I assume that those people on here whinging about wind turbines do not have
cars. Let's hope so. As one of the prime causal ingredients to air
pollution & industrial waste relates to the car industry, if you
*don't*drive or own a car, your objections should be taken into
Otherwise, as part of Gaia's cancerous pollution problem, those causing such
harm to her body should be kept out of the discussions, as they are part of
the problem. And to even begin whinging about prettiness, landscape
destruction and archaeological sites, the naivety of the whingers as they
drive along the roads that have dug up so much our land beggars belief. You
are part of the problem! Address yourselves in accordance with the
necessity of people's reliance on the Earth and not one's own selfishness!
Get the windfarms up - or get out of your cars and walk. We know that
children constantly want their cake and eat it - and it seems we've the same
naivety going on again here..
Concerned - Paul
On 22 April 2011 13:54, Mark Hall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Here in the US, at least on Federal lands or projects involving Federal
> VRM (Visual Resource Management) is a key item in the NEPA (National
> Policy Act) analysis (ie the Environmental Impact Statement or
> Analysis). Only recently, and
> in part to green energy, is the issue of how a project's visual impacts
> affects on the cultural
> landscapes or traditional cultural properties (TCPs). Right now, there is
> guidance on how to link
> VRM, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and visual
> are addressed differently in both
> sets of rules and laws. Add to the fact there are still Native Americans
> practice traditional Native American religions, and its no wonder energy
> projects take years.
> I've been involved with a geothermal project outside of a TCP. While not
> perfect, in the final decision, the BLM
> (Bureau of Land Management) put restrictions on the company in terms of
> they could drill and if wells
> went in certain areas and viewsheds, they would have to reclaim the well
> hide the piping, etc. to reduce
> visual effects to the setting of the TCP.
> Best, Mark Hall
> From: Malcolm J Watkins <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 2:26:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] wind turbines
> The question of whether WTs are attractive or not is pretty irrelevant and
> frankly daft. There are those who think all sorts of things are attractive
> others find ugly and/or offensive. It matters little here.
> The question is surely more about the ability to understand or appreciate
> monument in something approaching the context of its builders' perceptions.
> for ever if the view is so overshadowed by a piece of modern country
> The argument that 'it is essential' is used to push through all sorts of
> badly-thought through, and often greedy, planning consents that are
> inappropriate in the specific location - the recession makes planners and
> especially planning authorities supine.
> I understand the argument for WTs, but would question the sense of locating
> (and then probably more) where an ancient landscape may be spoiled - or
> not, as
> the case may be.
> WTs are not simply bird mincers. Did I not read that they are deadly to
> bats as
> well? I also question the presumption that they are sustainable and have no
> direct impact. They are, by their very nature, affecting the wind in its
> courses. It may be minimal, but it is not missing. Multiply the effect by
> dozens, hundreds and thousands and there is an impact that we may not be
> able to
> perceive. Chaos theory rears its head. I am equally bemused by the way that
> green lobbyists claim that poking pipes into the ground to heat buildings
> using the heat of the earth is not going to have an effect. Not
> maybe, but if every house demands it and there are millions more houses,
> replaces the heat that is lost?
> No energy is available without costs, but don't let us pretend that new
> is free. It isn't.
> The heritage is not, emphatically not, a minority interest, and if those
> claim it is are professional archaeologists I suggest that they may wish to
> re-examine their own positions. An interest in a heap of old stones laid
> out by
> some shaggy characters several thousand years ago may not be everyone's cup
> tea (me included) but we all have an interest and generally a passion about
> or more aspects of the past. If we are failing to take people from the
> of interest in their own specific area (football teams, sports
> family history, etc) then we are the culprits. In our hands lies the
> ability to
> enthuse, excite and enlighten others.
> Our failures are the cause of the lost past.
*The Northern Antiquarian* <http://megalithix.wordpress.com/>