People of Oklahoma to Fight the Wind Industry….In Courts of Law!!!

August 30, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Oklahomans Launch Pre-Emptive Legal Action to Prevent Wind Farm Construction

August 30, 2014 by stopthesethings

For most non-Okies, their appreciation of the glories of life on the great prairies of Oklahoma comes from Gordon Macrae (as Curly) – bathed in “a bright golden haze on the meadow” and crooning from a fine looking mount about what was clearly a very “beautiful morning”.

While Curly waxed lyrically about seeing stratospheric corn, his profound sensory enjoyment included being able to hear nature at its untrammelled best, in a place where “all the sounds of the earth are like music”.

Well, they used to be.

Oklahoma hasn’t escaped America’s great wind power fraud: turbines have sprung up like mushrooms all over the, once tranquil, State. And, like everywhere else, the locals are fighting back.

Not content to let wind power outfits turn their beautiful mornings into sonic torture events, a group of Oklahomans have just launched court action, seeking an injunction to prevent 300 giant fans from being speared into their peaceful patch of prairie paradise.

The action, filed by 6 plaintiffs, is being pursued in “nuisance”: the common law right attached to property to be able to enjoy it free from any unreasonable interference from the activities of neighbours, which includes unreasonable interference from noise – particularly where the noise in question interferes with sleep (see our post here).

The plaintiffs’ claim (available here) sets out the nature of their action as:

This action seeks to enjoin Defendants from creating a nuisance that will cause unreasonable inconvenience, interference, annoyance, adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of each Plaintiff and class member’s property.

Where the plaintiffs say they are seeking to “enjoin Defendants” they mean that they are asking the court for an injunction preventing the developers from constructing the turbines proposed.

The plaintiffs face the prospect of being left with properties that are worth a fraction of what they would be without turbines as neighbours – and ending up with homes that are uninhabitable due to incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our post here). So, their planning authorities having failed them, it’s off to court.

Here’s a run down on the plaintiffs’ action from the Oklahoma Wind Action Association.

Oklahoma citizens file class action lawsuit against wind energy companies
Oklahoma Wind Action Association
27 August 2014

Seeking reasonable placement of wind farms to protect health of nearby residents.

Citizens of Canadian and Kingfisher counties filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma today to prohibit the placement of wind turbines that will harm residents.

After exhausting all local and state legislative and government resources, members of the lawsuit are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property, by requiring wind turbines be placed a safe distance from their homes.

There are multiple wind farms planned for Kingfisher and Canadian counties consisting of more than 300 industrial wind turbines. From plaintiff Julie Harris’ land, there are 47 turbines targeted near her home with the closest planned less than one-half mile from her property. The turbines are almost 500 feet tall, equivalent to approximately five-eighths (5/8) the size of Devon Tower in downtown Oklahoma City, Okla.

“Despite working tirelessly with local officials and the wind company to request a reasonable setback of wind turbines from our property, our only recourse now is litigation,” said Terra Walker, a plaintiff and property owner in Okarche, Okla. “There are real health concerns when turbines are placed too close to homes. This is about requiring safe setbacks to protect the health and safety of our families.”

The plaintiffs are concerned about health impacts and interference in the use and enjoyment of their land. In the complaint, the plaintiffs note that wind turbines emit infra and low frequency sounds that are inaudible to the human ear, but have a long history of causing adverse effects to the human body and mind, including sleep loss, increased stress and cardiac issues. The plaintiffs are also concerned about how noise and shadow flicker emitted from rotating blades deteriorates the ability — in both children and adults — to properly think, remember, or concentrate.

“The wind farms located next to our house have ruined our health and property,” said Tammy and Rick Huffstutlar, living outside of Calumet, Okla. and in the middle of the Canadian Hills Wind Farm.

The Huffstutlars live adjacent to wind turbines and experience significant shadow flicker, noise and disruptions in air pressure, resulting in a worsening heart condition, severe headaches, and lack of sleep.

“Industrial wind energy in Oklahoma is unregulated, allowing companies to build wind farms wherever they can make deals with landowners without any required notice to those impacted,” said Brent Robinson, Oklahoma Wind Action Association (OWAA) president. “Research shows a negative impact to health for people within three miles of a turbine. Therefore, we believe a three-mile setback from property lines is necessary to protect our families.”

OWAA, along with other Oklahoma organizations such as Oklahoma Property Rights Association and Wind Waste, are combining forces to advocate for sensible laws to protect people and oversee future development in Oklahoma. The non-profit associations are concerned about the long-term impact this unregulated industry will have on property owners, and are fighting for oversight to ensure turbines are appropriately placed, operated safely, well-maintained and there is adequate funding to remove abandoned wind farms.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Terra Walker, Cheyenne Ward, Julie Harris, Janelle Grellner, Elise Kochenower, Karri Parson, Cindy Shelley, and Oklahoma Wind Action Association. The defendants are APEX Wind Construction, LLC, APEX Clean Energy, Inc., APEX Clean Energy Holdings, LLC, Kingfisher Wind, LLC, Kingfisher Wind Land Holdings, LLC, Campbell Creek Wind, LLC, and Campbell Creek Wind Transmission, LLC.

Oklahoma Wind Action Association was founded in February 2014 to protect its members from negative affects of industrial wind turbines. The organization serves more than 150 citizens in Canadian and Kingfisher counties.
Oklahoma Wind Action Association
27 August 2014

People of Oklahoma to Fight the Wind Industry….In Courts of Law!!!

August 30, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Oklahomans Launch Pre-Emptive Legal Action to Prevent Wind Farm Construction

August 30, 2014 by stopthesethings

Well, they used to be.

Oklahoma hasn’t escaped America’s great wind power fraud: turbines have sprung up like mushrooms all over the, once tranquil, State. And, like everywhere else, the locals are fighting back.

The plaintiffs’ claim (available here) sets out the nature of their action as:

Where the plaintiffs say they are seeking to “enjoin Defendants” they mean that they are asking the court for an injunction preventing the developers from constructing the turbines proposed.

Here’s a run down on the plaintiffs’ action from the Oklahoma Wind Action Association.

Oklahoma citizens file class action lawsuit against wind energy companies
Oklahoma Wind Action Association
27 August 2014

Seeking reasonable placement of wind farms to protect health of nearby residents.

Faux-green Energy…..No more than an Over-priced Novelty!

August 30, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Obama’s Green Unicorn

The true cost of renewable energy is being masked by government subsidies and bailouts.

Wind turbines are silhouetted by the setting sun Friday, Aug. 23, 2013, near Beaumont, Kan. The turbines are part of the 100-unit Elk River Wind Farm in south central Kansas.

Propped up by the government.

By Peter Roff Aug. 25, 2014

America is about as likely to become reliant on green energy to meet its baseload power requirements as a unicorn is to stroll down the middle of Washington’s Pennsylvania Avenue during rush hour followed by a pink elephant.

It’s just not happening – but that’s hasn’t deterred the modern day snake oil salesmen and their allies inside the Obama administration from continuing to make a push for wind and solar power as an eventual replacement for energy generated from traditional sources like coal, oil and natural gas. Renewable technology has improved, no doubt, but it’s a long way away from being ready to make a substantial contribution to the heating of our homes and the powering of our businesses unless the generous tax subsidies that create the illusion of cost competitiveness continue.

There’s nothing wrong per se with the pursuit of renewable energy; it’s just that what it actually costs is being masked by taxpayer subsidies, federal loan guarantees and renewable fuels mandates at the state level that force power companies to put wind and solar into the energy mix, sometimes at two to three times what traditional power costs. Ultimately, one way or another, the taxpayers and energy consumers are footing the bill even if they don’t know it

Unfortunately, some federal agencies are trying to keep the program alive through the backdoor.

The worst offender in this regard may be the IRS, which recently issued new “guidelines” that make it even easier for wind projects currently in development to qualify for the tax credit on the basis of work already contemplated or completed. According to Politico, “The IRS says completed or in-progress facilities can be sold and the costs incurred by the seller will still count toward qualifying for the [credit], except in cases where tangible property (think equipment like wind turbines) bought for one project is sold and used at another site.”

To translate this into English, it’s a move to help keep the whole shell game alive until such time as wind power supporters can get the tax credit reauthorized. “There is a large pipeline of projects that were under development at some stage that by virtue of this guidance will be able to go forward. In that regard it is going to permit a lot of projects to be developed,” said one wind energy expert cited by Politico.

Outside groups are also weighing in, including the Sierra Club, which has targeted nine members of Congress in a pressure campaign over the August recess to push for reauthorization of the Wind Production Tax Credit. That is in addition to the online ad buys in 16 other districts that started in June.

[MORE: Cartoons on Gas Prices]

The Democrats who run the Senate want to keep the now-expired credit alive and have, in the Senate Finance Committee, already approved a package of so-called “extenders” that would breathe new life into it. The House has thus far refused to go along – and kudos to Texas Republican Rep. Randy Weber, who deserves credit for successfully introducing an amendment to shut the whole business down permanently. But he’s not just fighting the lobbyists and green groups in favor of the credit, but the entire federal bureaucracy which, once a program has been established, is loath to let it die.

Major government investment in speculative green projects may have at one time made sense. But even if that were once the case, it is so no longer. The Obama green energy push has enriched more than a few politically well-connected liberals who used tax credits and government bailouts to enlarge their portfolios, but it has done little to make energy more abundant or lower costs to consumers, which is the justification in the first place to get the taxpayers involved. If people want to build wind farms – on land or offshore – and they want to reap the benefits of their investments, then they should be willing to take the same risks as everyone else. The way the bureaucrats have it structured now, the taxpayers are making payments on both ends through subsidies for construction and higher rates on consumption. It’s a system only a bureaucrat could love.

Oh My…Enercon Floundering? What a Shame! Subsidies end….Turbines NOT Sustainable!

August 30, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Brazil Tax Exemption Removal Curbs Wobben’s Wind Turbine Orders

By Vanessa Dezem Aug 29, 2014

Enercon GmbH’s Wobben Windpower is losing contracts in Brazil after tax authorities canceled some exemptions for wind turbine manufacturers in the country, an official said.

The Brazil unit of Germany’s Enercon had a single customer so far this year, Mathias Moser, a vice president of Wobben, said in an interview yesterday in Rio de Janeiro. The company had considered leaving South America’s fastest-growing market after Brazilian tax authorities in April removed a tax incentive and required turbine makers such as Wobben, Spain’s Gamesa Corp., Tecnologica SA and Denmark’s Vestas Wind Systems A/S to pay back taxes for the exemption.

“This is definitely a restructuring year for us in Brazil,” said Mathias, who came to the country in April amid a management change.

Enercon, based in Aurich, Germany, decided to stay in Brazil last month after filing an appeal on the tax incentive ruling, according to Mathias. He didn’t disclose how much the company owes in back taxes. Brazil is seeking the previous five fiscal years of back taxes for the exemption.

“We have always produced in Brazil, so we have had the benefit for many years,” Mathias said. “It is a lot of money.”

Wobben started manufacturing turbines in Brazil in 1995, the first turbine maker to install a facility in the country. It has four facilities in the country, and has the capacity to produce as many as 200 turbines at its Sorocaba plant in Sao Paulo state. In its sole contract this year, the company delivered 23 turbines for Elecnor SA of Spain’s wind park in southern Brazil.

“It is a drop from last year’s,” Mathias said, without specifying 2013 deliveries.

Turbine Talks

Brazil’s Ministry of Finance is considering reinstating the tax exemption for turbine makers, according to Elbia Melo, president of the country’s wind power association known as Abeeolica.

“The wind industry is facing problems with the government’s special incentive plan for the equipment manufacturers and it is relevant to solve it,” Melo said in a phone interview from Sao Paulo. “We are in talks with the government.”

The Ministry of Finance’s press office said it does not comment on potential rule changes.

Wind energy in Brazil is among the cheapest sources of power. The country has the biggest capacity in Latin America, according to a Global Wind Energy Council report of 2013.

Wobben is optimistic about winning its appeal in court, according to Mathias.

“We are staying, given the good prospects for the Brazilian market,” said Mathias. “The size of the company’s business in the country can be affected if we don’t sign contracts in the future.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Vanessa Dezem in Sao Paulo at vdezem@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.netRobin Saponar, Carlos Caminada

Faux-Green Terrorists, Want to Steal Our Property Rights! We Have to Fight Them!

August 29, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Chemistry parable – Sustainability: The Universal Solvent of Private Property Rights

Guest Blogger / 2 hours ago August 29, 2014

Guest essay by Charles Battig, MD | The alchemists of old were diligently ambitious in their goals. These antecedents of modern chemistry were not hindered by a lack of knowledge of atomic structure and physical chemistry when it came to setting priorities. Lacking a nuclear reactor and knowledge of atomic reactions, they postulated the existence of “The Philosopher’s Stone.” This mythical substance was thought to be able to turn base metals into gold, and endow eternal life and wisdom to its discoverer.

Another magical substance hypothesized was the “universal solvent.” Such a substance would be able to dissolve all other substances, including gold. Philosophical discussions over what container could hold this universal solvent must have been lively. Aqua regia, a mixture of concentrated nitric and hydrochloric acids, was eventually discovered, and comes close to the definition. This “royal water,” named by the alchemists because of its ability to dissolve gold and the noble metals, was also thought to have therapeutic healing properties as well.

Far from the realm of primitive physical sciences, another universal solvent has been created by the progressive social engineers. It is able to limit personal freedoms, diminish private property rights, destroy the useful products of civilization and their means of production, deprive humanity of natural resources and their access, and impose hardship on the least prosperous members of humanity. I term it “The Progressives’ Stone,” as it can do all this and more. Regrettably, it is real and not mythical. It permeates all levels of our government.

“Sustainability” is the embodiment of the planner’s “Progressives’ Stone,” a universal societal solvent… infinitely elastic and open-ended in its ability to justify most any action taken in the name of social and environmental justice. It is the societal equivalent of the ancient “royal water” in its corrosive properties when employed against our constitutionally mandated unalienable rights of ordinary free citizens.

Documenting the origins of the “Philosopher’s Stone is a task for historians probing the Middle Ages. “The Progressives’ Stone” has a more recent and defined linage. British economist Barbara Ward’s 1966 book“Spaceship Earth” advocated for sustainable development and a new international economic order linking the global environment and social justice. Population control was an inherent part of the message.

On this side of the Atlantic, Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring” laid the groundwork for a message that found a receptive audience in guilt prone readers. She put a human face on the claimed crimes against the environment. Misuse of insecticides was translated into a fear of all insecticides at any level. DDT was made the poster child for environmental destruction. Bird deaths and egg thinning were offered as evidence. Years later, many of the claims in her book were termed “lies,” once they were subject to scientific review. In the interim, millions of innocent children have suffered Malaria-related deaths in Africa from prohibition of DDT use, and the term “eco-imperialism” became a book title.

As a formalized political doctrine, “Sustainability” was introduced by the 1987 “Our Common Future” report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Bruntland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The official U.N. website contains the “Sustainability” definition: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The capitalized “S” serves to distinguish the U.N. definition from the mundane usage indicating “lasting or continuing for a long time.” The U.N. pre-supposes an all-knowing ruling class that has unique knowledge of the present and of the future. In reality, the needs of the future are subject to change, and planning now for an unknowable future is the planner’s folly. Fredrick Hayek aptly described this as the “Fatal Conceit.” Who knew a century ago, that commonplace sand (silica) would become essential to our transistor and integrated-circuit world of today?

Much of the U.N.’s vision of “Sustainability” was eventually incorporated into official U.S. Federal policy by President Clinton. He established the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” by executive Order No. 12852, dated June 29, 1993. It published the 1999 report “Towards A Sustainable America…Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century.” Perhaps well intentioned in its Utopian vision of our future, it has become a weapon of mass destruction against many of the visions of our Founding Fathers, and our basic freedoms.

Professional planners have adopted these precepts, and their official organization, the American Planning Association, has a formalized policy guide. The Environmental Policy Agency has its own. Business has learned how to make a profit from it. Enthusiastic application of sustainability concepts has provided the commercial world with financial rewards. Do-more-with-less is the way to greater profits and positive public perception.

Like a Madison Avenue brainstormed advertising mantra, “Sustainability” now appears throughout the media and in governmental policy requirements. If it is not “Sustainable,” it must be stopped, altered, or mitigated, until the project has met prescribed guidelines. “Sustainability” has been elevated in governmental policy to a level higher than our Constitutional unalienable rights. Unlike the business model, “Sustainability” in the governmental sphere has uses beyond a more efficient government. Henry Lamb and others recognized the threat to personal property rights early on. Tom DeWeese has been sounding the alarm for decades.

A visit to your local governmental planning board or board of supervisors should convince you that “Sustainability” is the universal solvent able to shut down private property rights. Want to build a home on your dream location? No…it is not sustainable to the environment. Want to add on to your home…no, it imposes non-sustainable burdens on the wildlife. Nor are golf courses, ski resorts, livestock , soil tilling, fences, industry, septic fields, roads, logging, dams and reservoirs, power line and fiber optic projects “Sustainable,” if so designated by local or Federal government. Get out of “Sustainability” Jail cards are called proffers or mitigating off-sets; such extra costs make surviving projects more expensive for the increasingly poor taxpayer.

Increase your chances of living a sustainable life as envisioned by our Founding Fathers by challenging “Sustainability” as envisioned by government planners. Private property rights are an endangered species not protected by “Sustainability.”

Petition Asks For a Minimum 1 Mile Separation Between Industrial Wind Turbines, and Homes

August 29, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Petition stipulates minimum distance to windmills

28-08-2014 22:01

The proposals for wind turbines along the 40. storm

A petition on the internet working for a minimum distance of one mile between new windmills and buildings.

The motivation: “We ask for respect between wind turbines and places where people live and / or work a minimum distance of 1,500 meters. We are not against green energy in itself, but each technology has its own place and this must not be at the expense the quality of life of local residents. “

The initiative was taken by Annemarie Francois (Oud-Heverlee) with from the first day also signatories Outgaarden. The list is submitted to the Flemish government.

See the text.

On the proposed by Storm Elicio windmills in Overlaar, Hoksem, Outgaarden.

Raymond Buttocks

Faux-green Climate Alarmists are Harming our Planet! Don’t Believe Their Lies!

August 29, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Posted on August 29, 2014by rogeroffice

That old canard that “97% of scientists support Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)” is cropping up again in social media, parroted cheerfully without critical analysis, so I’ve been drawing attention to my rebuttal on the subject. This was based on Lord Monckton’s painstaking analysis of the original study on which the 97% claim is based. It seems that those who produced the 97% figure cheerfully assumed that any paper that failed to deny AGW outright was supporting it. Far from 97% backing the theory, Monckton showed that less than 3% of the papers cited specifically endorsed it.

Yet the 97% claim keeps coming up, just like the “3½ million jobs at risk if we leave the EU” claim, which is equally fraudulent.

Of course the Warmists are in disarray because all their climate models predicted rising global temperatures based on increasing levels of atmospheric CO₂, yet for seventeen years there’s been no further warming. Here we have the classic scientific method: make a hypothesis (AGW); make predictions based on the hypothesis (the computer models); then test the predictions against the real world. We’ve done that, and the predictions have failed. Therefore we have to reject the hypothesis.

Rather than reject their cherished mythology, however, they’ve chosen to come up with ingenious ad hoc explanations of why the models appear to be wrong. Lord Lawson’sGlobal Warming Policy Foundation has been keeping tabs on these explanations (or as some would describe them, “Just So Stories”) and has counted over 30 so far.

The latest idea is that the world is indeed getting hotter, but because of the circulation of ocean currents, the extra heat is hiding away in the deep oceans, and will come out again in a couple of decades to bite our ankles. You have been warned. The Warmists don’t seem to have realised that if you need to introduce a new and previously unknown concept to explain the failure of your original models, you are simply admitting that the models themselves were wrong, wrong, wrong. The need for major post-facto tweaks is an admission of failure. At the very least, they are admitting that the climate system is far more complicated, and the future trajectory of climate far less certain, than they would have had us believe. Yet they still want us to mortgage our children and bankrupt our grandchildren on the strength of their predictions.

Of course no one disputes that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas — if we had none, the world would be frozen. But its effect is governed by a negative logarithmic relationship — a law of diminishing returns. From where we are now, further increases have little effect, and anyway man-made emissions are small compared to the natural CO₂ cycle (wait for the next Icelandic volcano!).

The IPCC gets its alarmist results by assuming an exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO₂. It justifies this by postulating “positive feedbacks”. But these feedbacks are neither proven nor demonstrated, and many scientists point to negative feedbacks (greater cloud formation and higher albedo, for example) and believe that the balance of feedback effects could be negative.

In any case CO₂ is just a single factor amongst many that influence a highly complex climate system that is poorly understood (witness the Warmist need it invent Just So Stories when their predictions fail). Clearly the largest influence on terrestrial climate is the Sun, and well-established, long-term climate cycles are clearly driven by the Sun and other astronomical factors.

The slight warming since the late 18^th Century is entirely consistent with the long-term cyclical pattern (like the Mediæval Warm Period and the Roman Optimum). And the historical record clearly shows that CO₂ level changes come after temperature changes (since temperature drives the CO₂ balance between oceans and atmosphere). The slight recent warming predates the industrial revolution, and the current increase in CO₂ is therefore likely the result, not the cause, of the warming.

So let’s stop panicking, and start worrying instead about the damage which “green” policies are doing to our economy.

Wind Pushers are Allowed to Slaughter Birds, With Impunity!

August 29, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Bye Bye Birdie
Does the government give green-energy firms a free pass on bird deaths?

By Jillian Kay Melchior

Death from Above: A wind-power tower (Dreamstime)

Two former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investigators tell National Review Online that the federal government acted with a bias, giving renewable-energy companies a pass on unlawful bird deaths while rigorously prosecuting traditional energy companies for the same infractions.

“If birds were electrocuted or in oil pits, we prosecuted those companies,” says Tim Eicher, a special agent who handled cases involving migratory birds, eagles, and endangered species until his retirement three years ago. But the Fish and Wildlife Service “has drunk the Kool-Aid on global warming,” Eicher tells NRO. When it comes to wind- and solar-energy companies, “the end, to them, justifies the means: They’re saving the planet, and if eagles die in the process, so be it.”

Dominic Domenici, a former Fish and Wildlife Service investigator who worked with Eicher in Wyoming, says the bias is obvious because, when unlawful bird deaths occur, the federal government “prosecutes everything except for wind and solar — and they give [those renewable companies] permits” for bird-killing. That bias, Domenici says, is “top-down” within the Fish and Wildlife Service.

“They have chosen to do everything they can to make wind energy look perfect,” Domenici says. He adds: “I think they just want an alternative energy so badly that they’re prepared to turn a blind eye on all the bad parts of it. And it may be the best thing in the world, and it may be the answer — but they still need to enforce the laws to put the incentives [against bird-killing in place].”

Potential bias in the enforcement and prosecution of bird deaths has piqued the interest of the House Natural Resources Committee, which in March subpoenaed the case files for all Obama-administration investigations conducted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

But to date, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not provided all of the records, says the committee’s press rep, Michael Tadeo.

“Our subpoena has not been fully complied with,” Tadeo says. “The documents we have received have been heavily redacted, and the administration continues to stonewall us on this issue.”

Republican Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota congressman who’s on the Natural Resources Committee, tells NRO: “The Obama administration is clearly not just biased but hard-biased against fossil-fuel development, and it is willing to selectively enforce federal laws and rules to favor what they consider to be clean energy. It’s certainly not played out any clearer than it is with [the administration’s] enforcement of things like the Migratory Bird Act. . . . It’s a clear-cut bias. I think it’s hypocrisy at its worst. On one hand, they want to be environmentally clean. On the other, they don’t care how many birds they kill doing it.”

But Mike Daulton, vice president of government relations at the Audubon Society, says he’s skeptical of claims or suspicions of bias on the part of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

“I think it’s a stretch to say that the law is being applied more to oil or gas, or that it’s being disproportionately applied,” Daulton tells NRO. “This is looking for an excuse to attack the administration. In the past, [the Migratory Bird Treaty Act] has been applied in very narrow circumstances. The application of the law to wind could be broader. . . . I’ve heard that there are cases in the pipeline at the Department of Interior and Justice.”

But Bob Johns, director of public relations at the American Bird Conservancy, says, “The numbers don’t lie — and those numbers say that the wind- and the solar-energy industries have not been held to the same standards that other industries have.”

Johns noted that the Altamont Energy wind farms in California, for example, kill between 70 and 80 golden eagles a year — and have never been prosecuted. He adds that he’s not aware of any prosecutions against solar companies.

Testifying to the House committee in March, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service said the agency was investigating 17 incidents at wind farms, along with 21 at oil and gas sites. It’s unclear whether any investigations have occurred at solar-energy sites, even as reports emerge that California’s Ivanpah solar plant alone may be responsible for up to 28,000 bird deaths annually.

Forget the Naysayers, Follow Your Own Instincts!

August 29, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

It’s no coincidence that brilliant creative minds are rarely witnessed. Steve Jobs, Tina Fey, Banksy. Mavericks and renegades — telling their stories, spilling their guts, and divulging themselves for our progress, our enlightenment, and our entertainment. Like us, they feel the heat of failure, defeat, humiliation, and financial ruin, but they do it anyway. They do whatever it takes to put their lives and ideals into their work. They have to. And the world loves them even more for it.

Most folks never have a chance of even knowing the power of their talents and gifts. Others lack the confidence, or possibly ignorance, necessary to share their ideas with the world — afraid to stick their heads out of the foxhole for fear of the potshots from naysayers and hole-pokers. We’re scared, so we stop trusting ourselves. This creates a bad habit — instead of looking inside for an answer, we ask “What do THEY want?” Thus, we pander. We regurgitate standard, acceptable levels of crap — mediocrity with a laugh track.

dumb_earth_550

Like individuals, companies are risk averse. It’s in their business plan to be so. The commercial world or the larger society generally accepts greatness only AFTER witnessing it in others. One unique voice airs a beautiful work first, then it becomes socially acceptable. Case in point: Anthony Bourdain’s bestseller Kitchen Confidential was written purely out of love of his craft. His work was an expression of himself. His business model was, literally, “I don’t give a shit.”

Bourdain wrote only for cooks, and thought he would be excommunicated from the restaurant business for it. But, because he told the ugly truth, in his own voice, in his own aggressive style — on his subsequent book tour, he was received by cooks and chefs the world over with the phrase, “You wrote my life, man.”

book_550

We recognize that any truly new idea is met with fear, will never pass “marketing” or the Nielsens or Hollywood or even the Joneses. But the few brave ones, both companies and individuals, who risk comfort and safety for a chance at beauty or being able to move someone — they have a potential to gain so much more. Loyalty, respect, and awe.

And that’s why we must push ourselves to ask the harder question. Not “what do THEY want?”, but “what do WE have to say?” We must do the work of looking inside ourselves to find what is beautiful and tremendous within us and summon the courage to put this out. As James Joyce said, “in the particular lies the universal.”

The meaning of all this is that you, your opinions and intelligence and history matter. But you gotta do the work. To pull from the most personal areas of your life, your opinions, your stories, your experiences — by doing this you create something meaningful not only to yourself but to those who see it. The work, the fear and struggle, the constant worry of whether your gift is good enough, the small critics both inside and out? Fuck ‘em. The world awaits your gift. Isn’t that what life is all about?

love_550

Even Democrats Find Obama’s Climate Nonsense, Hard to Swallow!

August 29, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

LOL! Obama’s Climate Plan Spooks U.S. Democrats

Anthony Watts / August 27, 2014

Yesterday we mentioned Obama’s nuclear option event, and now the fallout begins. |

From Timothy Cama and Scott Wong, The Hill
President Obama’s election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous.

The administration is in talks at the United Nations about a deal that would seek to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by “naming and shaming” governments that fail to take significant action.

The State Department on Wednesday denied a report in The New York Times that the plan is to come up with a treaty that would not require Senate confirmation, but that appeared to provide cold comfort to Democrats worried the issue will revive GOP cries about an imperial Obama presidency.

One Democratic strategist said the proposal would put swing-state candidates who are critical to the party keeping its Senate majority “in front of the firing squad.”

“You’re … making it more difficult for them to win and certainty putting them in a position to lose,” the strategist said.

Several vulnerable Senate Democrats kept mum on the issue.

Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska) and Mark Udall (Colo.), along with a handful of House Democrats, either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests.

Senate Energy Committee Chairwoman Mary Landrieu (La.) cautiously signaled support for the oil and gas industry that is important to her state, without commenting on the plan to sidestep the Senate.

“It is important that all nations do what they can to reduce carbon in the atmosphere,” she said. “But the president should not take any action that undermines the American energy revolution currently underway that is creating thousands of high-paying jobs for middle class families in Louisiana and across the country.”

spokesman for Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), who heads a House climate task force, said it was premature to comment on a plan with so few details.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who pushed a climate change bill through the House in 2009, said the Times story was inaccurate but had no further comment.

Other Democrats immediately distanced themselves from the proposal.

“This administration’s go it alone strategy is surely less about dysfunction in Congress than about the president’s own unwillingness to listen to our coal miners, steelworkers, farmers and working families,” Rep. Nick Rahall (W.Va.) said in a statement. Rahall is in a difficult reelection race.

Republicans in tight Senate contests, for their part, quickly seized on the issue.

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who’s trying to unseat Udall, called on the incumbent to denounce Obama’s “latest executive power grab.”

“Coloradans don’t elect Senators to watch them toss their power to the president, whether Republican or Democrat,” Gardner said.

Republicans have been seeking to make the 2014 elections all about Obama, whose approval numbers remain low. They’ve sought to tie candidates such as Udall and Landrieu to Obama, and the Democratic strategist said the climate change proposal gave them ammunition.

Republicans have also sought to portray Obama as a figure abusing his power with executive actions. House Republicans approved legislation in August that would allow Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to file a lawsuit challenging Obama’s actions.

“Once again, the president is circumventing the wishes of the American people and their elected representatives, and doing so in a fashion that will destroy more jobs,” Boehner said Wednesday of the climate report.

Both the White House and State Department said the climate agreement is still being discussed, and they denied that it was a sure thing that the administration would seek to go around Congress.

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

People of Oklahoma to Fight the Wind Industry….In Courts of Law!!!

Oklahomans Launch Pre-Emptive Legal Action to Prevent Wind Farm Construction

People of Oklahoma to Fight the Wind Industry….In Courts of Law!!!

Oklahomans Launch Pre-Emptive Legal Action to Prevent Wind Farm Construction

Faux-green Energy…..No more than an Over-priced Novelty!

Obama’s Green Unicorn

The true cost of renewable energy is being masked by government subsidies and bailouts.

Oh My…Enercon Floundering? What a Shame! Subsidies end….Turbines NOT Sustainable!

Brazil Tax Exemption Removal Curbs Wobben’s Wind Turbine Orders

Turbine Talks

Faux-Green Terrorists, Want to Steal Our Property Rights! We Have to Fight Them!

Chemistry parable – Sustainability: The Universal Solvent of Private Property Rights

Petition Asks For a Minimum 1 Mile Separation Between Industrial Wind Turbines, and Homes

Petition stipulates minimum distance to windmills

Faux-green Climate Alarmists are Harming our Planet! Don’t Believe Their Lies!

Wind Pushers are Allowed to Slaughter Birds, With Impunity!

Forget the Naysayers, Follow Your Own Instincts!

Even Democrats Find Obama’s Climate Nonsense, Hard to Swallow!

LOL! Obama’s Climate Plan Spooks U.S. Democrats