JMac

[quote="Graeme_Storey Part of Shetland's 'specialness' has died today. Very sad. Don't worry Graeme, Rick Nickerson, who proposed approval of the wind farm, said he was speaking for the unborn generations of Shetlanders. This did produce a gasp of astonishment from the audience, and someone remarked they hadn't voted for him yet. But obviously his omniscience carried the day for $hetland.

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2010/November/letters/Other%20ways%20of%20restoring%20peat.htm They assumed the whole site was bare peat??? Well that explains how they got the results they wanted, I suppose. No, crofter, this is just another example of the anti-windfarm lobby's lies. What VE actually said was 67% of the ground which will be disturbed during the construction process is degraded peat. AT, please watch your words. This is what Dr. Birnie wrote to me on 15th November (after the Addendum was submitted): “You make the point that these estimates [baseline figures for carbon emissions] appear to have been made on the assumption that the whole area is bare peat and therefore the erosion rates that I had originally measured on the Mid Kame (10-40mm per annum) would apply to it all. This is a fair observation and I have checked it with the relevant Viking Energy (VE) consultant and he has confirmed that it is the case. As a result, he has recalculated the estimate based on the assumption that 10% of the area is eroded. I consider this to be a reasonable first approximation.†The 67% you refer to is based on a MLURI soil (not a habitat) survey map, which appears in the original VE ES. The carbon payback calculations in the Addendum do not refer to this, but to an unspecified “GIS surveyâ€, and depending on the scenario adopted (drainage effects of tracks and other infrastructure on blanket bog of 10m, 20m, and 50m extent), the amount of “hagged and gullied†bog, compared to “undamagedâ€, is 93%, 92% and 89% respectively. This is important: undamaged bog, according to the Addendum, has over 20 times the power to capture carbon as hagged and gullied. Thus the effects of drainage, which negate this power, are numerically very small in the carbon payback calculations. The habitat surveys done for VE show significant amounts of active blanket bog along windfarm track corridors (and over the whole site). If these had been taken into account, the payback results would have been quite different. Part of the problem of the Addendum is the use of different terminology. “Pristine†and “active†and “undamaged†are interchanged, without being properly defined; similarly, “erodedâ€, “hagged and gullied†and “degradedâ€. It’s not surprising that confusion results in the minds of supporters, opponents and “don’t knowsâ€. The responsibility for this ultimately rests with VE. But the responsibility for the use of the word “lies†rests with you, AT, and it would be decent of you to retract your allegation.

That's certainly true of Finland. I was there last year on the Baltic coast - I think somebody there said it's rising an amazing 6mm per year. Please correct me someone if I'm wrong.

Please jimmy parks, while I do appreciate your acknowledgement of the column having been factual (although occasional flights of fancy were not unknown!), there is a difference between Rosa being free to approach editors, who decide whether to publish or not, and her being free to publish; and there are differences between blogging and newspaper/magazine column writing, not the least of which is financial. The New Shetlander does not, so far as I know, pay contributors, and I’I Shetland is a publication by Millgaet, referred to before. Rosa may have approached others, but I can’t speak for her on that. ‘Nuff said?

As Rosa is currently out of the country, and I believe is without access to the internet, please may I (her husband and incorrigible gossip - no she hasn't divorced me yet) have a few words on the subject, especially with regard to some recent postings. First, to set the record straight, there was no "discussion" between her and the Shetland Times, just a letter from the editor, whose decision was final. Second, she didn't "complain" publicly. And she certainly did not orchestrate any of this thread; that started unbeknown to her, and believe it or not, to me as well. Regarding Kim Karam, well I think her US column rather unsurprisingly stopped when she returned to this country, though I don't know about John Coutts in Spain (where he still lives). Rosa was freelance, so no chance of redundancy, and yes of course the editor is free to hire and fire freelancers. But Rosa isn't free to publish her "stuff" where and when she likes, as jimmy parks seems to imply. As far as Millgaet Publishing is concerned, I'll say no more. Tomblands is entitled to his opinion, and gardening is not everybody's cup of tea - but lots of newspapers do have gardening columns on a weekly basis, and then not always in colour magazine sections. On a more personal note, frankly a weekly column pays rather better than a monthly one - or a blog - as MJ kindly points out! Even more personally, I used to proofread Rosa's column, and honestly looked forward to doing it every week, because I enjoyed her writing so much. (He would say that wouldn't he?) Finally, as to the Shetland Times, well there has been no official announcement, which doesn't surprise me. And so far as I know, nobody who has written to the editor regarding this matter has been either acknowledged or answered, let alone had their letter published. Not surprising either, really, and why indeed should someone in the hard-nosed business of newspaper publishing waste his time dealing with protesters (though its nice for us to know that people care enough to write in)? I notice, however, that the price of the paper went up by 5p the week before last. For me that's announcement enough - more for less! With sincere thanks, kind regards, and best wishes, James