I REFER to the letter extolling the virtues of wind power (Energy answer is blowing in the wind, Soapbox, October 16). It is claimed to be "clean, cheap, safe and reliable". While it may be clean and safe, it is clearly nonsense to claim reliability - if the wind doesn't blow or is too strong the output is nil. The economics are also questionable.

However, when it comes to getting a good return on investment in reducing CO2 emissions, the basics give the best result. This includes measures like insulating the loft and walls and installing double glazing. Unfortunately, the Government doesn't agree, having recently decided to transfer grant aid for these simple and cost-effective measures to more "sexy" projects such as micro wind. On a typical house, this is little more than an expensive gadget, which might make the owner feel better when he sees it spinning round.

I wonder if the majority of the population, who are claimed to support more wind power, also support the suggestions of reducing emissions from road transport by introducing road charging, and also substantially increasing air fares in line with the need for airlines to pay for their increasing carbon emissions and other environmental impacts.

Policies to curb global warming emissions need to be radical. Building more wind turbines will make an insignificant difference.

As a senior politician once said in another context: "If they (the measures) are not hurting they are not working."

David Randon, Blue Slates Close, Wheldrake, York.