I really don't understand the protests - Saddleworth Moor looks bleak, and is only really famous for still holding onto the bodies of murdered children. Just because something looks "unique" doesn't mean to say that it's unsuitable for windfarms.
The whole windfarm protest movement astounds me - we had one locally, and our local paper decided to support it. Obviously, the threat of a turbine blade flying off into empty fields is such a great danger compared with our routine - but often hidden - pollution of our landscape.
To myself we face a stark reality - that we have to accept the consequences of our high consumer living, and accept that we need cleaner ways of generating our higher energy consumption.
The idea that we can whine and whinge about having more visible sources of energy generation seems like such a poor argument.
Where there are real concerns about environmental and social impact - fine, these are eral arguments. But objecting to having windframs, simply because you can see them, just doesn't seem like any objection at all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3820983.stm
Wind farm objectors are meeting to oppose plans for seven turbines planned for moorland near Greater Manchester. The gathering - in Saddleworth, Yorkshire - is billed as the first national anti-wind turbine conference and will include advice on campaigning.
United Utilities want to build seven 350-foot turbines on greenbelt land on Saddleworth Moor.
But the Saddleworth Moors Action Group say the turbines would have a negative impact on a unique landscape.
The group insist their campaign is not prompted by "not in my backyard" sentiments but through a genuine desire to preserve the character of the local area.
Other objectors - such as David Bellamy - say the propeller-run towers will affect the visual impact of the locality because they will be visible from miles around.
BBC correspondent Danny Savage says the turbines will be higher than any similar developments on upland in northern England.
The whole windfarm protest movement astounds me - we had one locally, and our local paper decided to support it. Obviously, the threat of a turbine blade flying off into empty fields is such a great danger compared with our routine - but often hidden - pollution of our landscape.
To myself we face a stark reality - that we have to accept the consequences of our high consumer living, and accept that we need cleaner ways of generating our higher energy consumption.
The idea that we can whine and whinge about having more visible sources of energy generation seems like such a poor argument.
Where there are real concerns about environmental and social impact - fine, these are eral arguments. But objecting to having windframs, simply because you can see them, just doesn't seem like any objection at all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3820983.stm
Wind farm objectors are meeting to oppose plans for seven turbines planned for moorland near Greater Manchester. The gathering - in Saddleworth, Yorkshire - is billed as the first national anti-wind turbine conference and will include advice on campaigning.
United Utilities want to build seven 350-foot turbines on greenbelt land on Saddleworth Moor.
But the Saddleworth Moors Action Group say the turbines would have a negative impact on a unique landscape.
The group insist their campaign is not prompted by "not in my backyard" sentiments but through a genuine desire to preserve the character of the local area.
Other objectors - such as David Bellamy - say the propeller-run towers will affect the visual impact of the locality because they will be visible from miles around.
BBC correspondent Danny Savage says the turbines will be higher than any similar developments on upland in northern England.
