THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING SINCE GENESIS 1:1, SO WHY IS POPE FRANCIS SUDDENLY SO CONCERNED?
By Gene J. Koprowski on 9.21.15
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) tells Townhall.com that he is planning to boycott the Congressional address of Pope Francis this week. The reason? The Congressman is concerned that the speech is going to be completely politically correct, not traditionally Christian in focus. He also is outraged that the secular progressives at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helped co-write His Holiness’ environmental encyclical earlier this year, and does not want to offer even tacit support for that ideological document.
“Media reports indicate His Holiness instead intends to focus the brunt of his speech on climate change–a climate that has been changing since first created in Genesis. More troubling is the fact that this climate change talk has adopted all of the socialist talking points, wrapped false science and ideology into climate justice and is being presented to guilt people into leftist policies. If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line,” wrote Rep. Gosar. “If the Pope spoke out with moral authority against violent Islam, I would be there cheering him on. If the Pope urged the Western nations to rescue persecuted Christians in the Middle East, I would back him wholeheartedly. But when the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one. Artist and columnist Maureen Mullarkey effectively communicated this fallacy stating, ‘When papal preferences, masked in a Christian idiom, align themselves with ideological agendas (e.g. radical environmentalism) [they] impinge on democratic freedoms and the sanctity of the individual.’”
Concluded the Congressman, “the earth’s climate has been changing since God created it, with or without man. On that, we should all agree. In Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment (written with the consultation of that great seminary the EPA and its embattled head Gina McCarthy), he condemned anyone skeptical of the link between human activity and climate change and adopted the false science being propagated by the Left. If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so in his personal time. But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.”
Promoters of ‘official’ climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members like Kevin Trenberth, asked the Obama administration to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against climate deniers. All but two of the twenty are at Universities, and the two are career bureaucrats associated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They all live off the public purse, but somehow in the weird world of climate science that is untainted money. The RICO charge is ad hominem, not about the science. If Virtually all the research funding for global warming comes from government and goes to those supporting the unproven hypothesis. There is no comparison between the amounts of government money going to the ‘official’ side of the science and that going to skeptics.
Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries.
The RICO charge is a particularly nasty form of ad hominem attack. By applying it in the global warming case, it tries to make criminals out of people doing their job properly. The real criminal part of their enterprise is that skeptics are doing what scientists are supposed to do, that is disproving the AGW hypothesis. They accuse these properly named scientific skeptics of performing the scientific method, either through ignorance of the method or to silence them. The twenty, like the IPCC and its supporters, directly or indirectly thwart the scientific method by accepting the hypothesis as proven. They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections). They consistently refuse to consider the null hypothesis.
The attack is not surprising because the IPCC created a monster and were driven to keep it alive. Once you create the monster it becomes uncontrollable and even if it becomes a threat to society, the creator will resist its destruction; worse, you have to keep feeding the monster and will take extreme measures if necessary. This inevitability is the moral message of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
Establishment of the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) put national weather office bureaucrats in control of national climate policy and most of the research funding. They appointed the members of the IPCC and used their offices to promote and perpetuate the unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Extreme measures taken to keep the monster alive included adjusting the record to eliminate previous warm periods and lowering the historic instrumental record to increase the slope of the curve to create or accentuate warming. More recently it was the adjustments designed to offset the pause they directly contradicted the hypothesis. They were on a treadmill for two main reasons. By accepting the IPCC AGW hypothesis as proved, required ignoring or diverting from evidence. It was the destructive effect T.H. Huxley identified when he wrote,
“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
By convincing politicians to establish policy based on their information, it became difficult to admit they were wrong.
The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence. This includes expanding the scope and scale of the work, promoting speculative dangers and threats to society, emphasizing the urgency to resolve the problem, and involving as many other public and private agencies as possible. This list summarizes the claims of those making the RICO charge. The structure and involvement of people and agencies has become so large that reduction or elimination is virtually impossible. It parallels the idea of “too big to fail” but becomes, “too important to fail”.
Another challenge is that the numbers of people involved, directly or indirectly, becomes large enough to influence votes and keep the monster alive. For example, how many tax accountants, tax lawyers, IRS employees or anyone else in the taxation industry would vote for a flat tax? Other than those with a vested interest there are many others who Niccolo Machiavelli identified when he said,
One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.
It is also why Upton Sinclair said,
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
There is also the problem of admitting error that many find difficult. Tolstoi summarized their plight.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
In The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, I identified some of the groups and agencies across the world involved in the promotion and opportunities that the global warming deception offered. They include
· Members of the cabal who chose climate and environment as vehicles for their political agenda.
· Academics attracted by the significant amounts of funding offered.
· Academics with political sympathies for the cabal’s objectives.
· Bureaucrats employed by the national weather offices that comprise the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) chosen as the vehicle for controlling the IPCC.
· Bureaucrats with political sympathies with the cabal objectives.
· Bureaucrats in other government agencies, such as Agriculture or Transport that are secondarily affected by weather and climate issues.
· Departments of Education who directed unbalanced teaching of only the ‘official’ science as Justice Burton UK court ruled.
· Politicians who saw an opportunity to “be green.”
· Politicians who saw an opportunity for more taxation.
· Businesses that saw an opportunity for a profitable business guaranteed by government policy and funding.
· Individuals who saw a career or business opportunity.
· Environmental groups who supported the political objectives of blaming humans for the world’s ills.
· Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Maurice Strong reconstituted the term coined by the UN in 1945 for the Rio 1992 conference. It purportedly gave voice to organizations not part of a government or conventional for-profit businesses. At Conference of the Parties (COP) climate meetings, they constitute at least half of the attendees.
· Most of the media who actively supported the AGW hypothesis.
· National science academies persuaded by the British Royal Society to support the IPCC position.
There is one thing likely about most of these people, 97 percent of them know little or nothing about climate change.
The Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) scheduled for Paris is clearly facing failure, which is pushing IPCC defenders, such as the twenty making the RICO request, to extremes. Their comparison of scientists trying to perform proper science to organized crime leaders is beyond outrageous. It is especially egregious because the people making the charges are guilty of scientific malfeasance. While not necessarily criminal, it is worse in the damage it has and will do to everyone. The monster they created using incorrect science became the justification for imposing destructive, expensive, and completely unnecessary policies on the world. These policies will do far more damage to the poor and the environment they claim to protect. As it was anonymously said,
If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.
Whereas “renewable energy” conjures up visions of wind, solar, and tidal power, “clean” energy sources that will last forever to power the world into a “green,” sustainable future, it won’t happen without an Orwellian restructuring of the world’s social and economic fabric as envisioned by the UN’s Commission on Environment and Development more commonly known as the Bruntland Commission.
Chaired in the late 1980s by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway, the commission set about to advance what appeared to be a noble and desirable cause.
Its foundational report, titled Our Common Future, stated: “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable in order to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.” So far, it seems pretty hard to argue with a goal like that.
Unfortunately, while it would be great if wind and solar power could accomplish this, their potential capacities and reliabilities just aren’t there.
As for tidal power, applications for utility scale power generation are both unproven and doubtful. Ditto for geothermal, which is another geographically and capacity-limited source.
In other words, none of these “renewables” offer anything remotely close to a sustainability panacea . . . either now or likely ever. Nuclear power, breeder reactors in particular, come much nearer to making a real difference, yet never seem to get the same credit.
As Roger Andrews observes in his August 26 Energy Matters: Environment and Policy blog, the Brundtland Commission went on to link sustainable development objectives to eradicating world poverty . . . again something that sounds really good. Its report stated: “Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes.”
Sure, let’s all agree that poverty is a truly tragic condition.
The big rub here is that eradicating poverty won’t be accomplished by depriving desperate world populations of access to affordable and reliable energy — those who now depend upon animal dung fuel for heating, cooking, and water purification — people who lack electricity essential for refrigeration to keep perishable food safe or provide periodic lighting.
And that’s exactly what is happening through international lending programs that emphasize costly and anemic “renewables” while denying vital funds needed to develop abundant local fossil fuel resources.
So the Bruntland Commission offered another condition. In order to raise underdeveloped countries out of poverty, “Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet’s ecological means — in their use of energy, for example.” In other words, the solution is for rich countries to send money and become subordinate to a U.N.-run world government which will ensure equal distribution of financial and natural resources.
Needless to say, that world government would also decide what common lifestyle levels and ecological means are acceptable.
Such decisions must include social engineering to control optimum population size. As Our Common Future admonishes: “Sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.”
Hey, it’s merely a guess, but perhaps limiting access to affordable energy might be a very effective means to accomplish that desired population reduction.
If any of this sounds familiar, you might understand that the Brightland Commission’s sustainable development mantra provided the foundation for the UN’s Agenda 21 program, which calls for reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth, resource-sharing through co-ownership, and global wealth redistribution — beginning with ours.
A 1993 UN report, titled Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, proposes “a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.”
The report emphasizes that “this shift will demand a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
Last year President Obama’s Council on Sustainable Development was organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into the U.S. federal government. Predictably, grant programs issued through HUD, the EPA, and nearly every other alphabet agency will spread their Kool-Aid policies throughout the nation.
As Tom DeWeese forewarns in a “Reality News Media” blog, while such grants will be represented as voluntary, expect ongoing restrictions on energy use, development, building material, plumbing and electric codes, land use and water controls, public transportation, and light rail subsidies, and pressures for communities to impose politically correct and economically disastrous and socially unsustainable Agenda 21 development plans.
Welcome to life in the ant colony they have in mind.
Industry leaders must stop feeding the fires that are burning down their homes
By Tom Harris
A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of a philosophical debate while unaware of the overarching agenda driving the ideology they promote.
The term was used during the Cold War to describe communist sympathizers in the West. They were accused of viewing themselves as standing for benign socialism and allies of the Soviet Union, when they were actually scorned by the Soviets who used them as tools to help weaken democratic nations.
Climate activists undoubtedly regard many industry leaders as useful idiots on the climate front. Although seriously threatened by the global warming movement, most energy and manufacturing organizations try to appease campaigners by using biased and misleading language that unwittingly supports climate alarmism, destroys jobs, and impairs the well-being of millions.
Here are some examples.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation, sensibly opposes the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). Yet the Chamber inadvertently promotes it on its website, asserting, “We support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions through a comprehensive legislative solution that does not harm the economy, recogniz[ing] that the problem is international in scope…”
The Chamber cites findings by Cato Institute climate experts Chip Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels that the new EPA rule would result in “an estimated 0.018 degrees Centigrade reduction by the year 2100.” The Chamber correctly concludes, “it’s essentially undetectable.”
So why would it advocate “a comprehensive legislative solution” to GHG emissions? The CPP will have no discernible impact on climate and yet, according to Chamber President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue, will “impose tens of billions in annual compliance costs, and reduce our nation’s global competitiveness.” That means any carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction plan that might have significant climatic impact would almost certainly destroy the U.S. economy. A “solution that does not harm the economy” undoubtedly does not exist.
The Chamber’s contention that the “the problem is international in scope” is true only if climate change is being driven by humanity’s GHG emissions. If it isn’t—and the Chamber should do nothing to promote the idea that it is—then climate change is obviously a regional problem, and each region should adapt to whatever is happening in their area, independent of global trends.
Similarly, the 35,000-member United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) officially opposes the CPP but unintentionally supports it in the points they suggest mine workers bring up in their own letters to newspapers and government representatives. For example, the union suggests workers write, “No one can deny that greenhouse gas emissions represent a problem that needs to be addressed.”
The reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change demonstrate that thousands of climate experts dispute the idea that CO2 emissions are a serious problem. UMWA executives are not qualified to judge these scientists wrong, and it clearly sabotages their members’ interests to do so.
Duke Energy, the largest electric power company in the United States, says on its website that it is “committed to finding new ways to confront one of our industry’s biggest challenges – global climate change.” While regulations to restrict CO2 emissions present serious challenges to the industry, trends in an imaginary “global” climate have no impact on the sector.
Yet Lynn Good, Duke’s President and CEO, promised to work with state officials to keep moving toward “a lower carbon future” and said in her April 15 open letter to stakeholders that the company is “advocating for climate change policies that reduce emissions.”
While all corporations must follow applicable government regulations, they are under no obligation to encourage them. Considering that a significant fraction of the power Duke generates comes from natural gas and coal, both significant CO2 sources, it makes no sense for the company to urge tighter CO2 controls. While coal is the primary target of the EPA right now, gas will undoubtedly come under increasing attack as the new rules eliminate coal power.
Arch Coal, one of the world’s largest coal producers and marketers, also has clear reasons to fear the consequences of the global warming scare. Yet in its August 3 press release Senior Vice President of Strategy and Public Policy Deck Slone said, “To truly address the threat of climate change, these [developing] countries will need low-cost, low-carbon mitigation tools for fossil fuels.” Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
While these groups have obviously decided that it is not in their interests to contest the official excuse for the CPP—the supposed threat of CO2 emissions—it is a serious strategic mistake for them to promote it. Effective leaders know that you can never satisfy those whose ultimate agenda includes eliminating you.
Industry must stop acting as useful idiots who feed the fires burning down their homes.
Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.
If you don’t believe in climate change you’re as bad as Hitler.
There. I’ve just precised a long article which appeared in the New York Times over the weekend with the title The Next Genocide.
Rather worryingly it was the work not of some fruitcake environmental activist but of someone who really ought to know better – a professor of history, at Yale no less, called Timothy Snyder.
It starts dramatically with an Einsatzgruppe commander lifting a Jewish child in the air and saying: “You must die so that we can live.”
This is a classic move from the liberal-left playbook. Sock ‘em with an emotive image which lays out the terms of your argument, viz: every time you say you don’t believe in climate change another baby dies. And, oh, by the way, did I also mention it makes you a Nazi?
Well, I suppose Professor Snyder has got to find some way of selling his books. Really, though, if he’d tried to write a bestseller called Little Red Cook: How To Diet The Mao Great Famine Way or Back To The Land: Rediscover Your Inner Peasant With Pol Pot orDying for Success: 10 No Nonsense Boardroom Tips from Joseph Stalin he could scarcely have misrepresented history to more dubious ends.
Yes, the Nazis were very green. Snyder got that bit right. They passed the first national environmental laws: the Reich Nature Protection Law of 1935. They were big on organic food (Himmler wanted his SS to eat nothing but). They were into animal rights. (In 1933 Goering said that anyone found guilty of animal cruelty or experimentation should be sent to concentration camps. No really). And of course Hitler himself was mostly vegetarian and fiercely anti-smoking.
But where Snyder goes completely wrong is with paragraphs like this:
Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.
His argument is so weird, incoherent and far-off here that you half expect him to go on to explain how it was the Jews who were responsible for the Holocaust and how Churchill provoked World War II.
Certainly, the way he chooses to put “deniers” in the same category as Hitler could scarcely be further off-beam.
There’s only one side of this debate which believes its cause is so just and urgent that it relieves them of the need to observe any standards of decency. There’s only one side which thinks it’s OK to: rig public enquiries, hound blameless people out of their jobs, breach Freedom of Information laws, abuse the scientific method, lie, threaten, bribe, cheat, adopt nakedly political positions in taxpayer-funded academic and advisory posts that ought to be strictly neutral, trample on property rights, destroy rainforests, drive up food prices (causing unrest in the Middle East and starvation in the Third World), raise taxes, remove personal freedoms, artificially raise energy prices, featherbed rent-seekers, blight landscapes, deceive voters, twist evidence, force everyone to use expensive, dim light bulbs, frighten schoolchildren, bully adults, increase unemployment, destroy democratic accountability, take control of global governance and impose a New World Order.
In other words Professor Snyder, it’s your friends the greens who are the true heirs to Nazism. They’re the ones fomenting the crisis of hysteria which has led to so much bad policy, environmental destruction and human misery.
And the good guys – the heirs to the people who stood up to the Nazis – are all those deniers you so casually malign.
They’re the ones who’ve checked their facts, rejected Malthusianism and pessimism, who recognise that the best hope for the planet is by harnessing human ingenuity and energy, not by trying to constrain and curtail it.
But obviously, you’d need to be a serious historian to be aware of these subtleties.
Tom Harris speaks on Radio, to John Counsell, of CFRA Radio Stn., in Ottawa
I believe this is one of the all time biggest frauds perpetrated on people world-wide. Wealth transference, from rate payers, to governments and rich investors. We are not improving our environment, in any way. There is no net benefit to wind or solar, over traditional energy sources, burned cleanly, especially hydro and nuclear, which are rejected in favour of this “novelty energy”! The corruption inherent in this incestuous relationship between governments and the renewables industry, has to be investigated. It is a scam! We are being robbed blind. Energy poverty is a reality for many people. Shellie Correia
Executives of a Pennsylvania green energy company singled out for praise by Bill Clinton were arrested on fraud charges on Thursday in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme.
The individuals are facing charges of wire fraud, securities fraud, and conspiracy over their roles in running a green energy company that authorities say was an elaborate $54 million Ponzi scheme, the Associated Press reported.
Prosecutors said the trio lied to investors that their “biochar” technology and “carbon-negative” housing in Tennessee made millions, but they had almost no earnings and used the money to repay earlier investors and for themselves.
The scam allegedly ran from 2005 until 2009, even after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Wragg and Knorr’s Mantria Corp. They were ordered in 2012 to pay $37 million each. […]
Two months before the SEC civil lawsuit, the company was publicly recognized for its stated commitment to “help mitigate global warming” by former President Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative. The company was cited for its plans to develop the biochar technology that it said would sequester carbon dioxide and reduce emissions in developing countries. Wragg appeared on stage with Clinton at the event in September 2009.
Praise for Mantria remains on the website of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation:
Mantria Corporation commits to help mitigate global warming through the use of its Carbon Fields site, where Mantria will perform trials on their product BioChar, a carbon-negative charcoal, to prove how this product can sequester carbon dioxide, improve soil quality when buried, and reduce emissions in developing countries.
Across the Globe – wherever these things things have been threatened upon rural communities – or the threat has been realised – outrage follows.
One line spun is that the hostility is an entirely English speaking phenomenon. That piffle was firmly skewered by Lilli-Anne Green (an American researcher and documentary film-maker, who has spoken to hundreds of victims around the World) – when she appeared before the Australian Senate:
Now, that’s not to overlook the fact that the English themselves are just as hostile to the concept of massive streams of government mandated subsidies, being filched from power consumers and taxpayers and used by wind power outfits to literally steal peoples’ homes.
This ripping little website shows just how switched on our British counterparts are – going head-to-head with the most polished band of liars and fraudsters ever assembled in the same tent:http://www.aswar.org.uk/
The site is a cracker; and leaves no room for error about what is – to those gifted with our good friends ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ – patently obvious: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK – on any level.
Here’s a sample of the unassailable from its pages – in relation to an effort by RES to destroy another idyllic part of Ol’ Blighty:
The subsidy farming McAlpine/RES, the same massive group who the BBC’s Panorama accused of setting up the illegal blacklist in the building trade, have put in another application to build four wind turbines in the Warwickshire heritage and wildlife beauty spot of the Upper Swift Valley.
This new application, along with bribes for the NIMBYs, will not only receive the same degree of local rejection on the same grounds as the earlier proposal was unanimously rejected but with the encroachment of an intense windfarm landscape in the last two years, there are even more planning reasons now for rejection.
There is no rational energy or economic reason in favour of these wind turbines that steal some 15% of everybody’s bills and stuff the subsidies into the pockets of speculators and rent-seeking landowners – 10% (33% by 2020) in green taxes plus a proportion of the new infra-structure cost of linking turbines to the grid.
How can it be right for companies to be paid twice to three times the going rate for electricity when they are damaging the environment and communities?
The alarmist propaganda in favour of wind turbines relies on the argument that they reduce the UK’s 2% of the world’s man-made CO2 emissions and thereby infinitesimally reduce global warming.
But actually the intermittency of wind makes it necessary to have fossil-fuel back-up spinning the whole time for the National Grid to maintain an even voltage; (electricity cannot be stored) therefore wind turbines don’t even save CO2 anyway. (also the scientists say that GW has not increased since 1997 – seventeen years of stand-still).
Mr Lorne Smith from ASWAR (Against Subsidised Windfarms Around Rugby) said:
“The community around Churchover/Cotesbach turned out in force to show their dislike at being victims of the windfarm scam for a second time. With each windfarm job in the UK being subsidised by £100,000 from our electricity bills, and 10 McAlpine/RES staff supporting their propaganda exhibition, there was £1 million of our money walking around Churchover today!”
It is surprising that anybody can support this energy policy that is making this nation globally uncompetitive, driving manufacturing jobs overseas and ordinary people into fuel poverty (a record number of people died from cold last winter), while attacking the asset values of innocent property owners and killing birds and bats (scientists say 900,000 bats are killed by wind turbines every year).
“Surprising”, indeed!
In the latter stages of 2015 – with the scale and scope the fraud laid bare for all to see – continuing ‘support’ for wind power can’t be explained by simple, seasoned ignorance. As Ben Franklin put it:
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid”.
Those that parade as ‘journalists’ – especially at wind-worship cult-compounds – like The Guardian, the BBC – and here at Fairfax and the ABC – they’re clearly working very hard; with obvious success.
But – despite long, sweaty sessions inside their editorial bunkers, aimed at ensuring the public remain blissfully ignorant, too – the FACTS keep bubbling to the surface.
Facts like the obvious impacts caused to health – like constant sleep deprivation – from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, that leads to homes being uninhabitable and, therefore, worthless:
Along with every other sensate being on the face of the Earth, the Poles have long-since had enough of being treated as wind industry “road-kill”, too. Hence, this promise made in April this year, by Presidential hopeful, Andrzej Duda:
“… if I am elected to be the President of Poland, I will propose a legislative initiative to introduce safe setbacks of wind parks from people’s dwellings…”
***
Andrzej Duda Candidate in the Polish Presidential Elections
Zabkowice Slaskie, 8 April 2015
Fellow Poles!
The recent weeks have brought many intense encounters with people across Poland in the context of this presidential campaign. There have also been numerous opportunities to discuss the maladies encountered by citizens and their everyday worries. It has become apparent that the siting of wind farm developments gives rise to frequent protests, which are heard in hundreds of municipalities in our country.
Poles complain that their voices are being ignored, and large wind turbines that are placed excessively close to dwellings not only ruin the landscape, but also cause a serious reduction in the value of their properties. Furthermore, they bring attention to numerous procedural irregularities. These were also identified by the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) in its July 2014 report. I am sorry to say that the governing coalition of the Civic Platform and Polish Peasants’ Party have successfully prevented, during the last several years, the adoption of measures intended to properly regulate the matter of where wind farms are located.
I do recognise the importance of the issues addressed here. Therefore, I declare that, if I am elected to be the President of Poland, I will propose a legislative initiative to introduce safe setbacks of wind parks from people’s dwellings, ban such developments in municipalities where no zoning plans are currently in place, and, most importantly, to ensure effective participation of society in ongoing administrative proceedings.
Setting out with a sensible policy, built on common sense and human compassion, Mr Duda was duly elected. No surprises there.
STT hears that hundreds of Australian rural communities are gearing up, too.
The Coalition’s LRET policy is designed by its instigator and head wind industry spruiker – young Gregory Hunt – to see another 2,500 of these things speared into thousands of backyards across the Country. Labor’s insane 50% RET would up the ante, by carpeting the best, most productive and densely populated regions with more than 10,000:
Given that our political betters are encumbered with ‘tin ears’ and ‘flat feet’, it’s now down to every man, woman and child to fight for what’s rightfully theirs: the ability to live, sleep in and otherwise comfortably use their very own homes.
Following almost 6 months of solid graft, 8 hearings in 4 States and the ACT, dozens of witnesses and almost 500 submissions, the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud delivered its ‘doorstop’ final report, which runs to some 350 pages – available here: Senate Report
Predictably, Labor’s dissenting report is filled with fantasy, fallacy and fiction – pumping up the ‘wonders’ of wind; completely ignoring the cost of the single greatest subsidy rort in the history of the Commonwealth; and treating the wind industry’s hundreds of unnecessary victims – of incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound – with the kind of malice, usually reserved for sworn and bitter foreign enemies.
And the wind industry’s stooge on the Inquiry, Anne Urquhart – is still out their fighting a faltering, rearguard action – long after the battle for wind power supremacy was lost – a bit like the tales of ragged, 80 year old Japanese soldiers that kept fighting the Imperial War, until they were dragged out of the jungle and into the 21st Century. Nevermind the facts, when delusion will do!
****
Among those Senators on the Committee – who pulled no punches in getting the truth out – were Liberal Senator from WA, Chris Back and STT Champion, Liberal Democratic Party Senator, David Leyonhjelm from NSW.
While the wind industry and its parasites have been praying to the Wind-Gods that the whole thing might just ‘blow over’, those Senators on the Inquiry – not in thrall of Infigen, Vestas & Co – are still in there fighting for a fair-go for rural communities, across the Country; and power consumers, everywhere.
Always pleased to disappoint the beleaguered and dwindling band of wind worshippers in this country, STT is delighted that Chris Back and David Leyonhjelm show no sign of letting up.
Here they are giving the wind industry another whipping in the Senate (video and Hansard transcript)..
****
****
THE SENATE PROOF COMMITTEES Wind Turbines Select Committee Report SPEECH Thursday, 13 August 2015
Senator BACK (Western Australia) (18:11): History will record that Senator Urquhart’s words will come back home to haunt her in the future, as indeed will many of those who have so derisively commented adversely on the outcomes of this report. Let me put on the record that I am very much in favour of aspects of renewable energy. I proudly ordered and had constructed the largest number of small-scale solar units, hot water systems—some 240—ever in Western Australia. I also had responsibility for the first wind turbine in Western Australia. It failed; in fact, the first four all failed. That is history.
I also want to place on the record my strong support for hydroelectricity in your state, Senator Urquhart, and in the Snowy Mountains. When you can generate in the high peak periods and when you can use off-peak periods to pump water back up to generate again the next time it is needed surely has to be the ultimate value of renewable energy. I do not think wind turbines are a renewable energy source.
I reflected on this driving back from Sydney on Sunday. I happened to be looking at the wind turbines just out of Canberra and thought to myself that I want to look at this in both environmental terms and economic terms. I said to myself, ‘What is the environmental benefit of wind turbines?’ Of course, the benefit would be greenhouse gases forgiven during the generation process. I said, ‘That’s good.’ So that is a positive benefit. What are the negatives? What do you have to take off that greenhouse gas forgiven? Firstly, you have to take off the massive cost of greenhouse gases, the carbon dioxide, used in the construction—the original iron ore, the steel, the transportation and the tens of thousands of tonnes of concrete that go into each of these.
The committee had evidence—and Senator Urquhart did not like it much—from Mr Hamish Cumming, whom I found to be a very credible witness, that about 16 years of the use of a wind turbine would be necessary before you would actually get back to the cost-benefit of the greenhouse gases forgiven as a result of the construction.
Secondly, what do you take off that greenhouse gas benefit?
You take off the cost of the baseload generated electricity, the carbon dioxide, required when you need coal, gas or whatever other form of baseload generation you need in reserve, because when the wind does not blow and the ship does not go you do need another form of baseload power. Then something that will have a profound effect on people who are hosting wind turbines—and local governments around this country—will be the environmental cost of decommissioning these wind turbines at the end. So I suspect there is very little, if any, actual environmental benefit.
I then looked at economic benefits. The benefit from wind turbines would be the value of the power generated, but from that what do you deduct? You have got to deduct the huge costs of the renewable energy certificates that are quaintly absorbed and the burden on consumers. Funnily enough, consumers are also taxpayers—isn’t that amazing? This is not a tax, the renewable energy certificate; it is a ‘cost to the consumer’.
Somehow or other I do not think they are different people. Again, in an equation you must take away the dollar value of the baseload power that is sitting there doing nothing in case the wind blows or does not blow. In the future I hope we see effective, valuable battery storage. Whether we do or not, nevertheless it still comes at a cost. If you want to look at the economic benefits of these wind turbines, then it is one of the costs. And again you have the dollar value of the decommissioning process.
I admire that Senator Urquhart and indeed, in Cairns, Deputy President Senator Marshall attended each one of the hearings. That is to their credit. I have got to say that unfortunately the Greens political party—despite the fact that Senator Siewert chaired the inquiry in 2009—chose not to participate at all in this inquiry. I do not think that is to their credit.
Senator Urquhart mentioned the Canadian study, which has been put out there as a very credible study—until you get some advice from other credible Canadian scientists, who told us that when the data was collated, this mass of Canadian data, they just happened to reject, with no reasons given, the majority of the data that was captured and collated. They decided to ignore it—no reasons given.
The other interesting thing is that they also decided to eliminate all people under the age of 18 and older than 79 years. No reason was given; they just dropped them off. Under 18 and over 79—they do not count. In the days when I was around as a scientist if without explanation somebody were to produce international results and ask for them to be credited I would expect them to give some explanation as to why they would wipe out a significant proportion of the population and indeed a significant amount of the dataset.
Our dear friend Professor Chapman speaks of the nocebo effect. This is the effect that you think you are going to get sick from wind turbines, or you think you are going to get sick going out in a boat, so you do. Initially Professor Chapman would always say, ‘I’ve never ever heard of a host who, if he or she is making money out of these, got sick.’
The first ones, unfortunately for dear old Professor Chapman, were Mr and Mrs Mortimer. Mr Mortimer is a retired naval officer whose sphere of influence happened to be the movement of waves through solids, liquids and gases, so he knew a little bit about this. Mortimer was the first person to stand up and say, ‘Despite the fact that the income we are getting from these couple of turbines is enormously important to our retirement income, we can’t live on our farm.’ Funnily enough, they could not see the turbines but they knew when they were on. When they went away from their home for a week or so, strangely enough the nocebo effect seemed to disappear.
The other interesting case was that of a Mr and Mrs Gare, who appeared before us in Adelaide. Mr and Mrs Gare make $200,000 a year from hosting wind turbines. Mr and Mrs Gare said to us, ‘If we could have our time over again, if we could get rid of these wind turbines and get rid of the $200,000 so that we could go back to living on our farm and working on our farm, we would do it tomorrow.’ I do not know where the nocebo effect came in there, Professor Chapman.
In the time available left to me, all I will do is ask this question. I ask it of Senator Urquhart and I ask it of others who spoke before us. Why do these people carry on the way they do?
The case down at Cape Bridgewater—five generations of the family have lived on their farm, so what is in it for them to walk away from their community? People say that they are not really sick at all, that it is just in their heads. It is in their heads. You are quite right. Nausea, anxiety, annoyance and sleeplessness are sure as hell in your head. The question is: why would that family walk away? Why would their children not be able to go to school? Do they get compensation like in the old RSI days? No, they do not; there is no compensation out there. There is no hope of any reward for carrying on like this. They lose their friends in their communities. We know that in many rural communities it tears communities apart.
I have said before in this place that we have circumstances now in my home state of Western Australia where bushfire brigade members do not turn out if there happens to be a fire on the farm of someone they are opposed to on this. CWA members—and they are the two pillars of rural communities: bushfire brigades and CWAs. People are not going. They are not shopping in the towns. Why is that? Is it that they all of a sudden woke up one day and, as Senator Urquhart said, they are not sick at all?
The value of their properties—we learnt all over Australia that their properties are effectively worthless. They have not just gone down significantly. People who moved into the Barossa Valley for their change of lifestyle, the tree change, are now in a situation where they have had to walk away. So what is in it for them? Generally there has got to be a motivator if you are going to change your whole lifestyle, if you are going to walk away from your friends—you bet your life. Do not worry about Senator Urquhart going on about English speaking—Germany, Finland. Why did the Prime Minister of the UK go into the election saying he is going to stop subsidising on-land turbines and win the election? There is a long way to go in this story. I assure you it is not finished.
***
***
Senator Leyonhjelm (New South Wales) (18:21): Today I take the opportunity to inform the Senate about the final report of the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines, as the previous two speakers have done, and why I moved to establish the inquiry. I wish to highlight three critical inquiry findings. First, there is no dispute that wind turbines emit infrasound; second, since 2009 the federal government has known and reported that inappropriate levels of infrasound cause adverse health impacts, whatever the source; and, third, wind farm guidelines and regulations do not require the measurement or restraint of infrasound levels.
As a distant observer of the debate on wind farms, I came to the inquiry with an open mind. I was opposed to the subsidies, but otherwise had no firm views. What prompted me to establish an inquiry was a meeting in my electorate office with half a dozen people from various rural communities. These were ordinary, down-to-earth people, people you would be pleased to have as neighbours. What became apparent was that something was terribly wrong with the planning and regulatory regime governing wind farms. I listened to their concerns with a growing sense of unease as they documented a litany of failures by government and the wind industry to address, or even acknowledge, what seemed like genuine issues.
I read the reports and the recommendations from the 2011 and 2012 Senate inquiries into wind farms and excessive sound, and noted that these all-party inquiries had recommended health and acoustical studies be undertaken as a priority.
At the time of the 2011 inquiry report, the Clean Energy Council welcomed these recommendations for medical research. But these recommendations were never acted upon, either by the Gillard government or the National Health and Medical Research Council, at least not prior to the establishment of the select committee.
The NHMRC only undertook backward looking literature reviews. They failed to commission research into the claimed link between wind turbine sound emissions and adverse health impacts. The NHMRC is the primary oversight body for medical research. Planning and health ministers, local councils, local GPs, the media and the wind industry all look for authoritative guidance from the NHMRC when responding to those complaining of being affected. The fact is that the NHMRC has been sitting on this issue for the best part of a decade. This has led to unnecessary anguish for many affected residents.
During the course of the inquiry, the NHMRC announced the first research grants to study wind farm sound emissions. Their grants are for a total of $2.5 million over five years. This is almost certainly entirely inadequate.
In evidence, acoustician Dr Bob Thorne noted this amount ‘would barely scratch the surface’. In fact, the NHMRC behaviour could be summarised as follows: ignore the problem as long as you can, equivocate when asked for guidance, and then grudgingly allocate a paltry sum stretched over five years to almost guarantee a non-result.
The inquiry report noted that ‘senior public health figures have also recognised that the quality of research of the NHMRC’s systemic review was sub-optimal’. In evidence, prominent New Zealand pyschoacoustician Dr Daniel Shepherd stated how surprised he was at how politicised the conduct of the NHMRC had been, to the point where health and medicine had been sidelined.
The wind industry also relies on the Australian Medical Association, the AMA. The committee found the AMA’s position statement lacked rigour. It described the AMA actions as ‘irresponsible and harmful’, and noted that the AMA ‘received pointed criticism’ for its position. Speaking for myself, I do not understand why the doctors’ union should be taken more seriously than any other union. They are not experts in anything.
One of the stand-out contributions to the inquiry was the evidence by acoustician Steven Cooper about his study of the Cape Bridgewater wind farm, commissioned by developer Pacific Hydro.
This was the first time a wind farm operator had cooperated in this type of study by providing wind speed data and allowing the stop and start of wind turbines. Cooper’s study demonstrated a correlation between certain phases of wind turbine operation and impacts felt by residents—some severe. His work was hailed as ground breaking by prominent acousticians from around the world.
Cooper’s report provides a platform from which health professionals can launch further research to determine definitively whether there is a causal link between turbine operations and adverse health impacts. This is a game-changer in providing researchers with an informed place to start their research. But it requires other wind turbine operators to cooperate, as Pacific Hydro did, and release their operating data. That indeed was the reason for the recommendations in the interim and final reports.
The inquiry heard many truly distressing stories of people driven from their homes by sound emitted from wind turbines. Residents told how, when they could take no more and left their homes for respite, they would recover, but when they returned, if the turbines were operating, they again suffered adverse impacts.
The inquiry heard from turbine hosts who receive $200,000 a year in rent and regret they ever agreed to host turbines. Senator Back has just referred to them. These people were previously enthusiastic supporters of wind power generation, but now would not live within 20 kilometres of a wind farm. It beggars belief that people who were so supportive of wind power and so financially rewarded now oppose the establishment of wind farms too close to residences, unless they suffer real rather than imagined effects on their lives.
Committee senators witnessed firsthand the callous indifference of some wind farm operators and their cheerleaders, who ridiculed and denigrated those who they described as ‘nutty anti-wind activists’. Wind farm operators argued that if they conformed to regulations, shown to be manifestly inadequate in protecting residents, they owed no further duty of care. This is eerily similar to evidence many years ago from tobacco companies, and I suspect the same fate awaits them.
The planning and regulatory governance for wind farms in every state was also shown to be shambolic, incompetent and not fit for purpose. The Victorian government cannot decide who should give approval for wind farms and who should monitor ongoing compliance. In the last few years this has gone from controlling at a state level to devolving it to local councils, and now the state government is taking back the approval stage while leaving compliance with councils.
Councillors and council officers gave evidence of incompetent state regulators providing little technical assistance to poorly resourced local councils which were responsible for assessing and approving billion dollar wind projects. Ongoing compliance monitoring costs tens of thousands of dollars, and this needs to be funded by ratepayers in financially strapped rural shires.
This inquiry report—the third in the last five years—is the most comprehensive in its recommendations and addresses the festering issues arising from the abject failure of the states to provide an appropriate planning and governance regime.
The states are rightly responsible for these matters, but the federal government, through the Renewable Energy Target and the large subsidies available to turbine operators, has driven the growth of the wind industry. If state governments choose not to have a robust governance regime for the wind industry they must expect to forgo the benefits of those subsidies flowing to their state, as per the recommendations of this inquiry.
I commend the inquiry report to the Senate, and urge the government to bring an end to this long, sorry saga by adopting the report’s recommendations. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Hansard, 13 August 2015
****
For more background on some of the topics canvassed above tap into the following:
In two well-drawn pieces, Jamin Hübner throws light on the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time. His insight and clarity of expression are notable; and so is his particular focus on the fact that the massive and endless subsidies being thrown at wind power outfits (to make ‘possible’, the otherwise impossible) has the insidious and unjustified result of destroying the value of neighbours’ properties; or as Jamin puts it – “wind energy is one of the most efficient ways of depreciating land“.
Some might call it ‘appropriation by stealth’, we call it ‘state-sponsored theft’.
Wind farms the worst idea since Cash for Clunkers
The Daily Republic
Jamin Hübner
29 April 2015
Remember Cash for Clunkers? That 2009 government program that spent $6 billion to save $1 billion? Imagine walking up to a person and saying, “I want to save some money; I’ll give you six dollars if you give me one dollar back.” Genius. Leave it to Congress to devise (and enact) such brilliance.
There are dozens of government programs like these — all failures. The reason why is easy to understand: the government has no money of its own. It can only take from others and “give” some of it back. A full return is impossible, since this process of organized theft costs money itself. The end result is a net loss — regardless of how many jobs were temporarily created.
Wind farms is another such program. I didn’t realize this at first when witnessing their construction near Tripp (and soon to be Bon Homme County, where I was raised).
I used to think wind farms were about electricity … until I realized:
Few, if any, wind farms bring electricity to an area that does not already have it. It’s too much work and money to build an entire electrical grid from the ground up. Wind energy is “supplemental,” not essential.
Wind farms are subsidized by the government precisely because they generate a loss. Wind farms have to be paid to operate. People, uncoerced and unbribed, do not want wind farms because if they did, they would build them on their own like any other product in the free market.
Wind farms function as a tax deduction for the wealthy — which is why they are built in the first place. Warren Buffett says it best: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate … on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” Exactly. Wind energy is a siphoning mechanism that offsets taxes and puts federal money into political and corporate pockets. Electricity and lease-agreement royalties are only a byproduct (and a great public cover). Proof of this is that wind farm production nearly stops every time the production credit gets suspended or canceled by Congress.
I use to think wind farms were “green energy” … until I realized:
Hundreds of thousands of birds (and even more bats) die each year from wind turbines.
At 450 to 500 feet tall, wind farms are a pilot’s nightmare (recall the death of four air passengers near Highmore last year). Crop dusting has now become a risky and complicated agricultural venture.
Wind turbines are made of heavy gauge metal and concrete — transported across the nation with the heaviest gas-guzzlers of machinery. While not as bad as Al Gore’s private jet, the carbon footprint is anything but green.
Local soils are depleted because of underground vibrations, audible and inaudible low-frequency noise (“infrasound”) and electromagnetic radiation from power cables that drive away earthworms and other local organisms, the same way loud marine motors drive away fish.
Wind energy cannot be stored (e.g., batteries) and can only harness wind speeds within a tight range.
Chances are, there will be no incentive to remove the turbines once the temporary government funds disappear. Massive steel towers rusting over decades in agricultural fields are not very “green.”
I used to think wind farms supported local energy … until I realized:
A substantial percentage of wind farms are owned by overseas investors/corporations. This is not evident until the initial developers literally “sell the farm” after having built it.
Wind turbines are typically not built by local construction workers and materials.
Because of noise, adverse health effects (e.g., loss of sleep), visual pollution (bright red lights at night and shadow-flicker during mornings/evenings) and all other related liabilities (e.g., shoddy 30- and 65-year wind right contracts), wind energy is one of the most efficient ways of depreciating land.
Small communities are divided, not united, over wind farm projects. One only has to read the Avon Clarion editorials for March and April to witness such intensity and strife. This isn’t to mention the deceptive methods of obtaining wind rights (wind developers put snake-oil salesmen to shame).
At the end of the day, it is not politics or science that determine how wind farms should develop. It is the right to private property. If some people don’t care about the noise, shadows and flashing lights, no problem. But for those who do, they should be justly compensated to the extent that their rights are violated. As Supreme Court Justice Andrew Napolitano observed in “It’s Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong,” “If you lived in a very crowded area, would the government be justified in preventing you from blaring extraordinarily loud music at midnight, or at least requiring you to pay “damages” to your neighbors for doing so?
“Certainly, by playing obnoxious music, you are diminishing your neighbors’ natural right to the use and enjoyment of their property. And over time, if you were habitually noisy, then most likely would decrease the market value of their property. Thus, although the government could not criminalize this kind of expression, it would be more than justified in making it actionable, or in other words, the basis for lawsuit.” The Daily Republic
***
Let’s talk about money and wind farms
The Daily Republic
Jamin Hübner
14 August 2015
On April 29, The Daily Republic published my column, “Wind Farms: The Worst Idea Since Cash for Clunkers.” Since then, there have been several local responses to both my article and to criticism of wind energy in general. Allow me to briefly focus on two items.
I reminded readers that (all things considered) government programs cost greater than what such programs “produce.” Subsidies equal (inherently inefficient) income redistribution. The government cannot “pull a rabbit out of a hat.” In a May 14 column for The Daily Republic, Anthony Rezac essentially reached into a hat and proclaimed, “oh yes it can.” I will leave him to that imaginary world.
By June 8, the CEO of American Wind Association finished crafting a remarkably misleading piece of political prose for the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Like Rezac and others, the majority of anti-wind concerns were casually dismissed while strings of dollar bills were lowered into readers’ faces and swung repeatedly (perhaps this would silence the critics). But, no—no fires were put out, and I might suggest that waving a dismissive hand at South Dakotans as if they were too gullible to care is not a particularly good strategy.
So, since all that pro-wind advocates seem capable of consistently conversing about is money, let’s talk about money and wind farms.
First, to repeat, wind farms have to be subsidized because they generate such a huge financial loss, and no one in the free market is silly enough to build them from their own resources. In Buffett’s words, “they don’t make sense without the tax credit.” It is precisely because of this monetary loss that pro-wind advocates have to resign to exaggerated estimates, numerical figures, and macro-level statistics (absent of micro-level realities) in the first place. They are on the defensive for good reasons.
Second, by comparison, wind energy is the most financially wasteful government-sponsored energy program in existence. This was ably demonstrated in a 2010 study conducted by Simmons et. al. for Utah State University. One key finding was, “In 2010 the wind energy sector received 42 percent of total federal subsidies while producing only 2 percent of the nation’s total electricity. By comparison, coal receives 10 percent of all subsidies and generates 45 percent and nuclear is about even at about 20 percent.”
These figures have not significantly improved today. And yet we are supposed to believe Tom Kiernan’s claim that wind energy will soon “compete” with other sources of energy? Like a tricycle in Nascar.
Third, claiming American wind energy helps the American economy by being distinctively “local” is absurd. Between 75-90 percent of wind farms are owned by foreign corporations/investors, and more than 60 percent of wind turbines are manufactured by foreign companies, according to Choma. American wind energy is as American as a pair of shoes labeled “Made in China.”
Fourth, property owners who have sold their wind rights may never earn their royalties fast enough to cover the loss in property values from owning them. In other words, those who are supposed to be making millions, don’t. (You can find this out yourself simply by asking around.) None of the financial figures produced by the AWA or — to my knowledge, by any pro-wind advocate — takes into full account this central negative factor: depreciation of land. This is significant not only because of the amount of depreciation for land near and under wind farms (which is high), but because of the ever-increasing value of land (amplifying the losses).
More than a half-dozen independent studies conducted by appraisers and university-sponsored groups in the last decade found a 15-59 percent decrease in property values on or near wind farms (see McCann Appraisal LLC, summaries). (Predictably, pro-wind studies creatively generate data with lower estimates).
Combined with 30-40 percent income tax on earnings from wind royalties, shoddy contracts often not inflation-adjusted and dependent on Washington’s empty wallet (and irrational politics), certain land-owners with wind farms ultimately earn pennies instead of millions over the long haul. (This is what you won’t hear when signing a 30- or 60-year contract.) Even for the lucky few in better situations, the profits still don’t add up to the glorious estimates because of these losses.
Fifth, because of this liability, investors will go elsewhere to invest their money (as will families in local communities). Few want to live on or near a wind farm, and no investor wants to invest in land that has any potential for significant depreciation. (And this is true whether land actually depreciates or not; ambiguity is enough to stop investors).
Sixth, as mentioned above, wind-farm developers’ numbers (whether royalty estimates, long term sales, “bringing money to the community,” etc.) are so out of touch with reality that it’s hard to even keep a straight face. Speaking of, Kiernan in his article even claims wind energy will contribute to the prevention of “a total of 22,000 premature deaths by mid-century” via cleaner air. What’s next? The vibration from turbines will cure constipation? Happy day, Farmer Joe.
Space does not allow for seventh, eighth, etc. But, wind energy advocates should at least pause before mindlessly regurgitating monetary figures in public and proclaiming everyone a financial winner with wind farms. Nothing is free, and the monstrous costs of wind energy are coming to the light year after year. The Daily Republic
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 