Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 4th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Wind farms 'could drive away tourists and mean big job losses'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 March 2008
WIND farms could cost the Scottish tourism industry millions of pounds and hundreds of lost jobs in a "worst case scenario", a report warned yesterday.
The findings came in research that found wind farms had the potential for hitting jobs in tourism.

The research was commissioned by the Scottish Government from Glasgow Caledonian University to assess what effect official priorities for wind farms
were likely to have on tourism, for good or ill.

Four areas were studied – the Borders; Caithness and Sutherland; Dumfries and Galloway, and Stirling, Perth and Kinross.

For each area, the researchers estimated the likely impact on the tourism economy by 2015 of all the wind farms needed to meet the renewables obligation, compared to a situation where there were no wind farms.

It was estimated that Stirling, Perth and Kinross would lose £6.3 million in tourism income and 339 jobs; Dumfries and Galloway £4.1 million and 277 jobs; the Borders £1.7 million and 81 jobs, and Caithness and Sutherland £700,000 and 30 jobs.

But the researchers say these totals cannot be added up to give a Scotland-wide figure – as any tourists put off visiting an area with many wind farms were likely to head somewhere else in Scotland.

The job figures are not immediate – some "adjustment" may already have taken place.

The rest relates to a reduction in the number of future jobs to be created by tourism spending, and does not take into account jobs created by the wind-farm industry.

A survey showed 39 per cent of respondents were "positive" about wind farms, 36 per cent had no opinion either way and 25 per cent were negative.

The report said: "The results confirm that a significant minority, 20 per cent to 30 per cent, of tourists preferred landscapes without wind farms.

"However, of those, only a very small group were so offended that they changed their intentions about revisiting Scotland."

It went on: "If the renewables target is met via substantial wind-farm development, Scottish tourism revenues in 2015 are forecast to be only 0.18 per cent lower in 2015 than they would have been if there were no wind farms in Scotland."

This change would mean that in 2015 there would be some £4.7 million less in the Scottish economy, the report said.

For national planning purposes, the report concludes that having several wind farms in sight at any one time is "undesirable".

It says the loss of value when moving from medium to large wind farm developments is not as great as the initial loss.

"It is the basic intrusion into the landscape that generates the loss of value for tourists," it said.

"Overall, the finding of the research is that if the tourism and renewable industries work together to ensure that suitably sized wind farms are sensitively sited, whilst at the same time affording parts of Scotland protection from development, then the impacts on anticipated growth paths are expected to be so small that there is no reason to believe that Scottish Government targets for both sectors are incompatible."

• A group of crofters in Shetland have voiced their opposition to plans to site 11 wind turbines in their area as part of a massive wind-farm development totalling 154 turbines.

The Sustainable Shetland group said some 20 crofters with sheep on the Aithsting Common Grazings "appeared to be quite resolute in their opposition" to the proposed Viking Energy wind farm.





The full article contains 588 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

bill inch,

EDINBURGH 13/03/2008 01:43:51
I don't see any of the Snot (Green) Brigade electing to live near these inefficient genarators
2

Rozz Fyffe,

Scotland 13/03/2008 03:06:09
Rubbish story
3

The Pict.,

Canada 13/03/2008 03:15:48
the headline should have read: TOURISTS GLAD TO SEE SCOTLAND IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
FACT............... Wind Farms has nothing to do with tourism. Like Duh.
4

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 13/03/2008 03:34:14
#3: Can you prove your so-called "FACT"? Like Duh, yourself.
5

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA........Hillary for Pres....Barack Hus 13/03/2008 03:50:55
Wind farms 'could drive away tourists and mean big job losses'
------------------------------------
Dudes, can't u see that
75% were NOT negative. I would say that is a massive majority.

So get on with building the Wind Farms and stop ur squawking.

If U want to bring more tourists into Scotland . Make their visits a very pleasent experience for them , so they want to return.

Give them Fresh and Friendly service . Offer great food , great accommodation, at prices that will compete with the Sunshine countries.

Why is that so hard for U to do ..dudes

U can't control the inclement weather but all the elements above U can .

Happy Haggis Day

GC
6

Larry Hallatt,

Chesley Canada 13/03/2008 06:15:45
Has anyone calculated the lost of jobs and tourist dollars or pounds from the many ugly sky scrapper in our cities. So many buildings have little design appeal compared to our earlier periods.

Does a smoke stack signify prosperity or blight? What about your mom's wash on the line behind the house?

Maybe, we need to redesign one or two windmills for the tourist, have Sancos and Don Quixote figures in front charging the blades.

Write your council and put up a few figures for the tourists, maybe a gorilla climbing its side or Gonzilla !
7

Guga II,

Rockall 13/03/2008 06:37:34
Scotland produces surplus energy, and has no need of all these wind farms. They are being built to supply power to England; so, why should Scotland's countryside be despoiled?

If the English need the power, let them build all their wind farms in England. A couple of hundred 487 foot high towers would look really good strung out across London. They could probably fit a few thousand of them on their South Downs. They could even build thousands more down the Pennines.
8

madrab,

edinburgh 13/03/2008 07:24:16
Breaking news in the Scotsman

Wind farms to end all life on earth.

Don't understand how they've not managed to blame this on the SNP though?
9

Saoghal Beag,

13/03/2008 07:26:03
1# one of the residents in Ghia got dispensation to build his new home closer to the turbines than normally permitted.

Don't know if he would appreciate being refered to as snot green, he just wanted to be closer to the three turbines which have not only generated power for the island but also a substantial community fund.
10

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 07:46:11
There is no evidence that wind farms adversely affect tourism.

Indeed the evidence is just the opposite.

Many wind farms actually enhance otherwise desolate and barren spots and become tourist attractionss in their own right.
11

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 13/03/2008 08:01:18
Sub marine turbines are the answer. Invisible, always working and safe to wild life.
12

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 13/03/2008 08:01:46
*Please enter your comment*
13

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 13/03/2008 08:02:14
Once again Fred Bloggs is talking utter nonsense.
There have been many surveys that indicate a substantial loss to the tourism industry. The only ones that claim otherwise are those instigated by the wind industry.
As for his claim that evidence is the opposite ! Rubbish.
eg Cold Northcott - closed due to lack of tourists
Delabole - closed due to lack of tourists
Swaffam - closed due to lack of tourists
As for the claim that the majority o Scottsh people support windfarms - this is simply not true
Whilst I have not yet looked at the data for this suvey, I would bet that the result is a lot worse than they are prepared to admit. This was certainly the case with "Public attitude to windfarms" carried out by Mori

These windfarms serve only one purpose - "To make lots of cash for the developers at our expense.
14

Unimpressed one,

13/03/2008 08:02:25
"(T)hree turbines which have not only generated power for the island but also a substantial community fund."

Like this:

"LAVISH subsidies and high electricity prices have turned Britain’s onshore wind farms into an extraordinary moneyspinner, with a single turbine capable of generating £500,000 of pure profit per year.

According to new industry figures, a typical 2 megawatt (2MW) turbine can now generate power worth £200,000 on the wholesale markets - plus another £300,000 of subsidy from taxpayers.

Since such turbines cost around £2m to build and last for 20 or more years, it means they can pay for themselves in just 4-5 years and then produce nothing but profit."

Island communities ripping off the rst of us.

15

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 13/03/2008 08:04:39
#11 Clarry
What do you think happens to the 2000 tonnes of reinforced concrete in each turbine base and the miles of roads that scar our hillsides ?
16

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/03/2008 08:05:51
#10 Fred

You must be joking. You see "desolate and barren spots" whereas most people see "natural beauty". I suspect you are in a tiny minority.
17

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/03/2008 08:10:52
#11 clarry

Sorry, but you are over-simplifying the problem of de-commissioning a wind turbine farm.

Destruction of peat beds is irreversible. Also do not forget that each turbine requires large, intrusive concrete foundations, trenching for cables and other scarring of the land. The land would never be restored to its previous state after a wind farm had been built there.
18

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/03/2008 08:12:02
#12 Yes. Agreed.
19

Saoghal Beag,

13/03/2008 08:42:55
#15 unimpressed and even without the subsidy they pay off their investments. since ghia's turbines were reconditioned they did not cost £2M each so pay off time was even quicker than the figures you quote.

20

Arthur X,

13/03/2008 08:43:50
There's been plenty of other research that says:
a) a small number of people think turbines are attractive and positive; and
b) a slightly smaller number of people think turbines are unattractive.

So let's not worry about it.
21

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 08:53:05
At #14, Nabodican claims that Delabole Wind Farm is closed.

Delabole was the first wind farm in the UK. It opened in 1989 and has been a popular tourist destination ever since.

Yes, it is closed, but only temporarily while it is being re-powered with bigger turbines.

This is typical of the lies, distortions and misinformation put about by the fanatical anti-wind farm lobby.
22

Nomada,

13/03/2008 09:00:36
Let's get back on track, here. The question should not be whether turbines will drive away or attract tourists, but whether they will reduce the CO2 released from energy generation.

The answer to that is simple - they will not reduce CO2 emissions in the circumstances of UK today. Such reductions as we have seen in the energy sector are due to other changes, not to the commissioning of new wind generation.

Wind turbines are a con, utter greenwash, a means of making very rich people even richer, and a figleaf for the inability of governments to tackle the real task of reducing energy demand (and it is demand, not need) effectively.
23

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 09:06:17
Wind turbine foundations are not intrusive; they are either below or flush with the surrounding ground.

As for removal, why would this be necessary? Wind farms are the future and will still be with us when the oil, gas and coal run out.
24

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 09:12:03
14 claims:

'As for the claim that the majority o Scottsh people support windfarms - this is simply not true.'

Where is your evidence?
25

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 09:26:37
When was the last time a tourist went to Chernobyl??
How many tourists come over here for a look see around our nuke plants? Tourists dont book their holidays based on whether there are wind farms around or not in fact I dont think a its even mentioned in any holiday brochurs.
What is it with this f*cking rag and its party political journalism??
26

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/03/2008 09:34:21
#23 Nomada said:

"Let's get back on track, here. The question should not be whether turbines will drive away or attract tourists, but whether they will reduce the CO2 released from energy generation."

I disagree. The real question should be aimed at the Global Warming fascists ie does CO2 cause global warming.

It is becoming increasingly obvious from temperature data that the answer to the question is a resounding NO.
27

carrottop,

Dumfries 13/03/2008 09:39:01
Why are turbines always white, probably one of the most intrusive colours to set on a green/brown landscape. Doesnt take much in the way of brains to see that a grey, blue or green would blend in so much better.
Even my young daughter has better ideas for turbines that cannot be hidden. The upright green (stalk) the blades coloured (flower head).
Thought we had long moved on from the Henry Ford days of any colour you want as long as its black but is changing black with white realy advancement?
28

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/03/2008 09:39:53
#24 Fred

A 2000 tonne concrete block cannot accurately be described as "unobtrusive".

The reason why they will need to be removed is that our children will realise that the whole onshore wind industry was an environmental disaster and that they value natural beauty above the profit of the wind power industry.
29

Nomada,

13/03/2008 09:49:40
#27 - If you really believe what you have written there, you are misinformed, or deluded, or both. Or possibly, to be charitable, you write from Stonehaven on the planet Zog.

Here on Earth, while anthropogenic CO2 is not the only factor influencing climate, any trend to increasing temperature is at least being enhanced by our unsustainable buring of fossil fuel and the destruction of carbon sinks in the form of forest and peat bogs. In taking your position you set yourself as more knowledgable that the huge majority of the world's climate scientists who have been studying the problem with access to all the data for a long time. (These scientists tend not to be the self-promoting nonentities who feature on fictional programmes masquerading as documentaries on TV.)
30

Ishbel,

South Africa 13/03/2008 09:49:53
Wind farms would never stop me visiting Scotland.
31

Friend of Lewis,

13/03/2008 10:06:18
The massive wind farm industry proposed for Scotland is based on pure greed. Following Al Gore's visit to Glasgow in January 2007, when he addressed 700 of Scotland's most influential businessmen on climate change and then told them how much they could benefit economically from the 'threat' of climate change, their interest in climate change heightened. See http://www.sepa.org.uk/publications/sepaview/html/35/scottish_news.html

Mr Gore co-founded Generation Investment Management, an asset management company investing in renewables and based in a Crown Estate building in Regent Street, London. Does anybody know how much the most vociferous and influential proponent of the anthropogenic global warming alarmism message - which conveniently changes to 'catastrophic' climate change when the former cannot be proven – would benefit from Scotland's proposed wind industry? The Scottish people, who may be forced to live with these monstrosities, have a right to an answer to this question. The fact that wind farms have not been proven to reduce CO2 - and that CO2 may not be the 'baddie' it has been made out to be - increasingly questions the necessity of covering large tracts of Scotland in wind farms.

Tourism would be adversely affected by wind farm development unless one visited the cities only. Many people visit Scotland for its unspoilt beauty – to get away from industrialization and to find peace and quiet. One or two turbines may, with a stretch of the imagination, be termed graceful, but 'forests' of them with blades at different angles don't look graceful in any pictures I've seen.
32

P Gardner,

Glasgow 13/03/2008 10:20:29
Some facts:

#28 Turbines are almost always white (actually a matt very light grey), but that's because that is what the planning officials want. If the planning consent said another colour, you can certainly have it. Turbines in Germany fairly often have the first few metres of the tower painted green, fading to white higher up. 'White' is favoured by planners because very often the turbines are seen against a grey-ish sky.

#29
A 2000 tonne concrete block is indeed 'unobtrusive' if it's underground. Granted, you would have to be careful about the landscaping work, but it can be done, and probably with less environmental damage than digging it up and carting it away to put it in another hole.

33

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 10:46:31
Any regular traveller to the United States knows that when out touring by car you cannot get moving for tourists stopping to visit the many wind farms dotted around.

At present, a fierce debate is taking place in California, where photovoltaic systems are fitted to the roof of just about every house and massive 'photovoltaic sun farms' are everywhere, but power companies are resisting erecting wind farms simply because they have a monopoly of supply, and it would reduce their profits. Governor Swarzeneger at the State Capitol at Sacramento is trying to encourage wind power developers, and many suitable wind farm sites have been identified along the Interstate 5 corridor in California
34

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 11:24:13
A comprehensive study* of public attitudes to wind power in Scotland and Ireland has shown that the majority are in favour; furthermore:

‘Large majorities are strongly in favour of their local wind farm…..and strongly favour their construction……..The press, it seems, gives disproportionate emphasis to the vocal minority’

‘the degree of acceptance increases with proximity towards wind farms after their construction’

(*Warren et al, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, November 2005.)
35

Wolfman,

Kinross 13/03/2008 12:23:44
Perhaps our government will now listen. These windfarms are destroying our biggest asset, our unspoilt countryside. I live near several of these farms and they are an abomination. There are other unobtrusive options available for ppower generation. I can guarentee that if an application for 40 phopne masts were submitted it would be refused on the grounds of environmental impact but not so 40 wind turbines that have a far greater impact.
36

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 13/03/2008 12:33:28
Fred

That study is incorrect and has concluded wrongly. Want to know how I know?

After the furore over Lewis turning the wind farm down, not one person, not one single letter, was heard or published from somebody who actually wanted the turbines. Not one Fred, not even you.

We heard the cried and moans from the urbanites of Edinburgh that we here were NIMBYs etc but NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF YOU COWARDLY NIMBYS ASKED FOR THE SAEM DEVELOPMENT TO BE DONE IN YOUR CITIES AND TOWN.

37

Friend of Lewis,

13/03/2008 12:46:33
#35 The comprehensive study of public attitudes to wind power in Scotland and Ireland which you refer to was undertaken in November 2005 according to your reference (*Warren et al, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, November 2005.)

Your reference mentions: ‘Large majorities are strongly in favour of their local wind farm…..and strongly favour their construction…….." How many wind farms were in operation in Scotland in 2005 to justify the findings by Warren et al?

How large were the wind farms in Scotland in 2005? None on the scale as those proposed for the Isle of Lewis.

See the Scottish Government's Energy Consents website:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Energy-Consents/Applications-Database

As at 13 March 2008 wind farm applications are as follows:

Currently Operational = 9

Under Construction = 1

Consents granted = 5

Scoping applications & Applications = 42

I wonder if a study undertaken now would reflect the same findings as those of Warren et al undertaken in November 2005?
38

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 13:18:00
38. If you read the report at the top of this thread you will see that a large majority - 75% - are positive about wind farms.
39

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 13:24:43
Furthermore: the report I cited reveals that people who are at first against a planned wind farm often change their minds once the site is up an running.

Reasons given for this change of heart are: 'the wind farm is not unattractive, there is no noise, and that it could be a tourist attraction.
40

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 13:26:38
39 should read '75% are not negative'
41

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 13/03/2008 13:33:33
Comments 39, 40 and 41

Preposterous lies. Address comment 37. We don't need any shonky reports to know that not one single person is in favour of the turbines as not one single person has written in to any newspaper advocating having a turbine farm where they live.

Lies, damn lies and made up Fred Bloggs pish.
42

CAPER,

13/03/2008 13:49:07

STRANGE THAT THE HERALD HEADLINE FOR THIS SAME STORY IS:

Wind farms ‘won’t put the tourists off’

Maybe the Herald journalists know the difference between minority and majority???
43

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 14:04:37
From the Glasgow Caledonian report:

'The level of negative response to wind farms (25%) was the fourth highest of the 11 structures in the landscape upon which opinion was sought, behind pylons (49%), mobile telephone masts (36%) and power stations (26%).'

Since power stations and pylons are essential and everyone has a mobile for which base stations are essential, wind farms are way down the hate list.
44

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 13/03/2008 14:05:48
Comment 44

Preposterous lies. Address comment 37. We don't need any shonky reports to know that not one single person is in favour of the turbines as not one single person has written in to any newspaper advocating having a turbine farm where they live.

Lies, damn lies and made up Fred Bloggs pish
45

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 14:28:35
Also from the report:

'Over time hostility to wind farms lessens and they become an accepted even valued part of the scenery. Those closest seem to like them most.'
46

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 13/03/2008 14:50:58
Comment 46

Preposterous lies. Address comment 37. We don't need any shonky reports to know that not one single person is in favour of the turbines as not one single person has written in to any newspaper advocating having a turbine farm where they live.

Lies, damn lies and made up Fred Bloggs pish
47

Jarrod,

Leicester 13/03/2008 14:55:19
I love all these comments by all of you Wind Turbine Whingers with your fancy gaelic names. You all like to pretend you're some Braveheart who spends his days digging peat on your loveley unspoilt moors to power your little computers. Truth is you're probably some graphic designer or artist who sits in front of your power hungry laptop moaning about wind turbines and the electricity they produce whilst all the while you electric meter is ticking away. If you don't want the wind turbines why don't we dump a nice new nuclear power plant up there.
48

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 15:01:26
Another interesting little snippet from the report:

Under all circumstances, the vast majority (93-99%) of those who had seen a wind farm suggested that the experience would not have any effect. Indeed there were some tourists for whom the experience increased the likelihood of return rather than decreasing it.
49

Neil,

Glasgow 13/03/2008 16:42:53
I note Pict #3 & Fred #10 make not attempt to provide the requested proof for their asertions.

Typical of the eco-fascist crowd. The truth is what the party says it is & facts are irelevant.
50

Incandescent,

13/03/2008 16:43:42
#37 Dave

I'd be over the moon if someone would erect a large wind farm near my house, preferably in the field on the western edge of South Queensferry.
51

Lora ,

Ohio 13/03/2008 17:28:02
The only real reason for declining tourism from Americans is that our dollar is suffering. I don't think windfarms have ANYTHING to do with it.

Maybe we'll see these windfarms and go home and put some here as well!
52

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 13/03/2008 19:26:02
Very few tourists walk to get here. They travel mostly by car or by plane, and that's hardly good for the environment. Tourists always spoil the unspoiled environment they travel to see.

Without wind turbines and hydro schemes to power electric trains in the future, there will be no tourist and travel industry because oil is just going to become more and more expensive as it runs out. The tourists will not be able to afford to travel here
53

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 13/03/2008 19:30:31
#25 & #35 Fred Bloggs
The proof of the fact that that the majority of Scottish people do not like windfarms lies in the data from the Mori report supplied to me by the Scottish Executive. As an example they only asked 8 people living within 5Km of a windfarm north of Edinburgh and Glasgow. After weighting this only accounted for 0.87 of an opinion. The weighting was done in such a manner that the nearer you lived to a windfarm the less your opinion counted.
The questions they asked were of the form " Would you rather live next to a windfarm or stick your head in a bucket of nuclear waste" windfarms can seem quite attractive to anyone when put like that.
As for the Tourism survey commissioned by visit Scotland, this concluded by stating that 25% of visitors would not return. The survey was heavily weighted in favour of the wind industry as they even used the wind industry photographs which are distorted to such an extent as to be unrecognisable. They used one from land that I owned at the time and for sure it was a lie.
Sorry Fred - Not one iota of your argument for windfarms stands up.
Keep taking the drugs though, I need a regular laugh.

54

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 13/03/2008 19:34:15
Another thing for Fred - One of the reports you are referring to was done for the wind industry in an attemt to influence the An Suidhe public enquiry. However it was withdrawn as evidence at the last minute as it could not stand up to scrutiny.
55

bogmon,

13/03/2008 20:54:32
Yes - tourists really will flock in their millions to drive or walk around Scotland's 'Wind Farm Trail'. The wilderness experience would be beautifully enhanced by thousands of 500ft towers. The sound of utter silence punctuated only by the low-frequency boom of those beautiful turbine blades. They would even be able to see a few eagles at close quarters underneath each tower (they would be dead, unfortunately - but that wouldn't matter). There would be sighs of relief that all that nasty black peat has been replaced by acres of blessed concrete and poetic ribbons of tarmac.

On descending from the hills, perhaps following the celebrated pylon route, the happy tourists could then mingle with a nicely divided community at the local. They would then ponder on the mystery of why England is lit up like a Christmas tree (except when the wind doesn't blow - or even when the wind is too strong), while Scotland (and Wales) flickers and dims like a third world country.

Come to Scotland! We really do care about our environment and the preservation of our wilderness!

Buy your tickets now - before they run out!!
56

bogmon,

13/03/2008 20:57:25
"If the renewables target is met via substantial wind-farm development, Scottish tourism revenues in 2015 are forecast to be only 0.18 per cent lower in 2015 than they would have been if there were no wind farms in Scotland."

You must be Joe Quinn.
57

chickenhawk,

14/03/2008 03:42:44
So do nothing....! And when you can't see at night or watch your favorite show on the telly and are freezing you a** off, you might just say.."Maybe we shoulda put up some of those wind mill things....!"
58

chickenhawk,

14/03/2008 03:42:45
So do nothing....! And when you can't see at night or watch your favorite show on the telly and are freezing you a** off, you might just say.."Maybe we shoulda put up some of those wind mill things....!"
59

Homer,

14/03/2008 06:19:05
60 comments and no-one appears to have looked at the actual report. Oy vey.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf
60

Friend of Lewis,

14/03/2008 09:12:14
#60 See letter written today:

http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Wind-farm-question.3878240.jp
61

Homer,

14/03/2008 13:53:11
Thanks 61, I assume you mean that the letter writer didn't read the report either. The article above says:

"the researchers estimated the likely impact on the tourism economy by 2015 of all the wind farms needed to meet the renewables obligation"

No, they didn't. They looked at the impact of "all wind farms currently in operation, being constructed or with a current application submitted". The letter writer propagates this error.
62

Friend of Lewis,

15/03/2008 16:37:02
#62 I agree with the letter writer and most of the comments.
63

Airds,

Castle Douglas 15/03/2008 18:30:36
One conclusion of the report that warrants a mention is that effect on Scotland as a whole is small because it is predicted that those tourists who dislike their scenery being despoiled by 110m flickering structures will go instead to areas of Scotland where wind farms are not allowed. It is said therefore to be essential that some areas, such as national parks and prominent tourist regions are kept free from wind farm development. So it's OK to encourage wind farm development in fragile rural economies which can then suffer job losses and damage to their economies so long as tourist hotspots get the displaced business. How fair is that?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.