Eco-entrepreneur proud of censorship

Did I censor him? I sure as hell did. This is my blog and last I checked, I hold all the power here. I could waste my time trying to convince him that he’s wrong, but I have better things to do with my time.

Shea Gunther is upset because "Rucio" "just keeps asking for 'numbers'" which Gunther can't provide. So he calls us nuts and not completely "American."

After reproducing my complete earlier post (click title of this post), Gunther says, "I look forward to the anti-wind nutjobs reply." A correspondent of ours did in fact reply, asking if it was true, then, that Gunther was not able to answer Rucio's question. That reply has been removed. I guess it's the American way.

Update: Our correspondent tried again to post a comment, this time asking how Gunther squares "looking forward to replies" with deleting them if they question his dogma (good word!) and suggesting it is the deleting that he looks forward to. A few hours later, the comment was gone. Is that the only way Gunther can prove he's right?

categories:  wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism, anarchosyndicalism

The Wind Watchdog

Click the title of this post for the latest issue of "The Wind Watchdog," a collection of recent news items, opinion pieces, and other documents from National Wind Watch .


categories:  wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines

Eco-entrepreneur -- or censor?

Shea Gunther, who is behind the sale of "wind power credits" to the Whole Foods grocery store chain (who will continue to use as much "nongreen" electricity as ever), has a fairly clear post on his blog about how the system works. Namely, the money from Whole Foods supports the development of wind power on the grid, not to mention the profitable trade in "credits" (that are sold in addition to energy). It's rather a roundabout way of doing it, especially since they aren't changing their own energy use or getting any different electricity than their neighbors are -- but that's show business, I guess.

One point that Gunther emphasizes is that every kilowatt-hour generated by wind turbines replaces a kilowatt-hour generated by other fuels. From this he asserts, falsely, that every kilowatt-hour not generated from, say, fossil fuels, means that much less fuel burned. (More likely, however, a rise in the wind simply causes a plant to switch from generation to standby, in which mode it still burns fuel so that it can readily switch back to generation when the wind drops back.)

In the comments, one "Rucio" asked for evidence that less fuel is burned because of wind power on the grid. Gunther could only ask him to "imagine" the scenario he already described and ignored the request for actual data. It was not long before Rucio's simple requests for real evidence that Gunther's claims are true rather than the wishful thinking of "eco-entrepreneurs" (that is my addition -- "Rucio" was much more diplomatic however persistent) started to be removed.

Most people have a problem with awkward truths. But when you're advocating industrializing hundreds of square miles of rural and wild areas for what appears to be a sham, denial is not an option.

categories:  wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism

"Carbon offsets" trade based on bogus accounting

George Monbiot continues his dance around criticisms of industrial wind power in an essay in the Jan. 17 Guardian (click the title of this post) about the charade of "carbon offsets," an important driver of wind power development.

But perhaps the most destructive effect of the carbon offset trade is that it allows us to believe we can carry on polluting. The government can keep building roads and airports and we can keep flying to Thailand for our holidays, as long as we purchase absolution by giving a few quid to a tree planting company [or green credit broker]. How do you quantify complacency? How do you know that the behaviour the trade induces does not cancel out the carbon it sequesters?

In other words I think it is fair to say that a scam is being perpetrated ... We know that climate change will impoverish many people. We now know that it will make others very rich. But their money-making schemes will have precious little to do with saving the planet.

categories:  wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism

Black Law wind facility begins operation

The beautiful Black Law Wind Farm in Scotland (note how relatively tiny the tree is in the second photograph -- pathetic nature, mighty industry!):

    
categories:  wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism

Correction

From Ironic Times:

We incorrectly reported that the EPA was working hard to reduce the flow of toxic waste released into communities surrounding power and chemical plants. In fact, the EPA is working hard to reduce the flow of information released about the toxic waste. We apologize for any confusion caused by our mistake.

Close door on wind power developers

To the editor, Rutland (Vt.) Herald:

On January 6 a letter stated that big wind could provide up to 20 percent of our power needs. If all of the current proposals (up to 312 MW) around the state were built, they would provide at most only 10 percent or our current (ignoring future growth) power needs. Each of the facilities would drasticallyhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif alter the character of the landscape for miles around with visual prominence, distracting motion, noise, and all-night strobe lights, degrade and fragment miles of wildlife habitat, and threaten endangered bats. They are all being actively opposed (see www.rosenlake.net/vwv).

Since it is unlikely that we will reach 10 percent wind, it is even more unlikely that we would allow building even more to get us to 20 percent.

Even if it works as advertised, big wind will never be a significant part of our power mix. It is common sense, not the governor alone, that is trying shut the door on such fruitless industrialization of our ridgelines.

A letter from Pennsylvania on January 7 claimed that big wind is working in that state. The writer called support of large-scale wind power a "no-brainer" because it replaces dirty energy sources. Those of us who still use our brains, however, would like to see the data showing what energy sources have actually been replaced.

After researching this issue for 3 years, I have yet to see any such evidence that wind power on the grid reduces the use of other fuels.

categories:  wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont