The appeal to the Scottish Government by eminent leaders of a number of Scottish environmental groups (Few realise many wind farms approved but not yet appeared, February 12) for a "world-class energy policy that has due regard for a world-class landscape throughout Scotland" is timely and welcome.

By focusing on "landscape", however, the impression is given that it's largely the visual impact of industrial-size turbines that requires a "new approach" when, in fact, the whole environment is put at risk by ill-planned industrial wind-turbine development.

The watershed of the River Findhorn is an example. In this pristine area of moorland peat on the northern edge of the Cairngorm National Park, there are now proposals to develop six wind farms with a total turbine count likely to exceed that of the Isle of Lewis - 181 turbines.

No-one has yet calculated the total mileage of access roads and pylons and sub-stations. Not a single water-course will be unaffected by these developments: the river, already subject to rapid and frequent spate conditions, is being put at risk of implosion along with its fragile salmon population by developers and co-operating landowners without heed to the long-term consequences of their actions.

For the Scottish Government's consultation on proposals for a Climate Change Bill to meet the real needs of Scotland's environment and the people, it's the depth of the environment that requires protection, not only its "world-class landscape".
James Stuart, Moray.

Clearly we must all be on our guard lest we fall foul of Patrick Harvie's rapier-like wit. Then again, maybe not (Letters, February 19). However, I am grateful to him for agreeing with my point that we do not know for sure what the emission levels will be for the M74 extension. As he says, they could be lower than the published figure. It is just one more example in the emissions debate of unchallenged figures being plucked from the air and of most politicians not having the necessary background to query them.

Of course the ultimate justification for control of CO2 emissions is climate change. We will soon reach the stage where legislation will permit us to inhale as much as we wish; only exhaling would be banned.

Nevertheless, dealing with the threat of global warming fits in with many agendas, some legitimate, some less so; for example, government manipulation of public opinion, energy efficiency, reduced dependence on imported fuel from unstable or potentially hostile regimes, enhanced government revenues through carbon taxes and, of course, the desire of unelected pressure groups to control government decision-making to their advantage.

It is, therefore, essential for so many reasons that the general public be kept in a state of fear over climate change and that those questioning even the smallest aspect of the theory be ridiculed. As one prominent historical figure once said: " The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a great lie than a small one." Now that is what I call a counsel of despair.
William W Flood, Dumfries.

Fiona Robertson is worrying unduly. Even when the Braes of Doune bask in glorious, windless sunshine, it would be very unusual for all wind power sites across the UK to be similarly affected.

There is certainly a need for other forms of generation in reserve, but weather forecasting means that windless days can be spotted well enough in advance to avoid the need for back-up running all the time.
Dr Ian Johnston, The Open University in Scotland.