No offence meant, but I rather think you're being had.
No offence meant Bill, but I think you have misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that I was objecting to forestry - I was saying that people would object to forestry in the same way they object to wind farms, using the same flawed logic. For example: "wind farms are a threat to birds". What is the biggest threat to British birds? Climate change. "Forestry is a threat to moorland". What is the biggest threat to moorland? Climate change. See where I am coming from?
I am happy to consider all options; you however have made up your mind to exclude wind farms from your consideration. Maybe you have a financial interest in forestry - I don't know.
I have not been 'had' because I am not favouring one option over another, contrary to your suggestion - I believe that every instance or location will have its own ideal solution. What YOU need to do is think beyond your own prejudices and opinions and consider all the options on the table. It is accepted wisdom that a mix of technologies is desirable.
Your suggestion that the wind farm lobby are biased by financial interest, but that any biomass projects would not be susceptible to the same kind of bias amazes me. Are you suggesting that proponents of biomass are all angels, and immune from being swayed by financial considerations?
Your suggestion that Welsh farmers are 'against' wind farms is ridiculous - there are more wind farms on Welsh hilltops than anywhere else in Britain, and the farmers are doing very nicely out of having them there, thankyou very much - no-one is forcing them to have them there. Wales is STILL the only country in the world to have Sustainable Development written into its constitution, and is a world leader in renewable energy generation.
At the time of writing, the wind generation industry have proved that they can deliver - I sincerely wish the same could be said of the forestry industry. Until such time as people pull their fingers out and implement the kind of measures you are suggesting, wind will have the advantage when it comes to green energy generation.
So maybe you can tell us exactly WHAT IS BEING DONE along the lines you are suggesting? Personally, I have paid to have a few trees planted in Scotland. Not much, I admit - but it's something, at least. I heat my home with wood and solar. I get my electricity (indirectly) from an off-shore wind farm. How about you - how do you heat your home? Gas? What's your electricity tarriff? Nuclear? Coal?
Maybe you can tell us how electricity generation from wood compares to wind in terms of carbon emissions? Carbon neutral is not the same as zero carbon, is it? How about the embodied energy of a wood power station - its construction, transport of the wood fuel etc? How does that compare to wind turbines?
I hear you banging on about wood, Bill - and I'm all in favour of it, as part of the mix. Indeed - I use it myself, along with wind and solar. I just don't think that it is the be-all-and-end-all solution to our problems, that's all. OK?
). I would love this obsession to become broken (and any efforts towards relocalisation won't happen until such time either).
