I NORMALLY pass over essays such as that from Rosemary Howarth-Booth (Journal, June 24) with a deep sigh and move on. However as I live within sight of the proposed development and my partner attended the meeting I would like to reply.

Ms Howarth-Booth is obviously biased as a member of the Green Party and her essay is a mass of half-truths and omissions. I'll list a few of them.

It is not universally accepted that fossil fuels cause global warming. The earth has gone through a number of naturally occurring warm periods in the past without our "help".

Nuclear power (despite Chernobyl) has an excellent safety record. Our energy situation is at crisis point because previous governments, under pressure from the greens, "bottled" vital decisions on building new power stations.

This situation continues today. Wind power is still appallingly inefficient, averaging less than ten per cent of the claimed output. I understand that Denmark and Holland have stopped installing wind turbines. Germany is building coal-fired power stations to back them up. What is the real CO2 saving in all of this?

If the noise can (possibly) be reduced in the future why not wait until this technology is available? The UK produces less than two per cent of the world's CO2 and our contribution is declining.

Who funds the Public Interest Research Centre? Could it be the wind power industry?

Blow creating positive public attitudes or, in other words, the use of spin and PR. If this is a democracy the turbines won't be built.

I believe that the wind industry is a huge scam. A few people make millions and millions off us to pay for this through our electricity bills.

Ms Howarth-Booth may be surprised to know that I too favour the gradual reduction in fossil fuel use. However this is because they will all eventually run out and cause other environmental problems. We need to drop the CO2 scare stories and concentrate on proper, efficient alternatives. Wind power is not one of them.

KEN SLOW,

Furze, Chittlehampton.