Re: Wind Farms & 'Action Groups'
- From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:41:27 +0100
Halla wrote:
I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
started to be built? Is it simply resistance to change that's making
people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the
turbines maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to
marshal a decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their
objections?
Coal and gas - bad for the environment - ban them.
Hydro - can't flood pretty valleys - no more.
Wind - ugly and harm birds - ban them.
Nuclear - radiation, bombs, waste - ban them.
Solar - requires vast areas of land - uneconomical and would displace food crops - ban them.
Solar - rooftop - OK as long as the neighbours don't object. Go to bed when it gets dark.
Wave energy - harms fish and might cause changes in coastal erosion - ban them
Tidal power - damages vital (for birds) wetlands - ban them.
That about sums up the Green arguments for future energy.
FFF
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Wind Farms & 'Action Groups'
- From: Dicon
- Re: Wind Farms & 'Action Groups'
- References:
- Wind Farms & 'Action Groups'
- From: trin
- Re: Wind Farms & 'Action Groups'
- From: David P
- Wind Farms & 'Action Groups'
- Prev by Date: Re: Feels like home?
- Next by Date: Re: Post Office ISP
- Previous by thread: Re: Wind Farms & 'Action Groups'
- Next by thread: Re: Wind Farms & 'Action Groups'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
