A Free-Market Energy Blog

MasterResource in the News (problems of wind power)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- April 24, 2019

“MasterResource.org is where the ‘grassroots’ anti-wind power movement that Bradley works tirelessly to promote merges with the fossil fuel industry’s astroturf campaign against renewable energy.” (Dave Anderson, Energy and Policy Institute, April 17, 2019)

Perhaps I am a tireless worker. But no, the pushback against industrial wind turbines is not from “astroturf” but from on-the-spot, victimized people. In this sense, MasterResource comes from the grassroots, not the tree tops.

Mr. Anderson’s writeup, “Koch-backed blog defends Trump’s false claim about windmills & cancer,” takes a look at this site with this background:

MasterResource.org is a project of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), a group that together with its advocacy arm the American Energy Alliance has received millions of dollars from the Koch network, as well as money from the coal, oil and gas industries.

Regular contributors to MasterResource.org, which launched in 2008, include Robert L. Bradley, the founder and CEO of IER and AEA, and a Who’s Who of climate change skeptics and “grassroots” anti-wind power activists.

I hold no title with IER’s advocay arm, AEA. And why the labels, when critics can simply challenge MasterResource’s public policy orientation toward

  • Consumer protection;
  • Taxpayer welfare;
  • Ending business/government cronyism; and
  • Private property, free markets and the rule of law.

To these ends, MasterResource’s 2,600 posts from hundreds of different authors (all of whom speak for themselves) educate readers about the economic and environmental advantages of dense, reliable energies.

Yes, government-dependent noisy, unsightly, resource-intensive, intermittent, uneconomic wind turbines are on trial. To this end, Mr. Anderson should visit a turbine site where people reside to see and hear for himself what is happening outside of the Beltway.

Mr. Anderson should be on our side, not on the bandwagon of crony wind developers. But as the joke goes,

Q. When is an environmentalist not an environmentalist?

A. When it comes to industrial wind power and solar plants.

Much of Anderson’s post consists of so-what facts in a guilt-by-association argument.

IER and MasterResource.org are one source of this disinformation. The blog has for years been promoting the views of anti-wind activists like John Droz of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, who also recently sent out a newsletter to his followers defending Trump’s false claims about wind turbines and cancer. After the 2016 election, Droz wrote about his personal connections inside the incoming Trump administration.

Lisa Linowes of the New Hampshire-based Industrial Wind Action Group is another “principal” contributor to MasterResource.org. Linowes joined IER’s newly formed Advisory Council in December, and she also serves as a senior fellow for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, another group backed by Koch money that’s fighting a war against wind power in the Lone Star state and has close ties to the Trump administration.

Tom Stacy, who serves on the National Wind Watch’s board of directors, was an Ohio-based anti-wind activist MasterResource.org contributor who became a paid consultant for IER and other special interest groups backed by the fossil fuel industry. Travis Fisher, a former IER staffer, continued to email with Stacy about attacks on renewable energy in Ohio after he joined the Trump team at the Department of Energy.  

And heaven forbid:

The coordination between IER and anti-wind activists has gone beyond online communications. In 2013, for example, IER hosted an anti-wind event in Washington, D.C., featuring Linowes, Stacy, and Kevon Martis of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition.

Many individuals and organizations have stepped in where don’t-want-to-know, double-standard Washington DC environmentalists (all well paid) refuse to tread. And it is these real environmentalists who have emerged (many not paid) against the perils of quite unnecessary, government-dependent industrial wind.

Back to Mr. Anderson’s post:

In 2016, Bradley marked the eighth anniversary of MasterResource.org with a blog post that celebrated the contributions of the “grassroots talent fighting against industrial wind turbines.” Since then, he’s been busy defending anti-wind operatives like Droz, Stacy, and Martis, all of whom have cozy partnerships with special interest groups backed by the fossil fuel industry.

I am reminded of the saying that at first they ignore you and then they attack you…. We can take it. And regarding the content of each post, we welcome critical comments so long as they are in good taste.

The grassroots anti-wind power movement is making a difference, a big difference, and MasterResource is in the news.

One Comment for “MasterResource in the News (problems of wind power)”

  1. Kent Hawkins  

    I have been associated with MasterResource for about 10 years. In the process I have met many people (online) including those singled out by Dave Anderson. I have contributed over 50 posts to MasterResource in this period, and like many others who also contribute, I received no payment (and did not expect any) from anyone.

    The fact that some contributors may have been associated with IER in other capacities is not noteworthy. The fact that contributors have other appropriate contacts and associations is not noteworthy either. Most people do. To describe some as ‘cozy’ is most likely a stretch of imagination.

    It is interesting to note Anderson’s statement that, “Fact checkers strongly disagree, and they are not alone.” The words ‘strongly disagree’ is no more noteworthy than ‘disagree’ by itself. The fact that the fact checkers disagreed and found others that also disagreed is not notable.

    Anderson points out that claims were made by information found on “the web”, which suggests that this is not a suitable source. First, did the fact checkers not do web searches themselves in addition to other approaches? Second, is the web not be trusted at all? I suggest that all such sources are equally reliable if the researcher is careful about easily trusting the information.

    In summary, I suggest that the Anderson post is not noteworthy.


Leave a Reply