What a mix up of messy environmental views. How about getting some basic energy saving procedures in place first. Get more people out of their cars and on to cheaper (Non-profit making) public transport, school buses. Then national campaign to increase loft insulation, turn your heating down, stop using carrier bags, stop wasting food (about 20% av household). stop supermarkets throwing away food (give to staff or reduce for customers. Stop eating too much in the first place and becoming fat and miserable). Drink water instead of unhealthy sugary drinks which produce more wasted metal. Stop importing/buying cheap electronic goods that if you're lucky will last a year before being binned. The list is endless.. and most of it relies on an environmentally conscientious government which the public will happily follow. Its not rocket science to help the planet and yourself!

Billy Bop, London, UK

There is only one solution to the question of global warming. Stop population growth. Nothing else will work; there are to many of us.

Alistair, Edinburgh,

Did anyone listen to Robert Scott from the Isle of Lewis?

Wind turbines produce "CO2 electricity" only if you look at each one in isolation, once it has been constructed and the infrastructure built. They're made of fibreglass and complicated plastics for heaven sake, not organic cotton and second hand pine. Do you know how much carbon will be released during the production of a hundred miles of road? Especially in somewhere as remote as the Isle of Lewis.

All you "environmentally responsible" types will be shaking your head at my complaints about your righteous efforts to save the planet when in reality what I'm saying is "If we want to have an impact on this period of climate change then lets not run off half-cocked. Let's come up with a solution that works." The cost of this inefficient endeavour in Lewis could fund hundreds of scientists and engineers who, I'm sure, could come up with something better.

Wind farms are a political gesture to assuage guilt wracked urbanites.

Richard, London, UK

Complete Tosh. The answer is lower use and nuclear, not wind and a ring of steel on every hill and dune, and it might be worth pointing out that the famous picture of the poor bears on the melting ice was cropped and misused by rampant Goreites - the bears were only having a bit of fun in the local swimming pool !

George Edwards, Rawcliffe, UK East Riding

God your a boring yuppie. If you want people to listen then post something interesting, or atleast truthful.

Many countries have tried wind energy and its simply doesn't work for crap. Whats wrong with geothermal energy?

Finally, why is it that you only listen to the scientists who support your view on global warming? Its not like theirs only 200 scientists and ALL of them believe in it.

Nick Owczarzak, Saline, Mi, USA

Presumably your idea of responsible government is a conservative one that adds millions to the cost of a rail link to avoi d routing it through conservative constituencies in Kent.
But yeah, you have a good belly-ache about the SNP in an English newspaper because no one in Scotland is listening to you.

Douglas Maxwell, Richmond,

Poor Magnus really is getting hot under the collar. Apparentlly the Hebrides is one of the few places where where wind turbines really are energy efficient. Presumable he means that elsewhere they are not energy efficient - but it really looks as though he doesn't know what energy efficiency means. Perhaps he also doesn't know that it would cost in the region of £500 million just to put in an interconnector to take the electricity to market and that the turbines would never be built except for huge public subsidies through Renewable Obligation Certificates. The Lewis windfarm would involve putting 100 miles of roads into an area which apart from being a unique habitat of international significance is also a vast carbon sink. The UK's contribution to greenhouse gases is about 2% of the global total so even the Lewis windfarm for all its physical size is totally insignificant globally except as a gesture.

Robert Scott, Upper Barvas, Isle of Lewis

Magnus

Well done for understanding the predictions of the IPCC. Most commentators seem to belong to some flat-earth sect and spend most of their time denouncing sound science because it makes them uncomfortable.

Unfortuantely, with the inertia of government and society in general, I am afraid I have to agree with you that the likely outcome is a Canute style attempt to ignore the rising tide.

Peter, London,

There is plenty of wind and sunshine in Northern Africa. Electricity from wind and solar powered steam turbine generating stations could be transmitted via a cable grid to Britain. The main route could be under the Straits of Gibralta, France, Portugal and to Britain via the England France tunnel.
This alternative would keep everybody happy. Maybe??

Jim Wills, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

I was very pleased to read Magnus Linklater's piece supporting wind farms. At last somebody who can realy write is pointing out that renewable energy is more important than a few trivial preferences for a cosy country life in rural England. There is the whole world with 10 billion people who have somehow or other to be fed clothed, and sheltered. Every successful species that evolves tends to overload its environment and decline or become extinct. As the most intelligent species we need to find ways to thrive for as long as possible. We have our ability to think and to communicate as our strongest attributes to enable us to maintain ourselves on earth. Good for Magnus Linklater.

Max Fordham, 3 Camden Sq, London NW1 9UY, England

It must be very difficult for Hebridean Islanders and Scottish Highlanders to accept ruination of scenery and noise pollution, which will have a detrimental effect on tourism, to enable shipment of the right sort of energy to mainland lowland UK. In many areas they know the economics of power production and rightly see the windfarms as a means for outsiders to harvest nothing more than subsidy. They are openly being told that all wind generated electricity is shipped south and that they can expect no respite from increased charges to transmit the power back North.

I support the need for renewable energy, I know that difficult decisions have to be made but the windfarm issue in the highlands and islands taints the issue and may do lasting damage to the cause. Put the windfarms offshore where they can be quietly and unobtrusively efficient.

Harry Willis , North Yorkshire ,

Robert from Devon needs to realize that even though wind turbines may be working, the output will be negligible at low wind speeds. More importantly, most of the output needs to be backed up by traditional power stations and therefore can never replace any base load. Wind power will always be unpredictable and unreliable, but the cost to the environment will be immense (impact on humans, flora and fauna).

With reference to Magnus Linklater, I am surprised that he has been employed at some point, soon as he seems to be completely removed from reality. Some real scientific research, rather than listening to scaremongery from people travelling on the wind powered gravy boat, may help him come back to earth.

Anna, Devon,

“Not much else I can do about it, mate,” This, it seems, is the reaction not just from the ordinary man in the street, but all those scientists Magnus refers to. One of the outstanding causes of dangerous emissions is underground coal fires. In China alone (and well documented, just google it), the amount of CO2 produced by out-of-control coal fires is equivalent to the entire CO2 output of all the vehicles in the USA.

Add to this India, Pakistan, the USA, all with massive fires burning, and you can see where the majority of harmful emissions are coming from.

Instead of bleating on about me using low energy bulbs or not leaving my TV on standby, perhaps these eminent scientists could put their collective brains together and come up with a way of putting these fires out. Until then, I'm afraid any efforts we make will be like hitting a charging elephant with a daffodil and expecting it to stop.

Ken Whysall, Hemel Hempstead,

I suppose one has to ask the MoD "who" would be flying these low-level bombers. Putting diplomatic niceties aside (we all know the finger is stil pointed at the Ruskies), the threat would come from a 1950s vintage aircraft (Tu-95 Bear) with a top speed in the range of 500 mph. Given this aircraft would have to depart from a Russian base, one would think it would be tracked by NATO radar long before it got anywhere near the shores of England or Scotland, and thus intercepted.

Along with putting up windmills, perhaps harnessing the "hot air" coming from the MoD is another means of reducing green house gases.

Patrick, Toronto, Canada

I like whimbrels.

ronnie, glasgow,

So - the MOD are worried that some day we might quarrel with Russia, therefore we're to depend on Russian gas? Am I missing something?

Sarah Wells, Bedford,

Turbines work 75 to 80% of the time anywhere in the UK and the UK has the best wind resource in the whole of Europe. The fact that turbines do not produce their base capacity is nothing to do with turbine efficiency, it is simply because there is not enough wind to power them! Put in smaller turbines and they would produce their base capacity all the time, but thats not really the point is it!
Are Mike and PR really suggesting that we should not take advantage of the wind resource anywhere else in the country simply because its windier in the Hebrides. Please!

robert, devon,

"the Hebrides, which is one of the FEW places where turbines are genuinely energy-efficient"

I think that says it all.

PR, Cornwall,

Wind farms clearly do not reduce CO2 emissions. Denmark and Ireland that get 10 or so % of their electricity from them have much higher per capita emissions than France Sweden and Switzerland ( all almost 100% nuclear/hydro).

The UK is in the middle, but getting worse as more wind farms go up because of the coal and gas backup that has to be retained

Paul , cheshire, england

"What sort of crazy logic is that?"
Simply that the MOD have apparently identified an actual security threat now, whereas the 200 (or 2,000) top scientists have a noisy but as yet unproven theory on 'warming'.
If France, Belgium, Holland etc. all joined the 'wind farm' stampede, I can imagine a vast area to our east left totally 'radar blind'.
"the Hebrides, which is one of the few places where turbines are genuinely energy-efficient." - do what??
So why build them elsewhere, if they're not efficient?
Never mind the eagle, hawk, etc., I can spot one of these hideous machines from afar, blighting our landscape, to relatively little effect from what I've read so far.
I accept evidence of global warming occurring, but until it's proven otherwise I remain unconvinced that it is man-made, rather than a natural cyclical event beyond our power to prevent.
But there's still every reason to conserve energy.

MikeM, St. Albans, England

Quite. Someone needed to say it.

James, Edinburgh,

what an ignorant view. what do you do for power when the wind stops blowing

Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK

surely you don't still believe in "global warming"?
this myth distracts from the real dangers of pollution and species extinction.
if we lose the cross-pollinators ,for instance ,national obesity will no longer be a problem for a start.

william, cole bay, st.martin