Solution mired in controversy

The one certainty about generating power from the wind is that it is becoming a very controversial issue.

The debate which takes place on pages eight and nine of this newspaper today proves this - if little else.

One of the main points of contention appears to be - and not for the first time - "targets".

Targets have been set by the Government over the amount of electricity which is produced by renewable sources.

The argument is that if, for instance, wind power can generate 10% of our power needs, there will be a corresponding drop in emissions from power stations.

That is clearly the case but it would be wrong to assume a direct - or particularly significant - correlation.

The fact is that no matter how many wind farms you build - and there are plenty planned for the North-East - we will still need fossil fuel burning power stations as a "back up".

And that is where this particular strand of the argument gets rather murky.

What does "back up" mean?

Are these hi-tech windmills really up to the job? If not, when will the technology catch up with our needs?

No-one can argue with the fact that we have to do more to protect our climate and environment from our ever-increasing demand for power.

But is carpeting our wide open spaces with huge pieces of machinery the best way forward?

Would it not be easier just to reduce consumption by 10%?

It could certainly be done quicker.

That would, however, be politically unpopular - and rob the Government of the opportunity to point to some masterpieces of engineering as evidence of its green credentials.

We do not say wind power has no role to play in reducing the amount of fossil fuel we burn.

What we do say is that there appears to be a sudden rush towards the building of wind farms - and a corresponding reduction in the powers of local councils to deal with the applications.

Allied with the fact that it is the Government which is largely bankrolling this "new industry" - it makes people suspicious.

And that is a sad thing.

Somehow, the Government has engineered a situation where, despite everyone agreeing there is a problem to be solved, one potential solution is mired in controversy and mistrust.

Sadder still is the fact it is likely to remain so.

Key question on policing cash

It was no great surprise when it emerged that, although the Government is driving the move towards bigger police forces, there was to be no extra cash to pay for it.

It has, after all, a history of getting other people to pay for its "big ideas".

Berwick MP Alan Beith is to be congratulated for putting Home Secretary Charles Clarke on the spot over this issue - and that of how this plan will impact on policing rural areas.

The "straight bat" from the Home Office to Mr Beith's questions was to be expected.

But the question remains.

Why should local taxpayers fund these changes when the advantages put forward for doing it are largely national ones?