America’s Wind Power Cult: Hitler-Like Hypocrites Out to Wreck the Environment & the Economy


Bill McKibben: fascism has a new name.


The wind power zealot is a psychoanalyst’s nightmare. Driven by infantile ideology, fuelled by hypocritical passion for a technology abandoned centuries ago for obvious reasons and drowning in the delusion that the world can run on benevolent breezes, what makes members of the dwindling wind cult tick would leave the ghost of Sigmund Freud scratching his head.

Narcissism and nastiness mixed up with an amalgam of ignorance and stupidity make for an ugly model of the human condition. What they lack in common sense and human decency, they more than make up for with self-righteous certainty and lectern-thumping moralising bluff and bluster.

The template for eco-fascists is the same the world over: claim the moral high ground and denigrate, ridicule and vilify all those that stand in the way of their perfect World, a fantasy World that can, in their child-like minds, be run purely on sunshine and breezes.

These people aren’t engineers and they aren’t economists and, as such, haven’t the faintest clue about the practical elements of power generation, or the operation of power markets, let alone the impact that energy costs have on economic prosperity, incomes and wealth (or if they do, they are keen see the inevitable destruction thereof).

If they were simply ignorant dilettantes mouthing off on topics on which they had no idea, there would be little cause for complaint or concern. But these aren’t just lippy fools, they’ve been at the centre of energy policy for over 15 years; and that makes them idiots of the dangerous kind.

On just how dangerous these clowns are, we’ll check in with Robert Bryce on what America’s wind power zealots have in store for the land of the (once) free and the home of the (seemingly reluctant to be) brave.

Despoiling the Environment to Save the Climate
National Review
Robert Bryce
2 September 2016

Bill McKibben’s plan would mean bird carnage and whole regions paved with wind turbines.

Bill McKibben loves the climate. Unfortunately, he hates the environment. For proof of that, consider McKibben’s recent cover story in The New Republic, where he asserts that the U.S. must mobilize to fight climate change with the same fervor the Allies used to defeat Hitler during World War II. After citing a few examples of recent weather events, which, in his view, prove that global warming is happening now, McKibben writes, “If Nazis were the ones threatening destruction on such a global scale today, America and its allies would already be mobilizing for a full-scale war.”

While Nazi analogies can be fun, the climate cure that McKibben, the founder of, and his friends are pushing would result in the despoliation of vast swaths of the American landscape. Indeed, it would require that an area the size of Texas and Louisiana combined be covered with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines.

The strategist behind McKibben’s climate crusade is Stanford professor Mark Jacobson, who has published papers arguing that the U.S. doesn’t need oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy. According to Jacobson, the U.S. can rely solely on energy derived from wind, water, and the sun.

Jacobson has an entire claque of admirers. During his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders, (I., Vt.) adopted Jacobson’s all-renewable scheme whole cloth and made it his energy plan.

That move immediately won praise from the leaders of both the Sierra Club and Greenpeace USA. In addition, the recent Democratic-party platform claims that the U.S. should be running entirely on “clean” energy by 2050.

Jacobson’s all-renewable dystopia is also being promoted by actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo as well as by anti-fracking activist Josh Fox. In addition, Jacobson has formed a group call the Solutions Project, which is avidly promoting his 100 percent–renewables plan.

In his essay, McKibben adheres to the liberal-left orthodoxy by completely ignoring nuclear energy’s pivotal role in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead, he praises Jacobson’s work, claiming that it “demonstrates conclusively” that the U.S. could be running solely on renewables by 2050. Achieving that, says McKibben, would need about 6,448 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity.

As usual, the devil is in the details. Jacobson’s 50-state scenario, which is available on a Stanford University website, needs about 2,500 gigawatts of wind-energy capacity and another 3,200 gigawatts or so of solar capacity. Those are staggering quantities, particularly when you consider that current U.S. generation capacity – from nuclear to geothermal – totals about 1,000 gigawatts.

Jacobson and McKibben downplay their scheme’s impact on land use. Without providing any sources, McKibben asserts that the all-renewable plan would cover only “four-tenths of one percent of America’s landmass.”

That claim is patently false. Studies published by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, as well as published data on more than 50 onshore wind projects, show that the capacity density — that is, the project footprint — of an average wind-energy facility is three watts per square meter.

The math, then, is simple: 2,500 gigawatts is 2.5 trillion watts. At three watts per square meter, that much wind capacity would cover roughly 833 billion square meters of territory, which is 833,000 square kilometers, or more than 321,000 square miles.

In his blitzkrieg against climate change, McKibben wants to cover entire regions, including his home state of Vermont, with wind turbines. That’s newsworthy because, as McKibben surely knows, the Green Mountain State has become the epicenter of the backlash against Big Wind.

McKibben, who lives in Ripton and teaches at Middlebury College, doesn’t want his fellow Vermonters to have veto power over wind projects being proposed for their neighborhoods. Local control over wind-project siting was probably the most important issue in the recent gubernatorial primary.

Four of the five candidates — both of the Republicans, and two of the three Democrats — favored restricting or prohibiting new wind projects in the state. Just before the August 9 primary, McKibben switched his endorsement from Matt Dunne to Sue Minter  — both are Democrats — after Dunne announced that he favored local control over wind projects. Minter doesn’t. (Minter won the Democratic nomination and will face Republican Phil Scott in November. On August 22, in their first head-to-head debate, wind energy was, again, one of the most prominent issues.)

McKibben didn’t respond to my e-mailed questions. But by endorsing Jacobson’s scheme, he is advocating a 20-fold increase in wind capacity in Vermont, from 119 megawatts to 2.5 gigawatts. Other locales, too, would be covered with forests of turbines. The all-renewable scenario requires — get this — nearly 1,200 megawatts of wind-energy capacity to be constructed in Washington, D.C. Perhaps Jacobson and McKibben are planning to surround Capitol Hill with turbines. Or perhaps they are eyeing Georgetown?

The duo’s climate plan includes a 150-fold increase in onshore wind in Massachusetts, from today’s 105 megawatts to 16 gigawatts.

Where will those thousands of turbines be erected? Harvard Yard? The shores of Walden Pond? If that weren’t silly enough, the McKibben-Jacobson climate cure relies on 30 gigawatts of wind offshore Massachusetts.

That’s remarkable given the backlash that greeted the 468-megawatt Cape Wind project. That proposal was killed after meeting fierce local resistance, including opposition from climate-change activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who didn’t want a wind project near his family’s Hyannisport hacienda.

Despite this history, McKibben and Jacobson want to install the equivalent of 64 Cape Winds offshore Massachusetts! They also want the equivalent of 70 Cape Winds offshore California — Malibu residents are certain to welcome them — and another 120 Cape Winds offshore New York.

What about wildlife? Biologists have repeatedly documented the deadly impact that wind turbines have on birds of all kinds, including bald and golden eagles. They are also killing bats.

In January, a paper published in Mammal Review found that wind turbines are now the largest cause of mass bat mortality. The lead authors of the paper were two scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey: Thomas J. O’Shea and Paul M. Cryan.

Last month, a report by Bird Studies Canada, a bird-conservation organization, found that wind turbines in Ontario killed an estimated 42,656 bats over a six-month period in 2015.

The carnage included several species of rare or endangered bats, such as the little brown bat and northern long-eared bat. Ecologists have long recognized the critical role that bats play as pollinators and insectivores. Economists have estimated that, in Texas alone, bats save the state more than $1 billion per year in avoided costs for pesticides.

Despite these facts, McKibben wants to erect hundreds of thousands of new wind turbines on the Great Plains, on our coasts, and offshore. The result would be even deadlier impacts on birds and bats.

In short, McKibben and his fellow travelers are anti-environment environmentalists. McKibben claims we need an all-renewable war on climate change. Such a scheme would, instead, result in a war on people, landscapes, seascapes, and wildlife.
National Review


It’s all the for the ‘greater good’ …


About stopthesethings

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


  1. What are your thoughts about solar energy? I am hoping that this type of renewable energy source doesn’t have too much disadvantages as what you say about wind energy.

    • Solar has a place – as a supply source in off-grid situations, combined with lead-acid batteries and diesel generators, solar provides an economically sensible result.

      See our posts:

      However, solar PV in urban/suburban locations makes no economic sense: the only reason it exists are REC/STC subsidies and FIT 10 times the value of the power.

      In the urban context solar also causes damage to networks and appliances due to voltage surges. The Australian carried this report today:

      Rooftop solar panels putting sunshine states’ power at risk
      The Australian
      Annabel Hepworth
      January 31, 2017

      The unprecedented penetration of rooftop solar panels in South Australia and Queensland has reignited warnings about threats to the quality of power supplies.

      “High penetrations of solar panels create new challenges for distribution networks which must ensure power quality to avoid damage to customer equipment or network infrastructure,” Energy Networks Australia chief executive John Bradley said.

      The uptake of solar panels has grown because of soaring electricity bills, federal and state incentives and cheaper technology, with Queensland and South Australia having Australia’s highest share of dwellings.

      “In recent years, SA Power Networks has observed an increasing trend of customer complaints arising from voltages exceeding prescribed limits,” the company said in its annual planning report released just before Christmas.

      “It is anticipated such complaints may increase as solar PV (photovoltaic panels) penetration increases across the network.” Some 25 per cent of SA Power Networks customers have a PV system installed.

      In Queensland, the government wants one million rooftops or 3000 megawatts of solar PV by 2020, while Energex and Ergon have both declared they have one of the highest per-capita capacity of rooftop solar in the world.

      Mr Bradley said that in areas with high penetration of solar panels, the most common issue was “voltage rise”. This occurs when excess solar is injected back into the grid at times of low electricity demand — for instance when ­people are away from their homes at noon on weekends and on public holidays — as this can push up the voltage on the network.

      Mr Bradley said if the issue was unaddressed, this could impact on consumer equipment. It could also cause solar PV inverters to trip and disconnect from the grid.

      “Distribution network operators will need to transform their role to much more active management of the grid, with better monitoring,” Mr Bradley said.

      “In many areas, the distribution network is moving from a relatively ‘passive’ system where power flowed one way in a predictable manner, to a much more ­dynamic and volatile system with two way flows”. Energex, which operates power lines in southeast Queensland, said in its planning report in ­September that the current level of solar PV “is already causing power quality issues with increasing numbers of customer complaints”.

      Energex is dealing with the risks of voltage rise through a power quality strategy that includes investment in “smart” technologies and requiring that certain inverters used with solar PV systems minimise voltage rise.

      “There have been occasions where Energex has had to undertake network works to manage the increase in solar penetration,” a spokesman said yesterday.

      Ergon Energy said it had about 700 quality-of-service complaints in 12 months related to solar PV, largely because of high voltages on the network, prompting it to look at a slew of initiatives to minimise the impact of solar systems.

      Industry sources say complaints about solar power problems commonly come from the owners of the panels when their exports into the grid are curtailed.

      Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood said that “sheer volume of solar PV on a grid could be a problem when the output was constantly changing with the weather”.

  2. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  3. estherfonc says:


    I started a petition “SA PREMIER JAY WEATHERILL : Demand the RESIGNATION of the Energy Minister for HIGH POWER PRICES CAUSING SA’s JOBS CRISIS and 15,000 household POWER DISCONNECTIONS, frequent POWER BLACKOUTS and the JULY 2016 POWER CRISIS” and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

    Our goal is to reach 100 signatures and we need more support.

    You can read more and sign the petition here:

    Please share this petition with anyone you think may be interested in signing it.

    Thankyou for your time.

  4. To paraphrase a Bogart movie we all know and love, “We don’t need no damned birds, bats, black bears (McKibben take notice), bees (yes bees), whales, dolphins, (you fill in the blanks), ad nauseum…” 100% renewable energy generation by 2050? Stop the world, want to get off.

  5. iananthonyharris says:

    This is akin to a religious belief which no amount of reasoned argument will change. Their relentless nagging has convinced non-technical politicians that the earth is in imminent and permanent danger from global warming, and ‘renewables’ are the answer, despite obvious costs and problems. No use trying to convince the greenies-concentrate on convincing politicians of the bogus theories.

    • Here’s some skinny for everybody to think about: If, hypothetically, the entire sub-continent of Australia were to be covered by P.V. solar panels (most likely made in China), I mean every square foot of it covered, the whole population moved off-shore to floating islands (I told you that this was hypothetical), there would not be enough electricity produced to keep the lights on, let alone power that might be needed for the myriad of electric appliances and devices that people cannot live without. P.V. solar runs at about 10% efficiency. That’s something like owning a motor vehicle that could only run 10% of the time. Nobody in their right mind would spend their own money for such a thing. Sadly this chicken has come home to roost in the form of your insane power bill. If someone was trying to destroy modern civilization, they are doing a fine job. Sorry to digress.

  6. Reblogged this on citizenpoweralliance.

  7. Wind Turbines are that shade of green you see on someone’s face, just before they vomit…. >:-(

  8. Son of a Goat says:

    “Hewson- we have a problem.”

    Rumour has it that this was South Australian Premiers opening line in a phone call to former Federal Liberal leader John Hewson. The premier was convening a meeting of the minds to format what kind of approach to take into tomorrow COAG meeting of energy ministers.
    What came out of todays meeting?

    Hewson was strongly in favour of solar thermal at Port Augusta and it was of course a complete coincidence that he is personally involved with a company looking to put solar thermal at Port Augusta.

    Jay baby- we have been down this track before with the Ceres project, it might be best to look for some independent advice and not from those on the state Labor Christmas party list!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: