In the blood of every Briton runs at least a little seawater. We sing of the sea, romanticise our maritime heritage and regard the beach holiday as a nationally affirming birthright. Every year we potter in our millions down to the sea with bucket, spade, snorkel, jet-ski, paperback, shark defence kit and inadequate quantities of suncream. Oh, we do like to be beside the seaside; but we have a strange way of showing it. For the past 300 years or so, we have poisoned and plundered the sea; we have destroyed the seabed, killed the fish and bemired the vast oceans with our waste. We wring our hands at the pollution and devastation we have visited on the land, but because we cannot see what is happening beneath the dark waters surrounding this island we somehow assume it will mend itself...........The Bill is not simply some worthy Magna Carta for beleaguered British fish, since it also sets out clear rules for exploiting the sea by fishermen, oil prospectors, dredgers and energy farmers. The Bill will make it far easier to build and operate offshore wind farms, developments to harness wave power, and schemes for storing carbon emissions from power stations in former oilfields. So far from ducking the issue, as successive governments have done, the marine Bill aims to balance competing interests and face up to the inevitable but not insoluble conflict between exploitation and preservation. But in politics, as at sea, the weather changes quickly. The marine Bill, promised in Labour's manifesto of 2005, was expected to become law within a year, but suddenly it seems to have slipped off the political agenda. Gordon Brown did not even mention marine protection in his summer statement, and the marine Bill is not included in his planned legislative programme for next year. The Bill has been kicked into the long seaweed. It is the big one that got away, again.

Our seas must have proper protection - now! In due course, we shall be organising signature sheets in support of this Marine Bill and hope the people of North Devon will show this new Government that we are as keen to protect creatures living in our oceans as we are to protect our local wildlife and landscapes.

Also, as I draft this response, I have just received confirmation that the Public meeting and Public Hearing for NPDES Permit No. PA 105560700 1; Proposed Shaffer Mountain Wind Farm, Ogle and Shade townships, Somerset County and Napier Township, Bedford County will be held on Tuesday, Aug. 28, at the Shade-Central City High School. I'll be there - will you? In closing, in regards to your mentioning Newton's third law of motion, I would add this - "Desperate people do desperate things" and so it goes with the industrialization of Shaffer Mountain. Desperation on your and Gamesa's part, Tim Vought! We will "Save The Mountain!"

The villains in this scenario are the dysfunctional state Legislature and the energetic but too widespread governor. The state needs a plan for windmills. Where should they be placed to offer the most reward and the least damage? Instead, we have no policy and a bunch of entrepreneurs seeking a quick buck and then getting out.

Economic viability is not a criterion for determining setbacks in siting an energy facility. Setbacks should address only identified public health, safety and individual property rights impacts. The setbacks are inadequate as currently designed. The project is being proposed in the wrong location.

The guest column is her attempt to gain support from Seattle voters to support a project that has been rejected by the Kittitas County Planning Commission, the Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners and now by the governor. For Patton to co-write the column with Helen Wise, a local resident and homeowner who has no dog in this hunt, is just another attempt for her "coalition" to force its agenda on the landowners who will have to live with it in Eastern Washington. It is a cheap shot for those who do not know the real issue.It is not about wind power, but where it is to be located. Imagine a string of 410-foot turbines along Rattlesnake Ridge to Issaquah.

Do we want to leave the entirety of our surroundings to the administrative technicalities of a zoning office through the mere vote of 12 people whose interests raise grave doubts of motive? Of course not. Clearly, a matter of this gravity and importance should be decided by public referendum.

Is it right that a small number of people should make substantial financial gain from development that impacts so greatly on their neighbours and the surrounding landscape? Is it right that the Council should permit it? I think not, but your readers should judge for themselves as it is very likely that this type of development will be before the planning department very soon again.

Forty-three owners with 72 tract of land have agreed to construct turbines. How can we allow so few to dictate to so many?

Wind turbine setback bylaws for Cumberland County are clearly inadequate for protection of the rights of residents who will be living adjacent to wind turbines. They desperately need to be re-examined and amended.

Environmental lobbyists are more powerful than they've ever been, financed now not only with tax-deductible contributions from the public, and "reconveyance fees" assessed on every home sale (a growing phenomenon - watch out), but also today with "carbon offset" funds. Returning to the Kittitas Valley in Washington state, these wealthy environmentalists, backed by wind energy corporations who are thrilled to milk the anti-CO2 hysteria for all it's worth, are cramming this massive wind installation down the throats of the local residents.

The issue: The right of citizens to petition for legislation Our view: An important right that should be protected Opponents of wind farm projects presented the Stephenson County Board a petition signed by 1,800 landowners last week, citing a little-used state law that empowers citizens to change how legislation is approved by the county board, by petition. Statutes dictate that validated signatures representing 5 percent of the landowners in a county can require a "super majority," or three-fourths approval on legislation being considered by the board. In this case, wind farm opponents sought to petition the county board to prevent it from adopting a revision to the zoning ordinance that changes permitted uses for land in the prime agriculture category. County officials put the petition aside, and after further consideration, discussion turned to whether the exact number of landowners in Stephenson County could be determined. Land ownership can be confused by trusts, marital status, estate holdings and other legal "tools." Regardless of your opinion on wind farms, preserving the right of citizens to initiate action through petition is a vital right in our democratic system of government. In such cases when an electorate is unable to find sufficient consideration for its opinion through its elected representatives, the opportunity to prompt action through independent petition is a viable alternative.

It now seems that, having disrupted and destroyed some of our local countryside with heavy negative industry, our Fenland Council has "accommodated" enough of these "awesome beasts", and may not wish to play ball with its political masters any longer. The wind industry has not been slow in reacting to the public's withering support of this industrialisation of our countryside and has placed its marketing machine into top gear. I agree with the council that it is time to withdraw from this rural carnage inflicted by these industrialists. I even more strongly object to my beloved English countryside being concreted over by international giants, that may have very little regard or no concern for our national heritage, the British countryside.

A very bad day for the people of Ontario. Everybody must continue to fight this McGuntiy Govt. and their ridiculous energy policy.

The Friends of the Boundary Mountains are opposed to the TransCanada request to rezone Kibby Mountain and the Kibby Range from a "protected mountain zone" to a zone that permits industrial development, which would enable the construction of a 44-tower wind power project. FBM invites the public to attend an evening of information and a free spaghetti dinner at the Stratton-Eustis Community Building on Friday, July 20 at 6 p.m. The purpose of the dinner is to explain FBM's reasons for opposing this wind project.

As I drove on, I was less amazed and more distraught that anyone would call what I saw, a farm. My uncle is a farmer and his farm doesn't look anything at all like what I saw. The words wind and farm conjure up a friendly pastoral connotation. An image that is harmonious with nature. What I saw is an industrial wasteland. Row after row of huge machines placed menacingly along the highway. They evoke images of the future and the "Terminator," a science-fiction/horror film. It doesn't look anything at all like a farm. The vista looks like a factory, a huge money-making, profit-sucking corporate machine. There weren't any farm hands working the area. Machine after machine of cold hard steel and there was no one working.

But already some people are complaining about turbine's visual impact on the region's scenic landscape (Transcript story, Page 1 on Saturday). The 265-foot-high turbine can be seen clearly from many spots in Hancock, from Pontoosuc Lake in Lanesborough and Pittsfield and, we suspect, from a lot of other spots in surrounding communities. This is only one windmill. Imagine the complaints to come when turbines begin to sprout up in the 10s and 20s and hundreds, in Hancock, Florida, Monroe, Savoy and off the waters of Cape Cod - if these projects come to fruition. The wind turbines would be far taller than Jiminy's - from 350 feet to well over 400. Most would be built by out-of-state developers with substantial help from government subsidies (read taxpayers' subsidies) and would require significant tree cutting and road building, not only to get the turbines where they must be but also to connect them to the grid. The residents of Berkshire County should seriously consider if the end result would be worth it.

I would ask the Nova Scotia Government to take a serious, long, hard look at this whole industry and take some leadership by declaring the minimum standards by which wind energy projects must abide. A responsible, intelligent set of standards could set the way for the rest of the country! Use the experience of those who have had turbines for decades and learn from their mistakes. Blindly surging ahead into wind energy without considering health and safety factors and reasonable enjoyment of a resident's property is not looking after your constituents - the people of Nova Scotia.

The ballot response rate was high for a local matter and demonstrates the level to which residents feel they would be affected by the proposal. That over 62 per cent of the returns gave a thumbs-down to the wind farm finally gives a true picture of local opinion, despite a well-timed campaign to highlight the potential financial spin-offs by supporters of the development.

THEY say the population in Pugwash more than triples in the summer months with the huge influx of cottage owners, none more distinguished than singer Anne Murray. These seasonal residents have a right to be heard just like any others............This squabble reveals the growth of the wind industry in Nova Scotia is occurring in a largely unregulated environment. The province wants 20 per cent of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2013. This means more wind projects are coming and the government should adopt uniform regulations to bring certainty to developers and the public. Voluntary Planning, an independent and trusted board, should be asked to consult with the public and experts, and come up with recommendations on rules to harness this energy.