The proposed site of a large-scale wind farm “is completely encircled by globally important peatland habitats, protected under European and Scots law. The area proposed for development would have been given similar protection were it not for inappropriate planting with conifers in the 1980s.” (

Some wag arranged the trees in blatantly pornographic poses and from a nearby hill their placement clearly spells ‘arse’.

5 responses to “Forestry

        • Well from this it seems as if politics may be the main issue, using the guise of clean energy verses the guise of habitat conservation. Both sides would have an arguable case and as with any human encroachment/progress issue there has to be some give and take. Just who is to lose the most verses gain. Obviously the peat-lands are threatened as well as the wildlife, but is it a sustainable threat? Or is this just make money money, take money money? How much land, how much damage? And if rebuked, would said lands be restored to proper state pre-conifers? The coin is still in the air.

  1. Ah! (I was being self-conscious of my ‘contribution’!) I see your point: which option is more good? I think energy should be generated near where it is used, i.e. urban areas, brownfield sites, not (restorable) pristine wilderness where the adverse impacts are significant and from where much of the energy is lost in transmission. How much should we allow to human ‘progress’? I like your question about restoration too, and do we know enough about what is ‘pristine’ yet? Excellent feedback, thank you.

Comments welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.