We need a wind debate It is vital that the debate about wind farm construction is put within its proper context. That is why it is important to understand just how many turbines could be built in the North- East. Hardly a week goes by without another application either for turbines themselves or test masts (to gather information on wind strengths and thus see if turbines are justified) is submitted somewhere in the region. Our latest research shows there are applications to build up to 100 turbines in one small area of Northumberland, north of the Tyne but south of the National Park boundary. Should a significant portion of these turbines be built, it will represent a far greater alteration to our landscape than the extension to the Otterburn Ministry of Defence range, over which debate raged for almost a decade. We are also concerned that visually obtrusive masts go up in unspoilt rural areas to provide energy for towns. We have yet to see a turbine within the boundaries of the City of Newcastle, for example. This is not to say we are against turbines. What we wish to see is an informed decision made for the region as a whole as to how many turbines we should have, and where they should go. Why not, for example, build a very large number beyond Kielder, where the impact would be minimal, rather than along the Tyne, where they could damage a tourist industry that markets the area's unspoilt beauty. The Government or One NorthEast should tell us how many turbines the North-East must have, and then a single consultation exercise be carried out on where they should be sited. The alternative is the current mish-mash, in which separate local councils deal with separate applications, against a backdrop of Government pressure to see the masts go up. They are popular with developers because the tax regime for energy favours their construction, even though wind power is more expensive than other forms of power. But they are an eyesore, and arguably breed complacency about our future energy needs: it has been said that every time we see a new turbine we subconsciously turn up the gas, when the only real answer to the looming energy crisis is to cut back on consumption. CAP reform should be slowed down There is little doubt that CAP reform is inevitable and probably warranted. New Zealand farmers manage without subsidy, so should Europe's be able to. We welcome this, but with caution. The present system favours richer, more fertile farming areas than the North-East, with its reliance on hill farming and livestock production. Our hilly geography means farmers in this region tend to operate closer to the margin. Not only have they done less well out of CAP, but as a result they are more vulnerable as subsidy is stripped away from production and focused instead on protection of the landscape. This is a great irony, because it is upland farming areas that need most protection. Take the farmers and their sheep out of the equation and one word will define our fells: gorse. We cannot stand in the way of CAP reform, but farmers have been made dependent on it for 40 years, they must be given longer than eight to learn to live without it. To find out more on both of these stories, subscribe to TheJournal e:edition. Click here. | 
