NO one act will stop climate change, whether it be changing to low energy light bulbs, building a nuclear power station or even converting all coal burning power stations in the world to gas.

Only by everyone doing what they reasonably can is there any hope that, one day, emissions will stabilise at a level that will avoid a truly catastrophic rise in sea levels.

As a small part of that, Bolsterstone plc has applied for planning permission to erect four turbines on Reeves and Stonewall Hills, something bitterly opposed by the Stonewall Hill Conservation Group. In its leaflet the group makes several points.

First, that off-shore wind is fine but the Reeves Hill is an inappropriate place because of the visual impact. The visual impact of turbines is undeniable and, for some people, wherever they are built, it is always an inappropriate place. But repeated opinion surveys have shown over 70% of people in this country either like or do not mind the visual impact - albeit I am well aware some of those that don’t passionately dislike them.

Second, turbines are so noisy people are driven from their homes.

On these first two points, the experience at Ardrossan, a small seaside town on the West coast of Scotland, is interesting. When an application for 12 turbines overlooking the town was submitted there was, understandably, considerable concern expressed. Yet, a year after it was commissioned , one of the town councillors wrote: “The Ardrossan windfarm has been overwhelmingly accepted by local people - instead of spoiling the landscape, we believe it has been enhanced. The turbines are impressive looking, bring a calming effect to the town and, contrary to the belief that they would be noisy, we have found them to be silent work-horses.”

Third, it is alleged that, because wind power is intermittent, there is no carbon saving because conventional power stations have to be run on standby for when there is no wind. That is categorically incorrect. The national Grid can use up to at least 20% of its requirements from wind, with a 99% saving of the carbon that would have been produced by a conventional fossil fuel power generation.

The last point is a strange one. It boldly states objectors are fathers, mothers and grandparents - yet makes no mention of their children. Could that be because, as is the case with one of the most virulent objectors, their children recognise it is they and their children who will have to live with the consequences, if we do not take action now to avoid something far worse in the future?

SIMON GOURLAY, Knighton.