Offshore wind farms are the subject of environmental impact assessments in which potential adverse effects are identified and quantified. Those impacts will then require to be mitigated through appropriate design, construction and operation methods. Where environmental impacts cannot be mitigated, operators would be required to compensate the environment or its users for any actual or potential damage. The present study shows that the placement of offshore wind turbines gives the potential for habitat creation, which may thus be regarded as compensation for habitat lost. Using current design criteria and construction methods, the analysis here indicates that the net amount of habitat created by the most common design of offshore wind turbine, the monopile, is up to 2.5 times the amount of area lost through the placement, thus providing a net gain even though the gained habitat may be of a different character to the one that lost. Hence, the study raises important issues for marine nature conservation managers. The study also provides suggestions for further work in order to increase the empirical evidence for the value of mitigation, compensation and habitat creation.

Offshore and coastal wind power is one of the fastest growing industries in many areas, especially those with shallow coastal regions due to the preferable generation conditions available in the regions. As with any expanding industry, there are concerns regarding the potential environmental effects which may be caused by the installation of the offshore wind turbines and their associated infrastructure, including substations and subsea cables. These include the potential impacts on the biological, physical and human environments. This review discusses in detail the potential impacts arising from offshore wind farm construction, and how these may be quantified and addressed through the use of conceptual models. It concludes that while not environmentally benign, the environmental impacts are minor and can be mitigated through good siting practices. In addition, it suggests that there are opportunities for environmental benefits through habitat creation and conservation protection areas.

No abstract

As medical technology continues to advance and we develop the expertise to keep people alive in states undreamt of even 20 years ago, there is increasing interest in the ethics of providing, or declining to provide, life-sustaining treatment. One such issue, highly contentious in clinical practice as well as in the media (and, through them, the public), is the use of do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders. The main group of patients affected by these orders is older people. This article explores some of the arguments regarding who should make the decision to implement such an order, with particular reference to older people and the unique issues they face in relation to resuscitation. The author concludes by arguing that official guidelines, while representing an ideal, are not easily applied in a typical acute setting where decisions regarding resuscitation are most commonly made, and makes suggestions as to how they may be implemented more successfully.