and largely find the developments, if appropriately sited, designed and managed, quite lovely and wonderful solutions to our energy needs.

but I have to take issue with this:

"In fact, worldwide there is no evidence that windpower has a significant destructive effect on flying wildlife."

This is simply not the case. There is growing evidence certainly in Australia that for reasons that even the best science can't quite work out yet, there is a behaviour response from some birds that puts them at risk from wind turbines. Poor siting has also been a major issue, including in Australia the siting of one windfarm directly in a rare bird species' migration path. There has also not been sufficient work done here on the mortality risks to bats.

My point would be that windpower is overwhelmingly a beneficial development, but proponents of it risk losing credibility when they play down known impacts from them such as bird and bat kills. These impacts are  far and away best tackled by open recognition that this is a key impact that needs to be mitigated, through better science & design, and ensuring that there is sufficiently strong regulation to stop the inappropriate siting and design of wind turbines - such as in bird migration paths.

As it is, sadly in Tasmania, that particular windfarm if it can't work out a way to stop the far higher than estimated wedge-tailed eagle deaths, will be a significant contributor to the extinction of the species, the largest raptor in Australia. I commend the windfarm operators for taking the steps they have, but it incontrovertibly highlights that your statement is incorrect.

"This can't possibly get more disturbing!" - Willow