RE: If crude1 Nov 2019 08:19
Jarrovian, we are talking about a National Park. If we do not look after our 10 national Parks in England then what hope is there for this green & pleasant land? As for splendid views off the coast...we have the massive Rampion off-shore wind farm & that is entirely appropriate, even though you can see hundreds of turbines just a few miles out to sea. If energy developments can be proved not to destroy the landscape or be too detrimental I'm all for them. I still don't understand why the RSC pulled their sponsorship deal with BP that allowed for 16-25-year-olds to obtain heavily subsidised (£5) tickets
- how do these kids that agitated for the cut think they get to such performances if it were not for the likes of BP & Shell? I'm a pragmatist: Peirce's pragmatic maxim states "Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." But in the case of energy production, this must always be balanced with conservation of the natural landscape. I gave up many days & weeks to fight for the South Downs to become the National Park they should have been when the Hobhouse report was published in 1957 so I do have a stake in such matters. Besides that, it is fairly academic as I don't believe there are hydrocarbons beneath the chalk bedrock that could be extracted without causing an undue & excessive amount of damage to the delicate environment. This may not be the case in the Weald on a permanent basis where the extraction of iron ore for Henry Vlll fleet cannons was obtained in Tudor times but now you would hardly know it had happened by glancing around at the natural beauty today.