The greens favour high oil prices because consumers use less of the stuff when it costs more, and because high prices for oil make other forms of energy more competitive. Nuclear power, solar energy, wind power or any of the other substitutes for fossil fuels can become more economically viable only if oil prices stay about where they are - and politicians stump up some generous subsidies, sceptics would add. Meanwhile, the hunt for the proverbial free lunch is on. The most efficient way to cut the use of fossil fuels is to make them more expensive by taxing them, or the emissions they create. But politicians are as unenthusiastic about transparency in the cost of cleaning up the environment as they are about increasing the transparency of the funding of political parties. So most proposals to cut carbon emissions are built around a single proposition: hide their cost from voters. ...Even the emerging favourite in the United States and Europe, a cap on emissions followed by a trading of permits, is a hide-the-cost device: costs of compliance will be passed on as higher prices. So the blame will go to car makers, supermarkets, electricity utilities, and oil companies, the applause to politicians. All so politicians can avoid the transparent device of a tax on carbon or carbon emissions.

If the 2010 target of reducing CO2 emissions was achievable, which the UK government now admits is impossible, it would have been responsible for saving a ridiculously paltry 0.0003 or four 10 thousandths of all world emissions. And the reason for this failure is plain to see - the wrong technology, that of wind power, has been used. It just cannot deliver any significant saving on emissions, not without plastering the whole country with massive turbines - a 400ft turbine is 20 times the height of a 20ft lamp-post. ...The saving of emissions, we are told, is the main reason for having these turbines in the first place. We look forward to any responses from those Welsh politicians who seem obsessed with the pursuit of this near-useless technology.

John Hutton, the UK business secretary, announced plans yesterday to increase Britain's production of electricity from wind. According to Hutton, by 2020 the UK will produce 33 gigawatts (GW) from wind power, mainly from offshore turbines ...The reaction of environmentalists to these developments shows how apparently strong principles can be set aside in favour of certain right-on technologies. ...Because wind generation is immensely erratic and hard to forecast it is almost impossible to incorporate it into the grid without compromising reliability. Detailed study of inflow and outflow between Germany and Scandanavia demonstrates that as much as 84 per cent of west Denmark's wind power is exported to Norway (at a loss to Danish consumers of about £100million) (4). Norway's electrical supply is 100 per cent hydro, generated by water falling through turbines in river dams, and the Danish wind power is simply used to pump water back up into reservoirs - in effect, storing the electricity (and currently the only practical way to store power). Hydro and wind are extremely complementary, but the people of Denmark are paying the compliment and the people of Norway being flattered. Currently, the Danish Wind Industry Association (DWIA) admits: ‘Danish wind power only contributes to adequacy [of supply] with a capacity value of zero.'

Shell, the oil company that recently trumpeted its commitment to a low carbon future by signing a pre-Bali conference communique, has quietly sold off most of its solar business. The move, taken with rival BP's decision last week to invest in the world's dirtiest oil production in Canada's tar sands, indicates that Big Oil might be giving up its flirtation with renewables and going back to its roots. ...The oil group said it was continuing to move its renewables interests into a mainstream business and hoped to find one new power source that would "achieve materiality" for it. Shell continues to invest in a number of wind farm schemes, such as the London Array offshore scheme, which has government approval. Shell has also been concentrating its efforts on biofuels, but declined to say whether it had given up on solar power even though many smaller rivals continue to believe the technology has a bright future.

The government was accused yesterday of unveiling plans for a significant expansion of offshore wind power that were very similar to an announcement it made five years ago. Industry secretary John Hutton announced in Berlin that Britain wanted to expand offshore wind power to provide about a fifth of the country's electricity by 2020. This would mark a big increase from the current level of less than 1%. Five years ago the then energy minister, Brian Wilson, announced that vast areas of shallow sea around Britain would be earmarked for an expansion of wind power that theoretically could power Britain three times over. Tory shadow industry secretary Alan Duncan accused Hutton of "rushing out a rehashed proposal announced five years ago" ...Dan Lewis, research director at the Economic Research Council, said: "According to the world offshore wind report 2008-2012, published a week ago, only 4.5gW will be installed in the whole world over that period. Maybe the government should have paid attention to the supply constraints the report highlights before it takes a stand on something it can't possibly deliver. "The government is deluding itself on a grand scale.

So how much will Scotland "earn" from this giant wind farm? With the high-value turbines having been manufactured abroad, I reckon that over 75% of the total value of the project will be spent outside Scotland. How many permanent jobs will the project produce? No more than a handful. So not a lot there for Scotland from the exploitation of its wind resource, though the local landowner will do quite well. And how will foreign-owned ScottishPower fare?

This is a time for cool heads and a no-nonsense approach in dealings with companies that stand to make millions out of renewable schemes. While accepting the need to meet our ever-increasing energy requirements from alternative and sustainable resources, it's crucial that we also scrutinise each proposal on merit, take full account of those most affected and ensure that cast-iron conditions are in place over exit strategies.

I would like to draw your attention to an article on P.35 of the "NFU Countryside" magazine (November 2007 issue) that describes the noise from a wind farm near Deeping St Nicholas that is 930 metres from a farm house. It is so bad that the farm tenants (Julian and Jane Davis) have to rent another house in Spalding in which to sleep. The problem is "amplitude modulation" caused by the blades moving in and out of synchronisation and causing noise they describe as "like four helicopters circling above your property or an approaching train". ...I am, in principle, in favour of wind farms but when you visit Holland, Germany and other European countries with a far higher density of wind farms you will very quickly notice that they are sited well away from any habitation.

There are two main issues with wind turbines: they have to be connected to the power grid, which involves some tricky technical problems, and wind doesn't blow all the time. ..."The total cost of wind should take account of that backup requirement, and the total costs of wind on the system is not computed today. In a market such as the US, where you don't have the same driver of carbon credits, wind doesn't have that benefit going for it. In Ireland, we need to have a market structure that will incentivise developers to build the (backup) plant. We need to pay for available capacity, not just energy." That hasn't been set up yet, as it would need legislative action, not just planning, and when fully costed, such a capacity market would be controversial. The consumer would be paying for a lot of plant sitting idle over two thirds of the time.

Shetland holds almost half of Britain's breeding red-throated divers. A survey of breeding red-throated divers in Shetland, carried out in 1994, found only 389 breeding pairs, a 40 per cent decline since the previous full survey in 1983. Shetland holds approximately1.5 per cent of the British breeding population of merlins, approximately 20 pairs. Consultation is on going to reduce the impact of the development especially on the breeding red-throated divers, which are considered to be particularly liable to collision with wind turbines. ...In the words of the RSPB: "The RSPB views climate change as the most serious threat to birds and their habitats, and sees renewable energy as one way to alleviate this threat. However, it would be entirely self defeating to advocate building wind farms right in the middle of our most important wildlife areas." ...Anybody that thinks developments like this are acceptable obviously don't care less about the wildlife and natural environment around them.

Remember that the threat to birds is a very small (but highly significant) part of the whole Shetland windfarm issue. If we include the negative effects on tourism, house prices, visibility, noise, quality of life, peat disturbance, run-off, environmental quality, Shetland's wilderness - as well as debatable CO2 savings, the need for 90 per cent fossil fuel back up due to intermittence and the doubling of the price of electricity (Denmark experience) it is hard to understand how the project has got past first base. Last week at PM questions, an English MP succinctly summed up the situation with windfarms. He said 'windfarms are being opposed by local people but being imposed on them by the authorities'. This is exactly what is happening in Shetland. It has to be stopped.

We've been inundated with letters and emails about the plans to site eight 125 metre high wind turbines near Baumber. Here's some of the letters we couldn't fit in this week's paper.

The government's conservation watchdog has been accused of putting wildlife and wild places at risk by preparing to relax its defences against development. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) is under fire from environmental groups and insiders for allowing plans for a coal mine and wind farms to go ahead, despite the damage they could do to rare birds and peat bogs. Critics warn that a review of corporate strategy being led by SNH chairman Andrew Thin could result in more damaging developments being given the go-ahead. Fears have been fuelled by a recent interview in which Thin said he was neither a conservationist nor an environmentalist.

I wish to make your readers aware of yet another example of the lengths to which wind-farm developers will go in order to ensure they achieve a positive outcome to their controversial plans. ...There is now a list of over 800 supporters of the Spittal and Baillie developments at the Energy Consents Unit in Glasgow; the vast majority of the signatories do not even live in Caithness, let alone in the communities that will be most affected by these developments. You would hope that the local communities' feelings would be of the utmost importance in the decision-making process, as has been expounded by the Scottish Government on a number of occasions, but who can tell? ...Local opposition is the strongest weapon against these developments - please lodge your objections now and do not let this type of tactic win the day.

With regard to renewable energy, the attitude of the Assembly Government once again never ceases to amaze me. ...the Assembly Government is obsessed with the totally discredited, useless wind farm technology. In contrast, the highly predictable, reliable tidal power would be a very attractive carbon-free commodity on the electricity spot price market indeed.

The total of wind turbines being proposed for the area will be 24," she said. "On top of the 22 recently granted approval at Fullabrook, it's horrendous. The cumulative effects, especially on Exmoor National Park will be disastrous. "Just because the Government has given approval for Fullabrook, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should be approved here too," she added. "The public are being forced to accept the building of power stations that in effect only generate their rated output for three months of the year, and save much less CO2 than claimed."

I am fiercely opposed to wind farm development on the grounds that there is no scientific evidence to indicate these ugly turbines are in any way efficient. The operators use flawed criteria to justify them, criteria that is just not practicable in the real world in terms of normal household requirements. ...The intermittent energy they produce is extremely expensive and the energy they consume in manufacture is totally disproportionate to the benefits of the end product.

IF you think it's a good idea to cheapen the shop window of the Northern Lakes, with the construction of nine 335ft steel wind turbines on Berrier Hill, adjacent to the Lake District National Park and overlooking Blencathra - ask yourself this; how many businesses, or agencies, do you think will use a photograph of the wind farm in their promotional literature? I suspect hardly any - because instinctively you, and they, know industrial wind turbines do not attract visitors or tourists to the Lakes.

Common sense has prevailed and the Berwick Borough councillors have rejected the plan for 10 turbines on Wandylaw Farm, Chathill. What worries me is the fact that all reportage and general thought on the subject appears to centre around the "look" or appearance of these structures, in other words the aesthetics, will they spoil the landscape? I hear nothing of the fact that this technology is sporadic by nature and will not perform to its stated capacity. The spokesman of Ridgewind Ltd, who hope to develop the site, was "devastated" and bemoaned the fate of future generations. ...They claim to be able to generate enough power for 11,200 homes! Over what period and at what rate? This is not an exact science. They can only base these figures on supposed potentials and mathematical models of past performance of local wind conditions. Well the past is no guarantee of future performance, as you will know if you have "read the small print"!

There are serious questions which require truthful answers: what is the actual wind speed which will produce this optimum 66MW; and how frequently will this speed occur at Fullabrook Down? ...If it was practical to use wind to generate electricity, it would have been done many years ago.