In Europe (Stock and Land: “Land Values Blown Apart” 13/11/08), those living next to wind farms receive half as much as the host in payment and those living further away receive one quarter as compensation.

This more equitable arrangement allows affected neighbours some wherewithall to relocate, if they could find buyers likely to love living next to wind turbines.

I suspect that market may be smaller, but not impossible.

At least there would be that extra wind farm lease income to entice prospective new owners.

That’s not the total answer for those who have generational ties to their property, who love the peace and harmony of their amenity, and who

will have to “get on” with their neighbours hosting the cause of their discontent.

If native fauna find the site disturbing, they will probably leave.

Domestic stock cannot and only time will evaluate any variance in productivity.

As for the siting of wind turbines, take it from plenty of affected folk registering their dismay via the internet (google: wind farm problems) - 500m is not sufficient space between turbine and doorstep.

Mandate that turbines not be sited within one kilometre of the hosts’ boundary without their neighbours’ consent.

Oh, and be aware that applications to council for a relatively innocuous 20 turbines (within local council jurisdiction and a “foot-in- the-door...) often turn into many more, to become a state government rubber stamp job, overruling local council control and oblivious to objections.

Still there is a lingering doubt - we’re wasting our resources by “treating the symptoms, not the cause”.

Think “cane toads”.

Michaela Samman

Tantawangalo

Fie lding’s trip

SENATOR Steve Fielding made a recent trip to the Heartland Institute in America and now claims that solar variability may be causing climate change.

As Matthew Nott pointed out recently in his article, A Look at the Sun, there is no credible scientific evidence that solar variability is causing climate change.

We should be able to tell the difference between reputable peer reviewed science and spurious scientific claims.

Science tells us that human activity has raised greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and caused climate change.

Science has also given us a range of scenarios about what we can expect this century.

The scale and rapidity of even the best case scenarios run outside the bounds of what human civilisations have experienced.

Think tanks, front groups and sceptical commentators in the media tell lies about scientific evidence and attack the credibility of the IPCC because the stakes are so high.

If the Heartland Institute in America or the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia tell us that greenhouse gas emissions are not causing climate change, then maybe the corporations that fund them are trying to sell us something – such as coal.

So does this mean we should be able to agree about what to do about climate change?

Unfortunately not, because science cannot tell us what we should do about climate change.

Science can lay out the risks, but as a society we have to decide what priority we place on those risks.

These are legitimate areas for disagreement because we all see the world differently - we assess risk differently, we value human welfare differently, and we disagree about who is really to blame for climate change.

This leads to conflicts about what we should do, who should do it, and who should pay.

Science is about “what is” – human greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change.

Raising spurious claims is a cheap method of prolonging conflict and inaction. Different economic, religious and ethical values inform political debates about what “should be”.

Deciding what we do about climate change is where our disagreements ought to be contested.

Patrick Hodder

Brogo