Soapbox

The evidence is already there that wild places make money and that walking and the landscape are the most important factors in Highland tourism by far. Wild campers and wilderness lovers are certainly part of this. Towns like Aviemore and Fort William are stuffed with walkers with big rucksacks most of the year. I've already posted links to reports showing how important walkers are to the Highland economy. 

As to remote areas, although Allt Duine feels remote when you are there it can be reached in a hour from the A9. It is close to popular places, namely the Cairngorms National Park (the approach roads to the wind farm will be in the park) and Strathspey.

The idea of a wilderness fund is a good one but rather than run a new campaign people could join the John Muir Trust and support its Wild Land Campaign. The JMT always welcomes donations!

Chris, I don't disagree that hiking is a good money earner for the Scottish economy and that a lot of hikers will contribute, by renting a bunkhouse, patronising the pub in the evening, pitching in a campsite, buying stuff from a local shop be it a map or some forgotten piece of kit - in short by being part of the local economy for the duration of their stay.  Does your average wildcamper, the one that heads for more remote locations, really fits that profile, I'm not sure...

Allt Duine is not the Cairngorns though, the income generating tourists won't go there nor will they be detracted to go to the Cairngorns if windfarms are built there.

I'll have a look at the JMT. I'm particularly interested in their position on windfarms and renewables. As Mole accurately pointed out earlier in the thread, the hijack of even respectable organisations by climate change denialists has done a lot of harm to the cause.

Ni, it's not just about money. In fact money shouldn't be a primary consideration. It's about wild land and nature. But some people require a monetary value on anything before they'll take it seriously, and sadly that includes some outdoor people.

The Allt Duine wind farm shouldn't be built because it destroys wild land. 

The John Muir Trust says "Climate change is perhaps the most significant threat faced by the world today." You can read their renewable energy policy here.

Excellent Chris, thank you.

Money is no concern to me and I have expressed many times here and everywhere my dislike of our consumerist ways and wish to curtail our energy needs so I rather not be dragged into some holier than thou argument but if you want to convince a national governement of the rightness of your cause, it's money matters, economic data they will listen to, not unquantifiable notions about wilderness (that very few people do care about, sadly, and they know that...). 

In my utopia, unquantifiable notions would rank rather higher than vile economic concerns... 

Ignoring money being spent while I am not there to ration it, my last wild camp:

Bus, inverness to Spean Bridge - can't remember how much £15?
2 nights on the Grey Corries - free
Food for 2 nights - dunno £10?
1 Night B&B off the hill - £40
Evening Meal - £25
Snack for bus back £10?
Bus Spean Bridge - Inverness £15?

Total around £110 - ish

Steve D

I fear that there is no chance that the renewable industry will pass up this location's opportunities.

With a almost never-ceasing stream of hot air updrafting from the Newtonmore area onto the Monodliath Plateau to be harvested it's too good to miss.

I don't suppose anyone's asked Cameron McNeish if he'd mind moving somewhere less scenic?

Robin wrote (see)

MS: a voluntary contribution is not a bad idea. I've tried to do something similar by contributing to MRTs. I want to make clear that I make no money whatsoever from my blog. The only benefit I've had is a couple of free bits of gear for review. In the light of recent blog posts I'm wondering whether to continue this or not. My contention with ALS is not over who is right or wrong, I'm happy to disagree (amicably). I think his maligning of my character is out of order when all I was doing was alerting OMers to Chris's article and to the petition. His increasing vitriol reveals more about his character than it does mine.

Robin, it did not even occur to me you were concerned by my comment, it was just a general thing.

"So why are you having a snidey pop at folk who give a shit?"

i don't think he is at all. drawing attention to the emotionless realities of a situation will bring far better rewards and being heard and influencing decisions that rants based upon because i don't like it.

there is the world of difference between giving a shit and directly antagonising with illogical outbursts just because they question your stance. this simple, but basic, questioning is at the heart of any inquiry. the sooner some of the noisier and more objectionable people "who give a shit" start to understand even the basic necessities of trying to make progress and arrest the developement in areas where it is deemed inappropriate the better the protest will be.

all it does is tar those with well thought out and proper concerns with the loony fringe brush which destroys credilbility. the aim of some also seems to be to alienate as far as possible those who may disagree or who have similar concerns but expressed in less colourful and dogmatic language.

whilst this is an emotional subject getting emotional about it needs to be done properly. lets start a petition. meanwhile lets allow all the comments attached to the petition roundly criticise and insult those to whom the petition is to be presented. does that sound like a sensible plan? doesn't to me. sounds more like an up yours plan.

windmills are here. nothing you rant about is going to change that. effective protest and opposition can be mounted only if the protest is conducted in a civilised manner and sticks to the point of what protest can actually manage in such situations. concentrate on the war and not battles.

referring back to an earlier point (by mal?) that scotland wants to export elektrickery that doesn't have to be "renewable' (because 100% of scotland's needs are met by "renewables") what is goig to provide this extra export. once you supply domestic with 100% renewable you can easily build nuclear/conventional to export for example. or have i got the wrong end of the stick again? if non-renewable energy is generated then the beuilly-denny line upgrade makes a lot of sense for the capacity because just for hydro and windmills it doesn't.

Parky Again wrote (see)

"So why are you having a snidey pop at folk who give a shit?"

i don't think he is at all.

maybe the wonderful and upstanding defender of the wildnerness,  Alan Sloman....

Clearly our definitions of snidey differ.

Well I'm not the most well read and I'm never going to be a great philosopher, and a lot of the technical and economic stuff goes right over my head, but I don't need to read every single report ever written on this to know that the industrialisation of one of the most spectacular landscapes in Europe is just fucking wrong.

So you sit about discussing the infinite implications and let other folk get on with doing something about it.

I hate the way you sit on the fence and post such bland and anodyne posts Parky

Mike fae Dundee wrote (see)

Sometimes i weep.

You heard Ed isn't carrying your Guinness this time then.

Parky, let's see if I can put this in a way you can understand. By 2025 Scotland aims to be generating twice the energy it needs i.e. 50 per cent used in Scotland and 50 per cent exported. 50 per cent of all energy will be from renewables (accounting for the 100 per cent equivalent of the domestic demand) and the remainder from non-renewable sources. This allows Salmond to claim that 100% of Scotlands energy needs will be met by renewables by that date. My point is, that the overall 50% from renewables cannot be generated without the back up that produces the other 50%. Salmond is being disingenuous.