a poetic man, but he knows the facts about renewable sources – which you (a chess man) clearly are so blinkered that you cannot see. You bleat on about nuclear, but ignore the fact that by having turbines means we will have nuclear stations as well, not instead of.

The facts you dismiss so lightly are merely updated versions of facts based upon sound scientific evidence that has been available to the public at large since at least the early nineties! It is not up to me to prove my case.

If you really, really believe that man can ‘combat climate change’ by reducing his carbon dioxide emissions, etc., then you really are living in cloud cuckoo land.

I enclose some copies of BATTLE leaflets which you may not have seen (hope you can pick up a .tif file).

Sue, 28/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 28/10/05, Peter Walker wrote:-

Sue,

I think that it is inevitable that such a heated debate as ours is likely to appear to “get personal”: I am supporting a cause which you perceive as likely to have a seriously deleterious effect on your lifestyle. What is more, I have been actively campaigning in your village and elsewhere to persuade the residents that they are being hoodwinked by “your side”.

I would like to take stock of the situation as I see it. If you don’t want to continue our correspondence, just say so.

Here are what I consider to be facts about which we would agree:-

Advanced plans exist to build wind turbines on Dengie and, as is to be expected, some members of the public are “up in arms” about it.

During the past 30 years the World’s climate has changed more rapidly than at any other time that science is aware of.

During that same period the amount of CO2 in the troposphere has also increased more rapidly than at any other time that science is aware of. (Note at this stage I do not link the two phenomona).

Windfarms are a means of generating electricity which, once installed, require no fuel to run but cannot realistically come close to the sort of output currently achieved by fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.

Some windfarm companies appear to be unscrupulous in their exploitation of government grants.

Some windfarms are reported to be a nuisance to residents through noise, light flicker and visual intrusion.

The world’s supplies of available fossil fuels are becoming dangerously depleted (not sure if you agree on this but I don’t remember you denying it. Warmwell gives a page I have scanned quickly and have not found anything with which I seriously disagree).

Huge problems relating to nuclear waste (even if stocks of nuclear fuel are plentiful) make nuclear power unviable.

That we live in a vastly wasteful society.

Governments often do the wrong thing because powerful lobbies / vested interests pressurise them unfairly.

——————–

Here is a list of issues about which you have made statements which I believe I have proved wrong:-

Dinorwig power station is a net producer of electricity.

That there is an equal number of scientists who believe that the current unprecedented rate of CC is natural compared to those who believe it is man-made.

That the previously accepted pay-back times on solar hot water panels have been reduced dramatically by lower interest rates and vastly increased fuel prices.

Wind is not the only power form to receive subsidies – all electricity production in this country is subsidised.

There is no currently viable fusion reactor in France (nor, so far as I know, anywhere else).

That the websites you have cited to support your case have been deliberately named to hide their true purpose.

That the Dengie countryside is already industrial (farming, Bradwell Aggregates, nuclear power station, pylons).

The current state of research has not yet provided a more effective renewable energy source than wind power.

———————————————————————-

My inference is that SIEGE, BATTLE, REF and others are pursuing a very dangerous line: denying man-made CC in the face of overwelming evidence simply to protect a lifestyle which is untenable in any case because the climate change they deny will destroy that lifestyle; supporting unsustainable means of generating electricity to the detriment of future generations in pursuit of an illusion of preserving that lifestyle; fighting against what is currently the best bet (windfarms) for staving off total disaster for purely selfish reasons.

I am not in the least surprised that you take offence. Can you think of a manner in which I could have expressed those views which you would not find offensive?

Regards,

Peter, 28/10/05


[Prev] [TOC] [Next]


On 30/10/05, Peter Walker wrote:-

Sue,

I have been looking at the fliers you attached to your last email.

I quote from page 3, the “Situation Report”:-

“There are compelling reasons for the vigorous and sustained pursuit of renewable energy”

“There are compelling reasons for the vigorous and sustained pursuit of minimising man-made emissions”

I won’t reproduce the whole of the sheet entitled “Man-made global warming – myth or fact” but it ends with the statement “Even switching off the entire UK will not affect global climate change”

Can you not see an inconsistency here? If reducing the UK’s emissions won’t make any difference, then why are the reasons for reducing emissions so compelling?

Don’t you think that Battle ought to make its mind up whether or not it believes that man-made global warming is a threat before it starts campaigning? Otherwise people might just go away with the idea that BATTLE are just a bunch of NIMBIES who will say anything at all to try to justify their cause!!!

Our correspondence has proved so enlightening that I have used it on our website – wewantawindfarm.org.

Regards,

Peter

Leave a Reply