Craig, what an utter load of tosh you spout on about. you state that the objections are not based on the NIMBY approach, however how many letters of objection are recieved from people outside the area concerned - very few i would imagine.

as a PPC for the calder valley, i think you should be setting your sight further into the future to help this country, ie to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels, gas & oil supplies, and also to adapt to a greaner source of energy - or would you rather have a big coal fired powerstation situated there belting out co2's everywhere.

Mr. Whittaker, what a load of nonsense. Wind turbine farms do not detract from the area, they have proved to be a tourist attraction in many areas. How is a wind turbuie any different from say an electricity pylon? In these days where as much as possible needs to be done to protect the environment and the atmosphere, turbines are the greenest practical form of generating electricity.You, sir, should be advocating these machines, not decrying them.

It is NIMBYism at its finest.
I found a nicev little skit on wind NIMBYism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KurAbrMHu2k
It is most amusing and sums up nimby arguments.
DDW

Mr Whittaker – clearly, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about, you are just reciting the same old NIMBY rhetoric. Please, where is the ‘increasing evidence that shows [windfarms are] ineffective’

Where is this “evidence from other parts of the country shows that anything from 47 per cent to 75 per cent of visitors felt that wind turbines damage the landscape and therefore the attractiveness of an area” let me guess, you’ll cite some rubbish from an anti wind farm group who’s privileged kitchen windows are deemed to have been spoilt?

Let me ask you, what do you think climate change will do to the countryside and the landscape – as peat lands dry, plant and animal species migrate or become extinct. How do you think urban areas will cope with increased risk of flooding – and insurance companies raise their premiums and some households and businesses will become uninsurable?

Costs to residents – you talk complete twoddle. Security of supply in the UK can be achieved through a mix of renewable and decentralisation – even your own Party Leader acknowledges this. Whilst at the same time driving down CO2 emissions. By the way, the nuclear industry has received some £13billion for ‘R&D’ as opposed to renewables £1billion for R&D.

Show the evidence they only work at 25% - again, NIMBY scare mongering. If you knew anything about the renewable potential you know that nobody advocates 100% generation from wind. However, its advanced and works – alongside other renewable (solar, tidal, offshore etc) and CHP decentralisation, we can meet the UK energy requirements many times over AND create plentiful jobs AND become a global leader in these technologies.

I’m afraid your letter is nothing other than a NIMBY attitude. Thankfully, you’re the minority. Hot air – that’s the problem.

Wind turbines are more more expensive are they? well, we'll see if that's still the case in a couple of years when the price of traditionally generated electricity has gone up even further. Also, as more and more turbines are installed, the manufacturers get the cost benefits of mass production so factory gate prices fall, then we will all be able to have one in our back garden.
Where I live in Spain, we have 320 days of sun per year so every house should have solar panels but they don't. In the UK you have plenty of wind, you should use it!

Mr Whittaker

further to my note yesterday about changing habitats, please refer to this article from today's BBC news:

Climate 'altering UK bird habits'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7561497.stm

I'm afraid the need to challenge climate change is much, much more, than the self-importance arguments put forward by the NIMBYs.

4
there are cancer clusters around pilons, they dont look good and they are unnecessary you open an hornets nest.

windfarms? BETTER THAN NUCLEAR?