Struan Stevenson MEP is right to be concerned about peatlands in their role as carbon sinks, but makes ill-informed assumptions about how wind farms are developed in Scotland (Letters, April 23).

According to the government's conservation advisors, SNH, most of our peat bogs are in a poor state due to bad management over centuries of burning, forestry, draining and (with some irony) from the effects of climate change. Smart design of wind farms in such areas through, for example, altering drainage to prevent peat bogs drying out and habitat restoration, help reverse carbon-loss and restore their function as carbon sinks. This is far removed from Stevenson's assertion that the first thing a developer will do is to "drain the area".

The renewables industry by law has to assess the environmental impact of any wind farm application and design the scheme appropriately to minimise local environmental damage, including by restoring habitats. Guidance on developing wind farms on peat areas has already been produced by government for the industry, but there is more work taking place. The Scottish Government, with the support of Scottish Renewables and RSPB Scotland, is currently revising the guidance on the carbon payback of wind farms. This will ensure that the net contribution of individual wind farms to carbon reduction is understood by all, including those who support the anti-wind movement, such as Mr Stevenson.

Ultimately, the path to creating a low-carbon Scotland will bring its own environmental challenges, but through smart design that recognises the ecological characteristics of Scotland we can create solutions that allow us to meet our local and global obligations to the environment.

Mark Ruskell, Communications Manager, Scottish Renewables, Central Chambers, 93 Hope Street, Glasgow.

One would think Allan Wilson would know better than to claim that Scotland can't be a green energy powerhouse. His sweeping statement seems to be based solely on the rejection of one highly unpopular and environmentally damaging application to build massive wind turbines on Lewis.

Scotland's off-shore wind potential is estimated at 25% of Europe's total and its tidal potential is estimated at 10% of the continent's. In addition, the newly-initiated Saltire Prize, which will be used to drive development of the marine renewable industry globally, will hopefully help to make truly "clean energy" less inefficient and intrusive in the future. To be blunt, I doubt that the rejection of a single application - on what appears to be very good environmental grounds - jeopardises the future of an energy-rich nation currently producing some 20% more electricity than it can use.

As a former deputy minister for the environment, Mr Wilson would presumably appreciate that there are effects when 88 miles of road, 137 pylons and 19 miles of overhead cable, eight electrical substations, five rock quarries and 181 wind turbines (comparable in size to Big Ben) are located in an environmentally sensitive area. The damage is put more firmly in to focus when one considers what such a development would do to the rare birds that rely on the site.

In relation to the charge of "populism" from Mr Wilson and his Labour colleagues, one must ask what his government would have done in the same situation. Faced with over 11,000 objections (and only 98 letters in favour) for a project based on an island with a total population of fewer than 20,000; and after considering the knock-on consequences on wildlife: would Labour have pushed ahead with the development despite all the evidence surrounding them?

Patrick Kirkwood,, West Kilbride.

The rejection of the Lewis wind farm was almost inevitable given the enormous number of objections and political realities.

The Scottish Government now needs to broaden the base of renewable generation to match its rhetoric. It needs, for example, to give substance to tidal, wave, solar, hydrogen and expanded hydro generation. The banding of Renewable Obligations Certificates would be a good start, especially if some reference to load factor achieved was to be incorporated.

Many more projects need to get beyond the incubator stage. Direct investment to take prototypes through to plants that actually generate are necessary.

Government could also stimulate the heat pump market for ground source and geothermal applications through its central heating programme and grant system for housing associations.

We need more generation options so that those we have at present are not applied in inappropriate or counter-productive settings. But generation is only one part of the equation. Investment of an equivalent nature in energy conservation is equally necessary.

Euan Robson, Chief Executive, Scottish Sustainable Energy Foundation, Prospect House, 5 Thistle Street, Edinburgh.

On the island of Lewis history now repeats itself. Ninety years ago, Lord Leverhulme decided he was going to show the islanders how to improve their lives, and purchased both Lewis and Harris. In this, many local businessmen supported him against the wishes of the local community who wanted to continue with their traditional lives.

The noble Lord was against philanthropy and expected his many investments in the island would sway opinion. They did not and, in disgust, he gave up in 1923 and turned his attention to Harris.

Now, in 2008, the islanders by a large majority have decided they also wish to continue their traditional ways and the SNP Government has correctly decided to accord with their wishes. That does not mean to say that islanders are against all renewable sources of energy, and smaller wind farms and other sources may get approval. Eventually, like the island of Eigg, they may become almost self-supporting in the energy they need.

It is nonsense to claim that the SNP's renewable programme is now discredited. The loss of this wind farm's capacity is only a fraction of Scotland's total and a tiny fraction of the tidal and wave capacity now planned.

Archie Young, Dunoon.

While the Prime Minister says he will review the current biofuels targets, this target is part and parcel of an EU directive that 10% of all road fuels contain biofuels by 2020. It is a strategy that is contributing to soaring food prices and is responsible for clearing people off their land and exacerbating climate change.

When first formulated, the biofuel target appeared eminently sensible. However, the law of unintended consequences has kicked into effect. Industrial conglomerates all over the world have not been slow to recognise there was money to be made from turning foodstuffs into alcohol, in growing oil crops rather than cereals and in ploughing up the world's forests and peat bogs for biofuel plantations. With it being more profitable to grow fuel rather than food, at a time when there is a shortage of food, we are contributing to rapidly increasing food prices.

Biofuel production is depriving the world of vital land to grow crops, just at the time when climate change is inducing drought in large areas of Africa and Asia. It is vital the UK Government puts a stop to this policy and campaigns for the EU to do likewise until a thorough investigation into the impact of biofuels has been completed, and credible and enforceable standards for biofuel production are in place.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh.

I note that building wind farms on peatland in Lewis is bad, but building golf courses on sand dunes in Aberdeenshire is good. Funny world.

Saveria Campo, Glasgow.