Welcome action on wind at last

0
Have your say

From: Chris Broome, Sheffield Campaign Against Climate Change, Hackthorn Road, Woodseats, Sheffield.

SIEMENS’ decision is great news for efforts on climate change.

It is fantastic that Siemens have decided to go ahead with their plans to build offshore wind turbines in Hull.

Your article (The Yorkshire Post, March 26) emphasised the economic benefits it will bring. The decision is even more important for tackling climate change. We urgently need to decarbonise electricity generation, especially by replacing old coal power stations.

Yet, as Chris Haskins of Hull Local Enterprise Partnership pointed out, fracking, nuclear power and biomass all have major drawbacks. In contrast, wind power is a clearly low carbon and sustainable energy source.

There has indeed been some frustration about how long Siemens have taken to make their decision. The UK is surrounded by windy seas and Hull has a large and now under-used dockyard, ideally suited for building large turbines.

The biggest obstacle has probably been the lack of commitment from Government (no wonder David Cameron was so keen to fly in for the announcement). There was no decarbonisation target set in the Energy Bill and off-shore wind power has been projected to be relatively expensive compared to the false promise of some alternatives.

There remains a lack of urgency on climate policy. But at least now there is a great opportunity for the cost of wind power to come down, while creating thousands of jobs in a city that so badly needs them.

Wrong call 
on World Cup

From: Rev Neil McNicholas, Redcar, Cleveland.

WHAT is Home Secretary Theresa May thinking of in allowing pubs to stay open late (and therefore serve alcohol) to show World Cup matches on nights when matches (presumably any, not just England, matches) kick off after normal closing time?

Many who have expressed an opinion in these pages on the subject of binge drinking have called for a return to the old and carefully controlled opening hours. And so what does the Home Secretary do in this case but the exact opposite?

What she is also doing is reinforcing a perceived connection between football and drinking – that if people are going to watch the World Cup they should be able to drink at the same time, rather than ensuring that pubs closed and people went home and watched the football on their own televisions. If Ms May had said pubs could stay open to screen those games but weren’t allowed to sell alcohol, how many would stay?

Iron Lady was cold warrior

From: S Acaster, Totley, Sheffield.

HAVING seen the latest letter from Terry Marston concerning the sometimes controversial domestic policies of Lady Thatcher (The Yorkshire Post, March 15), it again struck me as rather odd that we rarely see any credit for that Prime Minister’s massive efforts which earned her and thus the UK, a great deal of respect on the international scene. A palpable change from the “laughing stock” we had become in the 1970s.

Lady Thatcher earned the sobriquet “Iron Lady” not from the disenchanted elements of this country’s electorate (whatever they may like to think) but from far more powerful and dangerous men who undoubtedly “meant business” on the other side of the then “Iron Curtain”.

The reason: she was significantly instrumental in bringing to heel what was described, not entirely inaccurately as “The Evil Empire”.

To those who didn’t live through the years of the Cold War (which sadly) in this context includes many of her modern day critics, that period probably appears some work of historical fiction – only battling unions and poll tax rebels being the reality to them.

Had “The Iron Lady” not taken a very firm line with various individuals in power within the former Soviet Bloc, there is every reason to fear that we would have faced a world conflict.

King deserves more respect

From: M Dickinson, Waters Walk. Bradford.

WHILE the York interment of Richard III is of primary concern, there is also a current problem with the care and decency currently being shown to the King by the University of Leicester.

From the moment we watched aghast as the archaeologist swung her mattock and smashed it into Richard’s skull, there has been concern over how the University is fulfilling its obligation of decency and care to Richard, as demanded by the exhumation licence.

From the beginning there appears to have been no procedures in place for placing the King securely or safely. This is because they did not expect to find him. Having to be persuaded by the “Looking for Richard” team that he could be found, the University clung to the belief that his body was thrown into the river at the Reformation.

Are your readers aware that if Richard were to be interred in Leicester he would not be laid to rest for eternity in a way he, or most of us, would understand the term?

He would be placed in a small box, not laid out anatomically correctly in a coffin, so it will be easier for the University to remove him to a laboratory for further testing when they choose.