James Delingpole: Ten Reasons why People who Support Wind Farms Are Deluded, Criminal or Insane

bedlam

Wind farm supporters’ conference in full swing.

****

Ten Reasons why People who Support Wind Farms Are Deluded, Criminal or Insane.
Which One Are You, Vince Cable?
Breitbart.com
James Delingpole
8 October 2014

Opposing wind farms is “irrational”, claimed Liberal Democrat MP Vince Cable at his party conference yesterday.

Actually, no. Here are some reasons why anyone who doesn’t oppose wind farms is most probably either deluded, criminal or insane.

1. Wind turbines kill bats on an industrial scale – nearly 30 million a year in the US alone, according to some estimates. This is somewhat ironic since most of those pushing for more wind are ardent greenies, who presumably understand that the reason bats are such a heavily protected species is that their breeding cycle is so slow and their life cycle so long – making them especially vulnerable when a breeding pair is killed.

2. Wind turbines kill birds on an industrial scale. Between 110 and 330 birds per turbine per year, according to the Spanish conservation charity SEO/Birdlife – though other research puts the mortality rate as high as 895. In the US, they have killed tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, they threaten the Egyptian and Griffon vulture. In Australia, they have driven the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle close to extinction. Yet bizarrely wind farms are supported by bird charities including the RSPB, because their ideological commitment to “clean energy” trumps the interests of birds, apparently.

3. Wind turbines produce Low Frequency Noise and infrasound, which can cause those who live nearby a range of health problems including insomnia, raised cortisol levels, headaches, panic attacks, tachycardia, nausea, mood swings, palpitations, depression. The corrupt wind industry has known about this for years – with the complicity of certain tame acousticians – contrived to cover up the problem, recognising that if ever the word gets into the public domain the lawsuits are going to be immense.

4. Wind turbines have terrible impacts on animals besides birds and bats. They have caused stillbirth and deformations in livestock; they can turn healthy, responsive dogs into nervous wrecks. In Denmark they caused the premature births of 1600 mink at a fur farm. In Canada they caused the closure of an emu farm popular with tourists, because the turbines made the docile birds (which cost $3,000 a pair) aggressive.

5. Wind turbines kill jobs. According to research by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Carlos university in Madrid, they destroy 2.2 jobs in the real economy for every Potemkin job (“green job”) created by government malinvestment. Separate research suggests that the damage in the UK may be even higher: 3.7 real jobs lost for every fake green one created.

6. Wind turbines are like a reverse Robin Hood, lining the pockets of the rent-seeking rich – such as Prime Minister David Cameron’s father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, Bt, who makes a £1000 a day just for sitting on his arse while the eight turbines on his Leicestershire estate turn idly in the breeze – at the expense of the ordinary energy user. If this were free market capitalism, fine. But it’s not: it’s the exact opposite – crony capitalism in which economic favours are handed out not by the market but by government fiat. This is the kind of state-endorsed social injustice of which bloody revolutions are made.

7. Wind turbines – as any rural community which has tried fighting the heavily-rigged planning system will know – are disruptive, divisive and unjust. They turn neighbour against neighbour. They force country folk who really would have preferred to do other things with their lives to expend vast quantities of money, time and energy trying desperately to preserve the character and charm of their neighbourhood by fighting wind projects with all their might. Often – that rigged planning system – they fail. So one local person gets rich, earning perhaps £30,000 a year per turbine on his land. But everyone else suffers in the form of blighted views, reduced property values, noise disturbance etc.

8. Wind turbines are economically pointless. Because the “energy” they produce is unreliable, unpredictable and intermittent (sometimes the wind blows; sometimes it doesn’t; sometimes it blows so hard that the turbines have to be switched off) it has no genuine market value. Electricity users want electricity as and when they need it, not when the wind deigns to blow. That’s why it has to be so heavily subsidised by the taxpayer – because without bribes no developer would risk the capital outlay on something so unproductive. And it’s why wind energy has constantly to be backed up by more conventional power like coal, gas and oil. One 25 hectare fracking site and one medium sized fossil fuel power station can produce the same amount of energy as ALL the wind turbines in Britain.

9. Wind farms are partly responsible for the thousands of people who die every year of fuel poverty. (Plus, of course, all those people who’ve been fatally injured in turbine fires, air crashes, or by flying blades – for full details see here.) This is because, being so disproportionately expensive – between roughly twice and three times the cost of conventional fossil fuel power, depending on whether we’re talking onshore or offshore wind – and being, by government order, a compulsory part of our “energy mix”, they drive up energy to artificially high levels. The carbon saving benefits of wind farms are largely imaginary; the effects on “global warming” marginal to illusory; but the people who actually die each year, unable to afford their rising fuel bills, are very, very real.

10. Wind farms are a blot on the landscape. They just are. And don’t give me any of that “Well I think they’re rather handsome actually” crap. Your warped personal aesthetics ought not to be anyone’s problem but your own.
Breitbart.com

Not a bad start there, James. STT is sure our followers can easily tack a few more to your solid little list.

james-delingpole_3334

James stopped short with only 10.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. There is exactly one clean, reliable energy source, and it isn’t subterranean carbon. Far too many of my fellow-environmentalists oppose it, it is nuclear power. It is even renewable, as the Trinity device proved.
    It is a mistake for those of us who wish to _*Stop These Things*_ to side with the industries that depend upon what is ordinarily known as Fossil Fuel.
    There is no explanation for the oxygen and ozone in this planet’s atmosphere, other than photosynthesis. The subterranean coal contains enough fossil information to identify it as of vegetable origin (mostly).
    It is probable that petroleum and petro-methane are also of organic origin. All of these “energy reserves” represent a mass death and burial.
    But even if we could ship methane from Jupiter, by transporter beam and for free, it would not increase our energy reserves.
    There is only just enough oxygen in the atmosphere to burn the carbon that was separated from it.

  2. Brian Johnston says:

    Excepting that oil and coal are not fossil only brown coal derived from peat could be. The earth’s magma generates gas. Oil is the condensate from the gas. Through a bacterial chemical action oil solidifies into coal. The process, abiotic. Oil and coal are not old forests. Consider this. A coal seem 50′ below the surface and the seem itself 30′ deep. To create that seem the trees would have to be as large as houses and a mile high. At 50′ deep where is the required pressure. America and Russia are both sitting on reserves of 3,000-4,000 years. There is no peak oil as currently banded about

    • You are entirely mistaken about the Earth’s magma. It is molten rock, and the energy source is radioactivity created in supernovae that were long dead, five billion years ago.
      Large pieces of coal can be sliced thin enough to see through, and examination reveals the actual fossil material.
      Magma does NOT produce “gas”, neither CH4, C2H6, C3H8, nor C4H10. (methane, ethane, propane, butane)
      When the initial dust cloud crashed together to produce the molten, spheroidal proto-planet Earth, all such gases boiled off. Probably not even chalk, limestone, or marble could have survived. At high temperatures CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2 and the gas escapes. On a molten Earth, at gravitational escape velocity! The calcium oxide probably becomes a silicate with the SiO, …
      …. IF the temperature is low enough not to decompose oxides.
      Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen must have arrived later as compounds brought by cometary fragments.
      The mechanism of petroleum production is not well known, but lignin has carbon ring structures that even mimic benzene.
      Even methane, at no more than the pressure of ocean bottoms, forms a solid “solution” called a clathrate, with water.

  3. Windweasel and greentard goons, and fan hosts, are not insane, they are just CRIMINAL and should be judged as such.

  4. Brilliant. I have often thought along the same lines. Confirmation is sweet.

  5. Well yes. Number 11 is that they increase CO2 emissions. Which is actually a good thing, but the #greenies don’t think so…

    • People who are sufficiently knowledgeable about photosynthesis know that you are mistaken.
      Every mollusk and coral in the sea, every oyster and clam bed that supports the ecology that lives there, is threatened by the carbonic acid (H2CO3) that CO2 and H2O interchange with.
      There solid material is calcium carbonate. But add more of that acid, and it is attacked, making the bi-carbonate, which is soluble in water.
      CO2 is not a good thing in higher concentrations than the seemingly meagre amount that was plenty for the primeval forests of eastern North America when Columbus “discovered” it.
      The carbon dioxide emissions from living organisms are the products of their metabolising of the carbohydrates and other organic compounds produced by photosynthetic organisms. Despite the obvious evolutionary advantage of being able to make better use of the solar radiation, green leaves cannot use that band of wavelengths.
      Once upon a period of 60 million years, swamps of mosses and vast forests of trees repeatedly drowned in floods and were buried in dirt, then crushed and metamorphosed.This left the oxygen these unfortunate (but mostly vegetable) living things had freed, in the air.
      We are now using it up at a shocking rate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: