The new week starts with letters discussing the benefits of arts and culture, land costs, political graffiti, nuclear power and biomass technology.
Benefits of arts and culture are immeasurable
Sir,-Hardly a month goes by without Malcolm Parkin (May 26) sniping at something or someone that fails to fit within his narrow view of what is right, and his extremely broad view of what is wrong.
This time it’s support for arts and culture. What does Mr Parkin propose we do?
Eat gruel, send our children up chimneys? Who is Mr Parkin to say, rather patronisingly, that sports, art, music and culture are appreciated only by “luvvies”?
It is arts and culture that elevated our species and civilisation; their contribution to life and well- being is immeasurable.
Sport provides the focus for the aspirations of our young people and music enriches every aspect of life from cradle to grave.
The assertion that these are worthless to society in economic terms is also far wide of the mark. The economic spin-off to Glasgow in 1990 as European Capital of Culture was substantial and even today Dundee’s plan for its revived waterfront include a building that is solely for the expression of art.
Bah, humbug! Mr Parkin, it is time to open the curtains and take a good look out of your window surely it isn’t always winter in Kinneswood?Iain Waghorn.98 Forfar Road,Dundee.
Land costs are the real problem
Sir,-On reading your feature (May 25) on Scotland’s housing problems, I wondered if Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Neil ever thought about the finite, limited and non-renewable resource on which all housing stands, this, of course, being land.
It was speculation in land values, not that of bricks and mortar, that drove the housing boom and bust cycle that brought our economy to its knees.
Until this issue is addressed we are sentenced to repeat the folly in a future cycle. Land values increase, not by the individual or corporate entrepreneurial flair and dynamism of the owner, but by societal demand and investment.
A good recent example of this is the effect of the £500 million public investment in the M74 extension in raising site desirability in its vicinity, thence land prices and the cost of housing situated on that site.
If Ms Sturgeon and Alex Neil want to make houses more affordable for a greater number of people, then they should lobby their colleagues Alex Salmond and John Swinney to use Holyrood’s power to reduce income tax, replace council tax and instead collect annual land rental values as the basis of public revenue.Ron Greer.Armoury House,Blair Atholl.
No way to get a message over
Sir,-I have no particular political leanings, but I am very disappointed by what appears to be a trend up and down the area. I am as proud and patriotic as the next guy to be Scottish but I am also a British citizen.
While driving in Tayside and further afield I have become aware of not just fly-posting but also paint daubed graffiti proclaiming: ‘End London Rule’.
Why do people feel they need to vandalise our beautiful country and deface property to say how they feel? They obviously do not care that much about their country.Tommy Stewart.21 Glenprosen Street,Montrose.
Time we switched on to nuclear
Sir-The vast majority of members of the US and European scientific communities consider the benefits of nuclear power far outweigh the risks.
It has even found support from leading environmentalists such as Al Gore and James Lovelock who prefer it to the hideous desecration of the landscape by windmills.
Substituting coal for wood helped launch the Industrial Revolution. Replacing whale oil with petroleum launched the automotive and plastics revolutions.
The substitution of nuclear power for fossil fuel was delayed by the fact that both the US and UK had plenty of cheap coal, oil and gas.
Otherwise we would doubtless have gone fully nuclear decades ago, as has France, which currently sources over 80% of its electricity from such safe and secure plants.(Dr) John Cameron.10 Howard Place,St Andrews.
Biomass theory is a sound one
Sir,-Dr G. M. Lindsay (May 25) does not seem to understand even the basic premise behind biomass plants.
While he is correct that a biomass generation facility will release a similar amount of carbon dioxide as a similarly-sized coal or gas-fuelled plant, there is a net reduction in carbon emissions due to the fuel (in this case trees) having grown in the first place.
A tree spends its life converting the carbon dioxide in the air around it into wood.
It will then release this carbon dioxide back into the environment when it is burnt, just as it would have done if the tree were left to rot.
This is different from burning coal or gas, as the carbon dioxide from these sources was sequestered millions of years ago when the levels of carbon dioxide were much higher than today.
It is usual to replace trees felled for biomass, and so over a period of time the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of biomass plants remains the same, with some increase due to transportation.
Perhaps Dr G. M. Lindsay should refrain from commenting on matters of which he has no knowledge.Alan Ainsworth.Ardmear,Letham (Angus).