A free-market energy blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

New York’s (Agenda 21) “Sustainability” Planning: What About Wind Power’s Ecological Insults

“The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant program is also a step in implementing ‘Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development,’ signed by the United States at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. All of these programs require broad community participation to identify and address environmental issues.”

- Environmental Protection Agency, 63 Fed. Reg. 45157 (August 24, 1998).

On January 26, 2012, I attended the final meeting in Batavia, NY, for the Finger Lakes “Regional ‘Sustainability’ Plan,” part of New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s $10 million statewide program to have regional Planning Departments orchestrate “sustainability” plans described in NYSERDA’s “Cleaner, Greener Communities” Program. Here is my take on what is going on in regard to this extensive plan across New York State.

As those who have studied the United Nations’s ‘Agenda 21′ plan know, “Sustainability” is a key buzzword that is part-and-parcel of the UN’s ‘Agenda 21′. There is no doubt that the “Sustainability” Plan currently being devised by Planning Departments across the state, who are acting “under NYSERDA’s thumb” (as one Planner phrased it at their first meeting in Batavia), is ‘Agenda 21′ in the works (think carbon taxes, ‘green’ energy transfer-of-wealth schemes, and one-world governance).

At the “open-house style” meeting in Batavia last week, folks were asked to read the poster boards relevant to each part of the overall plan: Land Use, Water Use, Agriculture, Forestry, Waste Management, Economic Development, and Energy — and to then use sticky notes to post their comments on the boards for each particular segment of the plan.

“Planning” is Theirs, Not Ours

Free-market economists sharply differentiate between central government planning and decentralized market planning (see Hayek appendix below). So while many see little wrong with developing an overall plan, remember that their coercion crowds out your own planning. And while different aspects of the extensive plans look good at first glance, the devil is in the details.

The fact that NYSERDA is the bureaucracy over-seeing this process is the tell-tale warning sign, as the development of renewable energy across the state and ways to regulate carbon emissions is the overarching goal in each area of the plan.

This should leave everyone very wary about the remaining $90 million — that came from the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) ratepayer dollars, that will be offered as ‘grants’ (the proverbial ‘carrots’ used to lead the sheep) to guide our communities into “compliance” with the overall underlying agenda – that of ‘Agenda 21′.

Who knows where the money will come from for Governor Cuomo’s proposed billion-dollar “Green Bank”, and $1.5 Billion dollar Solar fund?  Remember when Obama said there were other ways to skin the cat than cap-and-trade?

One of the biggest warning flags I noted last evening (besides the ‘green’ energy push and carbon regulation goals) was on the chart regarding ‘Land Use’. I noted one line that said, “Home Rule” interferes with inter-municipal cooperation…” The obvious subliminal message here is that “Home Rule” is a bad thing.

Our municipalities’ long-held, Constitutionalright to “Home Rule” is being progressively undermined in this whole process of State-led planning. We are unwittingly, slowly and methodically giving over total control to unelected bureaucrats and planners who are devising these “green”, “sustainability” plans — which are part and parcel of ‘Agenda 21′ (which many officials and bureaucrats say they still know nothing about).

Planners Lack Expertise

The sad reality is that most of these planners are not at all educated about energy and power. As I was getting ready to leave the meeting, one of the FL Planners asked me what I had thought of the display.

I told him straight out that the obvious push for “unreliables”  (aka ‘renewables’) like wind is a complete waste of our tax- and rate-payer dollars. I told him that while I am certainly all for scientifically-vetted, economically-sound energy-innovation, industrial wind was the biggest scam to ever come down the pike. Not surprisingly, he did not like my response.

Sadly, he responded with the decades-old propaganda line, “Well, we have to do something. Oil is responsible for so much of our pollution.”

I responded, “I’m not talking about oil – which is used for transportation. I’m talking about unreliable wind power – which is used for electricity!”

He tried to argue that eventually we would end up going to all electric vehicles. I just laughed, and said, “Sir, I’m afraid you’ve drank the Kool-Aid! I couldn’t even make it home and back in an electric car.”

Thankfully, a local guy who does get it, stepped in and said that even if electric vehicles became more prevalent, they could never be used to do the kind of heavy work required on our farms.

As our conversation proceeded, we had the attention of the entire small crowd that was in the room – which played out great, as the facts totally destroyed this planner’s entire argument.

Not one of the five planners who were there knew what Capacity Value was, nor that wind provided virtually NONE. I told him that wind is not the future, and in all actuality, there is a direct correlation between RELIABLE, AFFORDABLE power, and increased health and longevity in this country, which he could verify by doing a little research.

Some Reading

I ended up leaving a copy of John Etherington’s The Wind Farm Scam: An Ecologist’s Evaluation and Robert Bryce’s Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future with one of the head planners there.

Hopefully, they will actually read them and reverse course for New York State to cut its budget and environmentally gain at the same time. As it is now, the energy-illiterate planners who are guiding the development of [UN-initiated] “Sustainability Plans” in New York State (Governor Andrew Cuomo and his cohorts at NYSERDA) are not basing their decisions on sound science, but on politics surrounding the UN’s “New World” religion of “Environmentalism.”

As stated by Paul Driessen:

Climate alarmism and pseudo science have justified all manner of regulations, carbon trading, carbon taxes, renewable energy programs and other initiatives that increase the cost of everything we make, grow, ship, eat, heat, cool, wear and do – and thus impair job creation, economic growth, living standards, health, welfare and ecological values.

Whether it be “Sustainability Plans” in New York State, or Timbuktu, there is nothing at all that is “sustainable” about any of this.

 

Appendix: Hayek on Planning

The free-market economist F. A. Hayek differentiated between central government planning and decentralized market planning throughout his long career. This passage from Hayek’s Road to Serfdom (1944: pp. 34–35) elucidates this distinction, which should be kept in mind with programs such as Agenda 21.

‘Planning’ owes its popularity largely to the fact that everybody desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems as rationally as possible and that, in so doing, we should use as much foresight as we can command.

In this sense everybody who is not a complete fatalist is a planner, every political act is (or ought to be) an act of planning, and there can be differences only between good and bad, between wise and foresighted and foolish and shortsighted planning.

An economist, whose whole task is the study of how men actually do and how they might plan their affairs, is the last person who could object to planning in the general sense. But it is not in this sense that our enthusiasts for a planned society now employ this term, nor merely in this sense that we must plan if we want the distribution of income or wealth to conform to some particular standard.

According to the modern planners, and for their purposes, it is not sufficient to design the most rational permanent framework within which to the various activities would be conducted by different persons according to their individual plans. This [free-market] liberal plan, according to them, is no plan — and it is indeed, not a plan designed to satisfy particular views about who should have what.

What our planners demand is a central direction of all economic activity according to a single plan [my emphasis], laying down how the resources of society should be ‘consciously directed’ to serve particular ends in a definite way [my emphasis].

The dispute between the modern planners and their opponents is, therefore, not a dispute on whether we ought to choose intelligently between the various possible organizations of society; it is not a dispute on whether we ought to employ foresight and systematic thinking in planning our common affairs.

It is a dispute about what is the best way of so doing. The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine himself in general to creating conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully; or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires central direction and organization of all our activities according some consciously constructed ‘blueprint‘ [my emphasis].

The socialists of all parties have appropriated the term ‘planning’ for planning of the latter type, and it is now generally accepted in this sense. But though this is meant to suggest that this is the only rational way of handling our affairs, it does not, of course, prove this. It remains the point on which the planners and the liberals disagree. 1

[1]  Hayek was a classical liberal, or an advocate of change away from statism. He used the term “liberal” as in libertarian, not in the sense of what today in America is called Liberalism or progressivism.

21 comments

1 Ian_UK { 03.05.13 at 4:36 am }

“Our municipalities’ long-held, Constitutional-right to “Home Rule” is being progressively undermined in this whole process of State-led planning. We are unwittingly, slowly and methodically giving over total control to unelected bureaucrats and planners who are devising these “green”, “sustainability” plans — which are part and parcel of ‘Agenda 21? (which many officials and bureaucrats say they still know nothing about).”

Welcome to the European Union!

2 Gary Abraham { 03.05.13 at 12:36 pm }

While I have much sympathy for much of your take on “sustainability” planning, it seems a fair take on your own position is that the manner in which renewable energy has been promoted by government agencies in New York and elsewhere should be faulted primarily for its lack of planning and foresight.

3 Paddy { 03.05.13 at 2:49 pm }

Pay attention NY planners! Germany’s wind power is missing in action:
Germany’s Wind Performance Was Just As Bad As Great Britain’s – Sun And Wind Are Often AWOL!

4 Paddy { 03.05.13 at 2:52 pm }
5 Charles Battig { 03.05.13 at 3:04 pm }

Mary,

Your interaction with your local planners indicates to me that they all attended the same APA webinars and have been AG21 indoctrinated, whether they realize it or not. The following attachment of my own “3 minute” public presentation to our Albemarle County, VA reflects the planners’ urge to control…others. The lack of any cost-benefit analysis by planners is a constant.

“Members of the City/County Planning Commissions Dec. 4, 2012:
Please consider these comments regarding the “One Community”
memorandum being presented to you this evening.
Under “Context and Meeting Purpose” reference is made to consideration of public input, questionnaire, and community outreach projects, yet there is no mention of the two top priorities in one of the questionnaire results, namely, #1 Protect Private Property Rights, and #2 Decrease Regulation. They appear to have been edited out of this memorandum, along with any consideration of costs and cost effectiveness for the various “visions.”
One page two, reference is again made to “gathering feedback from thepublic.” Based at my attendance at several of these feedback meetings, I note that they are attended by a miniscule number of people. The question is what is done with this feedback, especially if it does not conform to the pre-set planning vision? One may look upon these “public outreach efforts” in practice as a perfunctory fulfilling of the contractual terms of the HUD grant, but a charade in fact. The implementation of the 1998 Sustainability Accords was the contractual basis for this HUD grant, and this memorandum has been produced to deliver the goods.
Under “Environment,” page two, the term “green neighborhoods” is used without any definition. At one of the Livability workshops I asked Mr. S. Williams for a definition in the context of this document; he could not provide it, yet this document continues to use this meaningless term. The term, “sustainable natural resources,” is also undefined and meaningless in this document.
Under “Housing,” page three, reference is made to ensuring an “appropriate range of housing choices.” Please define “appropriate.”
Under “Land Use” page three, “allow residents to live, work, and play in close proximity.” What if residents just rather not live and play “in close proximity”?
Under “Transportation” page three “expand transit network.” How far and at what cost-benefit limitations?
-2-
Under “Housing” page four, “Maximize open space in the County by
promoting optimal density in the City.” By your actions 95% of the County is basically open space. Who of you knows the “optimal density in the City”? How did you determine it? An American Planning Association paper concludes that increase density results in no environmental savings but does result in increased pollution and housing costs.
Under “Housing,” “increase…affordable housing units in the City and
County” but no mention of how is offered. Consider that your zoning
regulations almost invariably increase housing costs and thereby make them less “affordable” in the process. The more you zone and
micromanage, the less affordable is the resultant housing product, leading to this perpetual demand for more affordable housing. Encouraging new businesses of all sorts could provide an income level which might increasehousing “affordability.”
Under “Joint Environmental Goals,” page seven, Air Quality: “reduce
emissions that affect air quality,” but to which ones to what level; is there a problem? “Restore riparian and stream ecosystems,” restore them to what standard or past condition?
Under “Vegetation and Biodiversity,” “replenish urban tree canopy.” This is a great idea until a100 foot tree comes crashing down through your roof or takes down power lines in the next storm., especially in the City.
Under “Energy Efficiency and Conservation,” page eight, my nomination for the governmental gobbledygook prize: “ensure the viability of local agriculture through cooperative techniques and incentives that provide incentives for urban development and that promote agricultural and ruralresource protection.”
There is much more…
Thank you,
Charles Battig
Albemarle County”

6 mkbarton { 03.05.13 at 3:49 pm }

Mr. Abraham – You say, “it seems a fair take on my own position is that the manner in which renewable energy has been promoted by NY and elsewhere should be faulted primarily for its lack of planning and foresight?”

No sir, you are wrong about that. I never said that.

I have always maintained that industrial wind power is a complete waste of our money — The only “planning” that should be going on surrounding the deployment of industrial wind power off the back’s of taxpayers and ratepayers is — What trash can we throw this horrible idea into the fastest?!?!

I have always maintained that the main problem surrounding the deployment of renewables (specifically: wind) in New York State and elsewhere, is that energy-illiterate politicians and bureaucrats (who have either been hoodwinked and/or bought off ) shouldn’t be picking and choosing the winners and losers in the energy marketplace in the first place.

7 Steven { 03.06.13 at 8:52 am }

Agenda 21 is a much more ominous.

UN commissioned scientists (IPCC) and NASA have declared a global emergency…terminal Climate Change caused by humans. Over-population is the cause. The vehicle to solve it is Agenda 21.

The bottom line: Its “sustainability” basic theme relies on the CO2 Climate Change argument. Even if CO2 emissions fall to zero the plague upon the Earth will remain: you and me.

The UN Global Biodiversity Assessment Report calls for a population reduction to 1 billion people. (if de-industrialized (pre-1765), 4-5 billion allowed). http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/Unsustainables_UN_Global

It clearly states: “Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere.”

Population reaches 10.8 billion by 2050. To feed it, food production must double. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

CO2 must drop to zero now to keep PPMs below 450 and keep average temperature from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius. (Bigger threat is methane release.) But to feed so many, CO2 would drastically rise, not fall. Thus, we must depopulate by 5-6 billion. The iron fist of communism is needed to make it work. See these official links: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_archive/2011wess.pdf

NASA/Population “change” and energy use emergency. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29293171

UN Agenda 21 “sustainability” means you and I are not “sustainable”.

Good luck, Comrades.

8 Gary Abraham { 03.06.13 at 4:51 pm }

Ms. Barton– I appreciate your reply and understand the reasons you want to write off wind.

However, for me wind’s shortcomings are primarily siting problems, and planning problems. Had legislators and agencies promoting wind made the effort to plan (DOE didn’t built its own wind turbine to assess efficiency, noise emissions, etc. until very recently), they would not now be locked into problematic decisions about transmission infrastructure, and who will pay. They also would not have provided blanket incentives for industrial wind without regard to potential impacts on host communities and local ecology. Nor would they be stuck with integration problems had they considered energy storage needs to meaningfully utilize wind. Today storage solutions seem a long way away, but wind incentives keep coming.

I would not deny that wind farms sited where adverse impacts can be avoided, with cost-effective utilization issues resolved, could displace a meaningful amount of greenhouse gas and other harmful emissions. How much it remains very difficult to say, since of all the white papers industry and the federal government have issued on renewables, none exists showing how to reliably estimate the potential for emissions displacement from conventional energy generation. The way it has worked out, because the cart was put before the horse, that remains a dream at least two generations away, and probably much farther away.

Thus the absence of planning is a powerful criticism of industrial wind, and should put the burden on its boosters to prove its benefits, instead of on people like you and me who don’t think its anywhere near achieving the benefits its sponsors claim. We both think wind is a waste of our money at this time. But I would not go so far as you to say government should not be picking winners and losers. That has always been a central function of government.

Unless one believes that truly free market can do the choosing (not even Adam Smith would have agreed with that; he warned against the concentration of capital that tends to result from free markets), the better question is what are the ideological and policy goals behind the principles used for defining a winner and a loser.

9 Mary Kay Barton { 03.06.13 at 5:47 pm }

Mr. Abraham,

The only way you could “plan” for something that does not work is to lie. And that’s exactly what the wind industry and their supporters do.

See Oxymoronic Wind Power, by Jon Boone, at: http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/wind-howlers-part-i/

Though his 3/4 WSJ article was about natural gas exports, Bennett Johnston had a different take on what Adam Smith would have said about the issue: “… Allow the free market to allocate the nation’s newfound energy bounty.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478304578329952822121118.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

10 Jon Boone { 03.06.13 at 6:30 pm }

This responds to Gary Abraham’s comment. New York government’s campaign on behalf of wind technology is little more than an exercise in “legalized “bunco. The central authority continues to strong arm the locals as if they were yokels in a manner that Al Capp once so famously lampooned in his comic strip, Lil’ Abner. In particular, it reminds of the way Senator Jack S. Phogbound attempted to raise revenues for the town of Dogpatch by selling it to the Feds, then evacuating its residents so that the place could be used as a nuclear testing site.

Senator Phogbound’s proposition at least had the merit of providing a useful, if bizarre, function. The current New York government push for wind promises much, delivers only dysfunction, and leaves the local communities much the worse for wear. Meshing a highly fluctuating, largely unpredictable and uncontrollable machine like wind with the polar opposite characteristics of conventionally fueled machines will always bring about increasingly proportional inefficiencies in the latter equipment, making the whole meshed operation less productive–and more expensive.

There is a classic New Yorker cartoon that conveys this idea nicely. A short order cook at a greasy spoon wearing a wind turbine cap plugged into various appliances tells his customer: ” I cook everything with an alternate energy source, so it may take awhile.”

The cartoon neatly explains wind’s limitations by capturing the dynamic interplay among energy (the ability to do work), power (the rate at which work gets done), productivity (the amount of work actually done), and routine contemporary expectations of service (where power is achieved via controllable demand according to one’s schedule), in the process exposing wind for the goofy character it really is. With wind “power,” any customer could wait until the proverbial cows come home….
I gave a speech in New York that concluded:

[This (the wind mess) represents] “dystopia, a nightmare, and not effective energy policy. How could this happen?

“Recall the song Razzle Dazzle from the movie, Chicago. Were you given a “splendiferous” show, blinded by sequins of blandishment, dazed and dizzied by the “Big Bambooz-a-ler?” This is such beautiful (state), historically tended with pride by people who enjoy rural community and are bonded by a love of natural beauty. That you would allow corporate hucksters to foul your nest, exploiting your desire to improve the environment while seeking your approval to wreck it, should not be a casual thing to do. You should not confuse the trappings of science—the engineering grandeur of a huge wind turbine, for example—with the real work of science, which would skeptically insist upon verifying the machine’s performance.

“The politicalization of electricity production, which is what is happening here, corrupts any reasonable sense of enlightened public policy, driven as it is by propagandized sloganeering and a press that much of the time couldn’t hit water with an accurate story if it fell out of a boat. New York State’s Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), the politically correct renewable energy oversight group within the state’s PSC, has become one of those grotesque bureaucracies that exist to justify its existence, generating gratuitous inaccuracies about the potential for wind energy in much the same way Cinderella’s step sisters connived to make that damned slipper fit their outsized feet. NYSERDA’s levy of a renewable energy surcharge is nothing more than a legalized bunko scheme for defrauding consumers.

“[The state's rural communities] represent low hanging fruit for distant wind capital seeking to exploit the people and resources of rural America, made even more shameless by the Orwellian charge that those who oppose its intrusions are NIMBYs when the corporate shills themselves live hundreds of miles away. If industrial wind succeeds here, it will be because the gullible are led by the pretentious, a process made easier because of a lack of accountability, no penalty for lying, and the pervasive vacuity of our political culture. The bill of goods for industrial wind, presented by the forces of ignorance and greed, resembles nothing as much as that fire-breathing dragon in your neighbor’s garage.” (See Carl Sagan on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E

11 Gary Abraham { 03.06.13 at 11:13 pm }

Ms. Barton,

If you mean by saying wind “does not work,” that industrial wind in incapable of providing much more than one percent of grid-supplied electricity, and that only in regions where it can be sited without unduly harming human and animal communities, I’m with you. As I indicated before, this true largely because an infrastructure to fully utilize wind energy is out of reach for the foreseeable future, and no industry group or agency has been able to unveil feasible plans that would rectify that situation. But if by “does not work,” you mean wind energy extraction devices do not produce electricity, that is belied by FERC filings showing precisely how much electricity they actually generate, even if that is a small fraction of their installed capacity. I doubt industrial wind energy devices can produce much more without sacrificing many communities and squandering money that could be put to much better use if devoted to other energy technologies and policies. However, wind opponents lose a lot of sympathy by declining to acknowledge industrial wind energy generates more electricity than any other widely available renewable technology (except large hydropower), and failing to focus more sharply on utilization problems, and cost-benefit issues.

12 Gary Abraham { 03.06.13 at 11:44 pm }

For Jon Boone:

It sounds like you’re ready to lead the charge to kick out from under the tent. I haven’t said anything so far as I can tell at odds with the factual conclusions you’re drawing about industrial wind’s prospects in New York, although state government here is not quite as monolithic as you make it out to be. NYISO recently conlcuded (as did GE Energy in a report for NYSERDA in 2007) that capacity value of industrial wind here is 10% of its installed capacity. The PSC is now poised to deny a permit for the Gallo Islands wind farm, on the basis of a needs analysis. The Article 10 regulations issued last year turned out not to exactly rip away home rule, but instead direct PSC to apply local zoning restrictions on wind farms if they are reasonable, and reasonability may hinge on noise restrictions; at least the Commission’s staff have credited the reasonability of 6 decibel limit on sound level increases, and have refused to turn away serious health concerns about chronic noise impacts–something we have yet to get the judiciary to do. So there is space to make rational arguments about the propriety of knee-jerk boosterism for wind. But you seem to want to gratuitously marginalize my willingness to talk about it. I am hardly “dazed and dizzied,” and anybody who knows my work understands I would among the last to “allow corporate hucksters to foul your nest.” Because of the noise issue, the soft underbelly of industrial wind, I have consistently said it is unlikely there is any place in New York (or the eastern states, for example) where wind farms could be responsibly sited, because the rural areas in this region are at least ten times more densely populated than Kansas wind farm project areas. It does a disservice to efforts to broaden the debate on energy policies for which we both work to devolve so quickly into shrill rhetoric and metaphors. Like life, these matters are more complicated.

13 Jon Boone { 03.07.13 at 12:33 am }

One final comment to Mr. Abrahams. I agree that government, perhaps beginning in a substantial way in New York under the first Clinton, with his –uh–Canal, has been a player in choosing means of bootstrapping the economy. But canals, and roads, and public infrastructure in general were proven methods for this purpose. With enterprises like renewables, with such threadbare energy density, their modern worth was settled centuries ago when the Dutch moved beyond windmills upon their discovery of the steam engine. And the world moved beyond gliders for commercial air transport as soon as the Wright brothers found a way to use fossil fuels to animate controlled flight.

As for New York wind putting the cart decades before the horse, I suggest that it would be more descriptive to say that all that government sponsored wind is putting the basket centuries before the Easter Bunny. Pretending that storage systems for wind will (1) either one day miraculously eventuate or (2), if they ever do, that such a contraption harnessed to the gargantua of wind is a good thing (when there are, even by today’s technology, so many better uses to which it could attend, is yet another example of one-hand-clapping wind salesmanship that deserves more than censure.

14 Jon Boone { 03.07.13 at 9:50 am }

Mr. Abraham:
Circling back to Adam Smith and his notion of free markets: Smith wrote that a primary function of government was to level the playing fields of the market by mitigating fraud, which he believed poisoned the well of trust that made free marketry feasible. He also thought government, since it had no stake in the outcome of market transactions, should be a place where citizens could go to resolve disputes arising from those transactions. From all the evidence I’ve read, this canny Scot would be flummoxed by New York’s renewables campaign.

Yes, we agree that wind belongs few places in the eastern US, including anywhere in New York. Where we don’t agree is that the technology belongs anywhere else, including the wind rich Great Plains and the vast oceans. Those who promote siting criteria that would put this dysfunctional technology in someone else’s backyard perpetuate the idea that wind is a fine idea for electricity production if only it is away from people, wildlife, and sensitive habitats and in places with lots of gusty wind. When people hear this, this should get a tighter hold on their wallets.

Greater wind production means greater volatility by the cube of the wind speed. This greater volatility means greater flux that must be balanced by, in the main, fossil fired generators. Which means more emissions. Which also means more reliance on fossil fueled machines. All that wind in Iowa, Texas, Colorado, Kansas, North and South Dakota hasn’t lessened the need for fossil fuel–and there is not even a correlation between wind production in those windy areas and reductions in fossil fuel generation, let alone a causal connection.

And I agree that much of life is both complex and complicated, as is also the case with knowledge. But not in the instance of understanding the problems with wind technology. Aside from its basic incivility and environmental treachery, which should be evident a priori with only a little thoughtful experience (all birders know, for example, that tall structures kill birds), it is the silliness idea for modern power production imaginable, if only because it cannot produce modern power.

So take your sophistry elsewhere. And join forces with Mary Kay Barton, leading the effort to prosecute wind salesmen in New York for fraud while putting the state’s wind promoters, its politicians and regulators in stocks along the fair streets of Albany, so that they can receive the public scorn they deserve from the public they’re fleecing.

15 Kathy Hamilton { 03.08.13 at 3:22 pm }

Ontario’s hot pursuit of a “Green Economy” to be allegedly powered by “Green Energy” and work in alignment with the centralized & managed economy apparently intended to uphold the international environmental governance model advocated throughout Agenda 21 – is under accelerating, bottom-up implementation through the same manipulative process, which is being funded and encouraged with top-down “incentives”.

See section 6.2 of the following “Municipal Primer”, for better understanding of how Local Agenda 21 action plans for “Sustainable Development” are “facilitated” by Canada’s locally-elected councils that adopt and implement its “strategic planning process”:
http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1157_e.pdf

I doubt it is coincidental that, at the same time, the “Precautionary Principle” (which informed Canadians have for decades more appropriately labelled “the Lalonde Doctrine”) has seen its “position” and scope of influence multiplied and elevated by increased numbers of power-hungry politicians and activist cronies wielding this tool that tramples individual responsibilities, rights and liberties as well as the Scientific Method… “for modifying the behaviour of the population” – see pgs 57 & 58 of Chapter 9. Science versus Health Promotion:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/alt_formats/hpb-dgps/pdf/pubs/1974-lalonde/lalonde-eng.pdf

16 mkbarton { 03.09.13 at 11:07 am }

Mr. Abraham,

Let’s say your “Big Brother” forced you to buy a trendy new car — that you had to pay all the extra high cost insurance premiums and maintenance costs on to keep it on the road – in addition to the costs of your reliable car that you have to keep in order to be sure you will get to work on time. As soon as you realized that your trendy new car only ran 10% – 25% of the time, I’m bettin’ you’d probably say, “I’ve got to get rid of this LEMON! I can’t afford to waste any more of my money on a second car that ‘doesn’t work’.”

Furthermore, wind proponents are the ones who lose credibility in their push for all things ‘green’ by failing to even acknowledge that any of the long list of problems that you yourself have cited, DO in fact exist.

As has been said, “Perhaps people would be willing to sacrifice their quality of life [and taxpayer & ratepayer dollars] on the altar of ‘green’ energy, if it actually worked.”

Thank you Jon Boone, for saying it so well.

17 The New York wind farm scam { 09.19.13 at 12:14 am }

[...] Constitutional private property rights in his pursuit of all things “Green” (aka: Agenda 21), by signing into law the new “Article X (10)” contained within his 2011 “Power NY [...]

18 The New York State wind wars : WesternFront America { 09.19.13 at 3:06 pm }

[...] Constitutional private property rights in his pursuit of all things “green” (aka: Agenda 21), by signing into law the new “Article X (10)” contained within his 2011 “Power NY [...]

19 The New York State wind wars - Eco-Imperialism { 09.19.13 at 11:37 pm }

[...] private property rights in his pursuit of all things “green” (aka: Agenda 21), by signing into law the new “Article X (10)” contained within his 2011 “Power NY [...]

20 The New York Wind Farm Scam | PA Pundits - International { 09.21.13 at 5:04 am }

[...] Constitutional private property rights in his pursuit of all things “Green” (aka: Agenda 21), by signing into law the new “Article X (10)” contained within his 2011 “Power NY [...]

21 New York’s (#Agenda21) “Sustainability” Planning: What About Wind Power’s Ecological Insults — MasterResource | Defending Sanity in the Uppity Down World { 01.04.14 at 3:02 pm }

[...] Planning: What About Wind Power’s Ecological Insults — MasterResource http://www.masterresource.org/2013/03/new-york-energy-plannin/ Share this:TwitterPinterestFacebookPrintEmailLinkedInTumblrGoogleDiggPocketStumbleUponRedditLike [...]

Leave a Comment