Tree plan is hot air

While the need to offset the carbon dioxide we emit through various activities is desperate, I'm not convinced that planting trees is the best option (Metro, Fri). As the world warms dangerously, there's a chance of more forest fires. So, unless we turn off the carbon dioxide tap now, the trees we plant may just burn, releasing the CO2 stored in the decades ahead. Instead, we should demand that the aviation industry becomes carbon neutral now not by planting trees but by building wind turbines. Airlines should be forced to charge a sufficient sum on all flight tickets to match the CO2 emitted during that flight proportionately to the CO2 saved by wind turbines. The advantage of this approach is overwhelming - we offset the CO2 released by flying, prices rise a little (easing back the rate of growth), the industry comes to own and profit from generating electricity and the public comes to associate wind turbines and airlines together - appreciating 'cause and effect'. Jon Fuller, Essex [Metro Apr11,2005] WHAT ON EARTH: I am all for cutting carbon dioxide and other pollution (Metro,Tue) but has no one considered the consequences that thousands of wind turbines might have on the Earth? They could push against the atmosphere,causing the world to spin more slowly so that mankind floats off into space as a result of the reduced gravity;or the world spin might be speeded up by the propellor-like action of too many turbines resulting in the Earth being thrown off its axis. M Larkin,London WC1 IN A SPIN: Where does Jon Fuller (Metro,Mon) suggest airlines build all these turbines?Not in his backyard,I'll bet. A Stewart,Kent [Metro Apr13,2005] My Comment: Firstly I'd like to ask Mr Larkin where he went to school - his ignorance of physics is astounding - and I might ask what would happen to the Earth if we allowed millions of human beings to be put on it - it might be devastated by their greed and inability to control their population. Mr Larkin - turbines do not "push against the atmosphere" - they aquire energy FROM the atmosphere - and if they have any effect upon it - it would be by reducing the net energy of the wind - as kinetic energy is turned into electrical and some lost as friction (heat) -this process is at large in many other man-made objects - one may as well say that all propellor driven aircraft and helicopters have an adverse effect upon the atmosphere - one imagines that windmills have less of an effect that propellant fuelled aircraft do in leaving trails of used fuel behind or dumping tons of it in emergencies. Gravity,Mr Larkin is not a result of the Earth's spin - but due to it's MASS - it seems to me that we are holding onto the Earth as a result of Centripetal forces - and that should the Earth stop rotating we would fly off it -only if the Earth came to a SUDDEN stop would this happen - since it would be like a bus coming to a sudden halt - one is thrown forward by DECELERATION.I think there is some confusion about being held to the floor in a spacecraft by virtue of it spinning and thus creating ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY. The propellors using up energy do not act like a field of propellors increasing wind velocity and increasing the net rotation of the planet! Fears such as this are based on scientific ignorance - as is shown in "Does science matter?". To Mr Fuller I say this - there are some windmills at Howarth.Yorkshire - and they are an asset to the environment - testimony to mankind making an effort to assuage his rape of the natural resources - the day of the oil-fuelled car is over it is time to think ahead - I would rather have these windmills - sleek and elegant as they are to bring about power - than a nuclear power station - or oil burning power stations - sun and wind power is a much better solution than any other - it is energy for free and has little if any environmental impact - in the future such windmills may even be seen in the same light as the Dutch one's which ground flour - there was no stupid fears about their consequences for the environment - they were seen as a natural and reasonable solution - so what has changed? There is massive anti-scientific sentiment - that's what - and public ignorance is adding to it - the public would rather start creating nonsense about cell phones and cancer than actually understand radiation and it's relative power with respect to other "dangers" in the environment - if one compared the likelihood to being hit by a bus to dying of cell-phone induced cancer - we might get things into some porportion - windmills are a good thing - not an evil! I would like to contribute to this debate - by adding the letters here from the Manchester Evening News, Mar 1993: LAKES PLEA: Readers who love Lakeland should be alerted to the threat of windfarms.They ruin the beauty of the uplands. I invite readers who are outraged by these proposals to write to Country Guardian,PO Box 229,Warrington WA1 1DP,a group set up to fight these obscenities. J Lythgoe,Warrington IT'S SAFER ENERGY: In reponse to J Lythgoe's condemnation of windfarms (Postbag,March18),only through utilisation of renewable power sources,such as wind,solar and tidal energy,will global warming be slowed. Not everyone finds windfarms offensive to look at. Surely there is beauty in the marriage of natural elemental power and human technology for such positive ends. Preserving scenery is commendable,but on't cut off your nose to spite your face.Renewable energy is the key to giving future generations the chance of enjoying that scenery,too. D Hickman,Monsall BLOWING UP A STORM: I was amazed to read (Postbag,March 18) that there is a group set up to fight the construction of windfarms. Any kind of construction in a rural area is a frightening prospect,but where does the reader who complained expect to get electricity in the coming century - nuclear power stations? Windfarms are one of the most "green" sources of electricity and need to be placed where there is wind,which necessitatesa high altitude position. I sympathise with concerns if they are based on fears of destruction of a beautiful place,but there is considerable lack of thought put into the alternatives. I would prefer a windfarm to a raised background radioactivity level.Some form of clean energy will be required in the future. The windfarm/environmental debate is a frying pan/fire situation that needs a strategy,not blind refusal. DL Borrell Ashton-u-Lyne