Saving her party – not the planet

Christine Grahame (SNP) says the alternative to subsidy-funded turbines is “nuclear power stations springing up in the Borders countryside with all the dangers that would bring” (Southern, April 7).

This is irresponsible scaremongering. There is no evidence that any political party would target the Borders with multiple nuclear power stations in the way she implies. And her claim that global warming is responsible for “massive negative impact on our infrastructure, businesses and communities” is equally misleading.

Where is her tangible evidence? There are numerous forecasts and extrapolations, but it is nevertheless impossible to link specific weather events to climate change.

Wind turbines and other intermittent generators will have a role in future energy provision, but their wholesale adoption will not stop global warming – Britain’s global greenhouse gasses are still in the region of a mere two per cent of global emissions.

Ms Grahame’s scaremongering is designed to force our rural communities to accept more and more wind farms, not because they will save the planet, but because the SNP hopes to save its political bacon by providing jobs in urban constituencies – jobs that the SNP won’t have to pay for because electricity customers must pay inflated electricity prices to pay for the Renewable Obligation Certificate funding mechanism.

The Borders electorate is, I hope, more discerning than Ms Grahame gives us credit for. Wind power stations in wind-rich locations are one thing, but covering every second Borders hill with massive turbines is cynical vote gathering.

Alan Bailey

Spital Tower

Hawick