A friend writes:
I am trying to step back and care less about everything. But this is so hard to ignore. Germany is now entirely free of college fees, which is wonderful news. But sitting here in the desperate gulag called the US, one can only feel like weeping.
Here, where a college education is the most obscenely expensive necessary "luxury" in the world, the costs inflated far beyond the means of most people anywhere on the planet, Americans are told that they are worthless without a college degree, so they are forced to borrow fortunes which then ruins their futures, ironically. Some parents mortgage or sell their house, practically kill themselves with overwork and go into enormous debt to procure for their children what should be a free and basic human right. And after all that sacrifice and suffering and work and worry, there are few jobs for graduates, of course. People with huge college loans often must take the kinds of jobs that cannot possibly pay enough to repay those loans. And for people who aren't into going to college and/or like to work with their hands, the "blue-collar" jobs which used to provide a fairly secure middle-class life for millions have been stolen by fascists, shipped away to China, Pakistan, the entire third world where people are treated like slaves and paid like them too.
Then people in the NY Times sneer that those "blue-collar" types don't belong in college anyway. They sneer at community colleges. Then they sneer at anyone who took out college loans they can't repay. Then they sneer at people who didn't bother to go to college. The best jobs and most interesting opportunities are reserved for children of the privileged and hyper-connected. There is no way to live in this society any longer, unless you have an exceedingly charmed life and and/or were born into riches. Everyone else is considered to be a waste of space, and ordinary people now must fight for the small morsels of moldy crumbs eked out to them by fascist America, and after all that scrabbling for advantage, can be fired at will with no explanation required and no recourse.
But oh how this dreadful scenario enriches the lenders of college loans; probably debtor's prisons will become legal ... every single goddam thing in this vile "society" is a fucking scam, with college education at the top of the list. But what choice do people have now? To demand a free education as they have in Germany would be laughable to most Americans who feel that you must pay for everything you have. They simply aren't educated enough to understand that they ARE paying -- but instead of their taxes being used to enrich their own lives and of their fellow citizens, it's all being diverted into endless war. Part of the problem is the "their fellow citizens" part -- they don't want anyone they don't absolutely know to be "deserving" to get the same benefits they might get, so they'd rather go without. The real problem with Americans is a knee-jerk penchant for Puritanical intolerance and a love of abject cruelty; this has poisoned the entire nation.
www.independent.co.uk/student/last-german-state-abolishes-university-fees-9774555.html
October 7, 2014
October 5, 2014
How like kingdoms without justice are to robberies
Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book IV, Chapter 4:
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”
October 4, 2014
Wind turbine setback and noise regulations since 2010
These changes in and new wind turbine regulations since 2010 do not include moratoria and bans. See also the list at Windpowergrab and the Renewable Energy Rejection Database (USA).
All ordinances in USA: WindExchange (Dept. of Energy) wind energy ordinances database;
NREL: Wind Ordinances, Wind Regulations by Region;
NCSL: State approaches to wind facility siting (local or state-level).
[note: 1,000 ft = 305 m; 550 m = 1,804 ft; 1,000 m = 1 km = 3,281 ft = 0.62 mi; 1 mi = 1.61 km = 5,280 ft; about decibels (dB)]
- Burt County, Nebraska, Dec. 11, 2024: height limit 690 ft, no more than 20 in county; setbacks 3 mi from towns, 1 mi from property lines, 0.5 mile from residences, 1,000 ft from roads; noise limit 40 dB at exterior wall of nonparticipating residence, 50 dB at participating residence; no shadow flicker on roads; bond for road repair, bond for 150% estimated decommissioning cost [link]
- Honolulu, Hawaii, December 2024: setback from property lines changed from 1× height to greater of 10× height or 1.25 mi [link]
- Washington County, Iowa, Dec. 10, 2024 [proposed]: 1 mile from residences, schools, libraries, churches, publicly owned conservation areas and parks, and city limits; noise limit 55 dBA at residences, shadow flicker limit of 30 hr/year and 30 min/day; $25,000 escrow account for conflict resolution; property value guarantee to nonparticipating property owners within 2 mi from project boundary; no vibration or increased sediment in water wells on nonparticipating properties; identification of migratory flyways and nesting areas for birds, bats and endangered species within 1 mi [link]
- Sardinia, Dec. 4, 2024: wind and solar facilities limited to 1% of Sardinia’s territory [link]
- West Hants Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia, Sept. 24, 2024 [requires ministerial approval]: setback 2.5 km from property line without landowner approval [link]
- Floyd County, Iowa, Aug. 6, 2024: 450 ft max height; to be examined: no turbines on highly productive soils (≥79.5 CSR), reduce sound limit from 50 dB to 40 dB [link]
- Rangeley, Maine, July 24, 2024 [proposed]: max 250 kW, 100 ft height, 35 dBA for contiguous 5 min beyond property line, no dBC beyond property line [link]
- Knox County, Nebraska, July 24, 2024: setback increased from 2,000 ft to 1.5 mi (6,600 ft) from nonparticipating dwellings [link]
- India, July 4, 2024: setback 500 m from any residential cluster (≥15 homes) [link]
- Pottawattamie County, Iowa, Feb. 27, 2024: setbacks 1/2 mi from nonparticipating homes, 1.1× height from participating homes, 1,500 ft from lot lines and public rights of way, 3 mi to incorporated municipalities, airport property, conservation partks, and habitat areas; 412 ft max height; noise limit 40 dBA 1-hour LEq 25 ft outside nonparticipating home; max 30 hours/year shadow flicker at nonparticipating home [link]
- Slovakia, Jan. 2024: setback 3 km from inhabited areas [link]
- New South Wales, Australia, Nov. 2023 [draft]: noise limit 35 dBA or existing background noise level (LA90(10 min)) plus 5 dBA at residences (whichever is lower) [link]
- Thuringia, Germany, Aug. 2023 [overturned by federal court November 2023]: ban on wind turbines in forests [link]
- Jefferson County, Nebraska, Mar. 23, 2023: setback 1 mi from nonparticipating homes, incorporated towns, schools, churches, and state-owned recreation areas [link]
- Buffalo County, Nebraska, Mar. 14, 2023: setbacks 3 mi from agriculture residential zoned property, nonparticipating property, church, hospital, pool, or park, 5 mi from villages, cities, and wildlife preservation and management areas, 2 mi from burial sites, Platte River, and South Loup River [link]
- Poland, Mar. 2023 [effective July 2, 2024]: setback 700 m [2,300 ft] from houses [link]
- Iowa, Jan. 9, 2023 [proposed]: setback from dwelling or nonparticipating property greater of 1.5× height or 5,000 ft [link]
- Woodbury County, Iowa, August 23, 2022: setback from residences increased from 1,250 ft to 2,500 ft [link]
- Stockbridge Township, Michigan, Aug. 2022: height limit 400 ft [link]
- Cumberland County, Nova Scotia, June 22, 2022: setback from dwellings increased from 600 to 1,000 m; 3.2 km from main Wentworth Valley road [link]
- Grand Forks County, North Dakota, June 2022: setback increased from 1/4 to 1/2 mi; shadow flicker limited to 30 h/yr [link]
- Leroy Township, Michigan, May 8, 2022: height limit 400 ft [link]
- Gage County, Nebraska, Nov. 17, 2021: noise limit at residence reduced to 40 dB (from 45) daytime and 37 dBA (from 40) nighttime (10pm–7am), or 3 dBA max 10-minute Leq above ambient [link]
- Ohio, Oct. 11, 2021: counties have right to veto, ban, and limit projects; several counties subsequently prohibited wind projects ≥5 MW in 2022 [link]
- Vermillion County, Indiana, Sept. 28, 2021: setback 2 mi from property lines and roads; noise limit 32 dBA [link]
- Ford County, Illinois, Sept. 17, 2021: setbacks 3,000 ft from property line, 1.5 mi from municipality; noise limit 40 dB (Laeq) 9pm–6am; no shadow flicker at neighboring residence [link]
- Sidney Township, Michigan, July 5, 2021: 300 ft height limit; setback 3,000 ft or 5× height [sic] from nonparticipating property line or right-of-way, 2.5 mi from lake or pond; noise limits of 40 dBA Leq (1 sec) and 50 dBC Leq (1 sec) and no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; no radio, TV, or other interference [link]
- Pierson Township, Michigan, June 15, 2021: setback 4× height from occupied structures and property lines, 39 dBA limit and no shadow flicker on neighboring property [link]
- Boone County, Missouri, Nov. 4, 2021: 80 m (~263 ft) hub height limit; setback 1,750 ft from property line or public right-of-way; noise limits at property line 50 dBA daytime (7am–10pm), 40 dBA nighttime (10pm-7am), 45 dBA adjusted total day-night (Ldn; 10 dBA added to nighttime level) [link]
- Dakota County, Nebraska, July 26, 2021: change of setbacks from 2,700 ft to 2 mi from neighboring residence, from 600 ft to 2 mi from wetlands and other conservation lands [link]
- Ellington Township, Michigan, July 2021: setbacks 5× height from property lines, 3× height from roads; 40 dBA limit and no shadow flicker on neighboring property [link]
- Worth County, Iowa, approved by Planning and Zoning Commission June 25, 2021: at nonparticipating property: distance greater of 1,600 ft, 3.75× height, or manufacturer’s safety distance, noise limit greater of ambient or 45 dBA/60 dBC 6am–10pm, 40 dBA/60 dBC 10pm–6am, no shadow flicker; setbacks from eagle nest greater of 1,600 ft, 3.75× height, or manufacturer’s safety distance, 1/2 mi from public recreation area, significant body of water, and habitat >40 acres, 1 mi from public recreation area [link]
- Clarion County, Pennsylvania, May 25, 2021: at nonparticipating residence: distance 5× height, noise limit 45 dBA, no shadow flicker [link]
- Texas, proposed May 19, 2021: WB 1003: setback of 3.000 ft from property line [link]
- Texas, introduced Mar. 29, 2021: HB 4007: setback greater of 5,280 ft (1 mi) from property line or 10× height from structure on neighboring property [link]
- Kansas, introduced Feb. 24, 2021: SB 279: setbacks greater of 7,920 ft (1-1/2 mi) or 12× height from residential property or public building, greater of 3 mi or 12× height from any airport, wildlife refuge, public hunting area, or public park, and greater of 5,280 ft (1 mi) or 10× height from nonparticipating property line [link]
- Vulcan County, Alberta, Canada, Jan. 27, 2021 [proposed]: 45 dBA noise limit at property line; 800 m setback from nonparticipating residence [link]
- Burt County, Nebraska, 2020: setback greater of 3.5× height or 1,800 ft from dwelling [link]
- Wheeler County, Nebraska, Dec. 9, 2020: 5 mi setback from any dwelling, 1/2 mi distance between turbines, height limit 299 ft [link]
- Piatt County, Illinois, Dec. 9, 2020: 46 dBA noise limit outside of homes [link]
- Ireland, Nov. 24, 2020 [Wind Turbine Regulation Bill reintroduced]: 10× height setback from any dwelling, no shadow flicker at dwelling, noise limits per WHO community noise guidelines [link]
- Reno County, Kansas, Nov. 19, 2020: setback from residence greater of 2,000 ft or 4× height [link]
- Edgar County, Illinois, Nov. 4, 2020: increased setback to 3,250 ft from primary structures [link]
- Piatt County, Illinois, Oct. 22, 2020 [subject to county board approval]: increased setback from greater of 1.1× height or 1,600 ft to nonparticipating structure to greater of 1.3× height or 1,600 ft to nonparticipating property line [link]
- Gage County, Nebraska, Sept. 9, 2020: increased setback to nonparticipating residence from 3/8 mi to 1 mi [link]
- Batavia Township, Michigan, Sept. 1, 2020: height limit 330 ft [link]
- Reno County, Kansas, Aug. 2020 [proposed]: 40-dB annual average noise limit at any principal building (participating property or not) [link]
- Hughes County, South Dakota, Aug. 17, 2020: setback 1/2 mi or 4.9× turbine height from any occupied structure; 45-dB noise limit [link]
- Brown County, Nebraska, May 2020: setback 1 mi from property lines and roads [link]
- North Dakota, Mar. 2020 [subject to Attorney General review and approval of legislative Administrative Rules Committee]: 45 dB noise limit 100 ft from residence [link]
- Fremont County, Iowa, May 2020 [proposed]: setbacks 1,500 ft from participating residence, 2,000 ft from nonparticating residence, 1,000 ft from nonparticipating property line, 1 mi from incorporated cities, 3 mi from Mississippi River [link]
- North Dakota, Mar. 2020 [subject to Attorney General review and approval of legislative Administrative Rules Committee]: 45 dB noise limit 100 ft from residence [link]
- Honolulu (Oahu), Hawaii, Mar. 2020 [subject to full city council approval]: setback 5 mi from nonparticipating property lines [link]
- Matteson Township, Michigan, Mar. 4, 2020: setbacks 1.25 mi from nonparticipating property line, 4× height to any residence; 328-ft height limit; noise limit 45 dB(A) or 55 db(C) at nonparticipating property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; allowed only in general agricultural, light agricultural, and research industrial zoning districts [link]
- Farmersville, New York, Feb. 10, 2020: height limit 455 ft, setbacks 3,000 ft to property line or well, 2,000 ft to roads, 1 mi to churches and schools including Amish homes and home schools; noise limit lower of 45 dBA at property line and 45 dBA outside dwelling or ambient + 10 dB(A), 10 dB added to nighttime (10pm–7am) levels; noise measurement specified, including C-weighted; shadow flicker on nonparticipating property limited to 8 hours/year and 1 hour/month; property value guarantee and decommissioning provisions [link]
- Seville Township, Michigan, Jan. 13, 2020: 1,640-ft setback from nonparticipating property line [link]
- Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana, Jan. 13, 2020: 3 mi from business or residence [link]
- Farmersville and Freedom, New York, Jan. 6, 2020: 2019 law revoked, reverting from 600-ft height limit, 1.3× height setback at property line, and 50-dBA noise limit to 450-ft height limit. Proposed [approved Jan. 30, 2020, by Cattaraugus County Planning Board]: height limit 455 ft, setbacks 3,000 ft to property line, 2,000 ft to roads, 1 mi to churches; noise limit lower of 45 dBA at property line and 45 dBA outside dwelling or ambient + 10 dB(A), 10 dB added to nighttime (10pm–7am) levels; noise measurement specified, including C-weighted; shadow flicker on nonparticipating property limited to 8 hours/year and 1 hour/month; property value guarantee and decommissioning provisions [link]
- Fell Township, Pennsylvania, Jan. 6, 2020: setback 5× total height to property line, minimum 1,500 ft; noise limit at property line 45–55 dB, 42–52 dB 10pm–7am [link]
- Mills County, Iowa, 2019: height limits 80 ft, 150 ft in commercial zones, 200 ft in industrial zones [link]
- North Rhine–Westphalia, Germany, 2019 [subject to public comment]: setback 1.5 km from municipalities; banned from forests [link]
- Ireland, Dec. 12, 2019 [subject to public consultation]: setback 4× total height to residences, minimum 500 m; noise limit (L90,10 min) outside sensitive properties (e.g., residences) lesser of 5 dBA above existing 30–38 dBA background noise or 43 dBA, with penalties for tonal noise and amplitude modulation and a threshold for low-frequency noise; no shadow flicker at sensitive properties [link]
- Sanford, New York, Dec. 10, 2019: setbacks 3× height from all permanent structures and off-site property lines, rights of way, easements, public ways, power lines, gas wells, and state lands, greater of 1,500 ft or 3× height from all off-site schools, hospitals, places of worship, places of public assembly, and residential structures; noise limits at nonparticipating property line of 45 dBA Leq (8-hour), 40 dBA average annual nighttime level, no audible prominent tone, no human-perceptible vibrations, 65 dB Leq at full-octave frequency bands of 16, 31.5, and 63 Hz, and 40 dBA (1-hour) from substation equipment; maximum shadow flicker 30 min/day, 30 h/year [link]
- Sherwood Township, Michigan, Dec. 5, 2019: height limit 330 ft; setbacks 5× height to nonparticipating property, 1 mi from village, 2 mi from environmentally sensitive areas [link]
- Posey County, Indiana, Nov. 25, 2019 [subject to town and County Commission approvals]: noise limit greater of 45 dB or 5 dB over ambient (L₉₀) at nonparticipating property line more than 10% of any hour; no shadow flicker at nonparticipating residence [link]; Jan. 3, 2021: 10 mi distance from Doppler radar site [link]
- Thomas County, Nebraska, Oct. 2021: setback 3 mi from property lines, roads, and wetlands; noise limit 35 dbA at residence [link]
- Hamilton County, Nebraska, Sept. 19, 2021: setback 2 mi from property line [link]
- Portland, New York, Aug. 8, 2020: setbacks 1,600 ft from residences, 1/2 mi from county parks [link]
- Casnovia Township, Michigan, Oct. 2019: setback 4× total height to nonparticipating property line; height limit 500 ft; 39 dBA nighttime noise limit and no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property [link]
- Madison County, Iowa, Aug. 8, 2019: Board of Health recommendation of 1.5 mi setback from nonparticipating property line, 2,100 ft from participating property line, 40 dBA noise limit at property line [link]; Sept. 8, 2019: County Board approves [link]
- Montgomery County, Indiana, June 10, 2019: setbacks greater of 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) or 5× height to property line (Board of Zoning Appeals may increase to 3,200 ft) and 1 mi from towns and schools; 32 dB(A) noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; wells within 1 mi to be tested before and after [link]
- Jasper County, Indiana, May 7, 2019: setbacks greater of 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) or 6.5× height to nonparticipating property lines and 1 mi from nonparticipating existing residences, platted subdivisions, “institutional land uses” (e.g., schools), Iroquois and Kankakee Rivers, and confined feed lots; 35 dB(A) noise limit at nonparticipating property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating properties [link]
- Sherwood Township, Michigan, June 13, 2019: height limit 300 ft; setbacks 5× height to property line, 1/2 mi from water, 1 mi from Village of Sherwood, 2 mi from environmentally sensitive areas [link]
- Monitor Township, Michigan, effective Apr. 29, 2019: change of setback from 750 ft to 2,000 ft to nonparticipating or 1,640 ft to participating property line or right-of-way; no shadow flicker or strobe effect on nonparticipating property; no stray voltage; noise limits (Lmax) 45 dBA and 55 dBC at property line or anywhere within neighboring property, no detectable sound pressures of 0.1-20 Hz [link]
- Worth, New York, Apr. 3, 2019: setback 5× height to property lines, structures, and roads; 35 dB(A) noise limit during day, 25 dB(A) at night (7pm–7am) [link]
- Lancaster County, Nebraska, Feb. 19, 2019: change of setback from 1,000 ft to property line to 1 mi to residence (to ensure sound limits established in 2015) [link]
- Kansas, introduced Feb. 12, 2019: HB 2273: setbacks greater of 7,920 ft (1-1/2 mi) or 12× height from residential property lines or public building, greater of 3 mi or 12× height from any airport, wildlife refuge, public hunting area, or public park, and minimum 1,500 ft from any property line [link]
- Nebraska, introduced Jan. 16, 2019 [subject to legislative approval]: LB373: requires hosting counties to have wind ordinances restricting wind turbines within 3 mi of residence without owner’s permission and addressing noise and decommissioning [link]
- Saline County, Nebraska, 2018: setback 1/2 mi from neighboring dwelling; noise limit 40 dBA (10-min average) at any dwelling [link]
- Redfield, New York, Dec. 11, 2018: setback 5× height to property lines, structures, and roads; 35 dB(A) noise limit during day, 25 dB(A) at night (7pm–7am) [link]
- Madison County, Nebraska, Nov. 18, 2024: setbacks of 2,200 ft from nonparticipating dwellings (and no new dwellings within 2,200 ft from wind turbine that can be only 1.1× its height from the property line [link]
- Henry County, Indiana, Nov. 14, 2018: setback 4 mi from town lines: Blountsville, Cadiz, Greensboro, Kennard, Lewisville, Mount Summit, Springport, Straughn, Sulphur Springs, Mooreland [link]
- Richland, New York, Nov. 13, 2018: setback 1 mi from property line; height limit 500 ft; 35 dB(A) (for more than 5 minutes) noise limit at residences [link]
- Adair County, Iowa, Oct. 24, 2018: setback 2,000 ft to nonparticipating home, 800 ft to property line [link]
- Kosciusko County, Indiana, Oct. 16 2018: setback greater of 3,960 ft or 6.5× height to property line, right-of-way, or power line, 1 mi from community or municipality boundary; 32 dB(A) noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; no detectable vibration in nearby structures or that could damage wells; no interference with TV, radio, GPS, etc.; property value guarantees within 2 mi; notification to all within 5 mi [link]
- Adams County, Nebraska, Oct. 2, 2018: setback 2,400 ft to neighboring dwelling, 6,000 ft from turbines not owned by applicant [link]
- Paint Township, Pennsylvania, Aug. 7, 2018: height limit 335 ft; setback 1.5× height to buildings and roads, 2,500 ft to property line [link]
- Greenwood, Maine, Aug. 6, 2018: added height limit of 250 ft; lowered noise limits at nonparticipating property lines from 55 dB during day and 42 dB at night to, respectively, 35 and 25 dB; increased setback to nonparticipating property lines from 1.5× height to 1 mi per 100 ft height [link]
- Dekalb County, Illinois, July 12, 2018 [approved by Board, 19-3, Nov. 21, 2018 (link)]: setback 6× total height to property line, 3 mi to municipality; height limit 500 ft; noise limit of 35 dBA during day (7am–10pm) and 30 dBA at night; no shadow flicker or flash; no radiofrequency or electromagnetic interference [link]
- North Dakota, July 1, 2018: decommission and land reclamation plan, cost estimates, and financial assurance required [link]
- Ingersoll Township, Michigan, May 14, 2018: [link]
- Beaver Township, Michigan, May 14, 2018: setback 4× total height to property line, public roads, and transmission lines; height limit 500 ft; noise limit 45 dBA Lmax or 55 dBC Lmax (or ambient plus 5 dB if greater) at property line [link]
- Shiawassee County, Michigan, May 8, 2018 [subject to County Board of Commissioners approval]: setback 3.5× total height to nonparticipating property line (changed from 1.5×); height limit 450 ft (changed from 600 ft); 45 dB noise limit at property line (changed from 55 dB); no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property (changed from 20 hours/year) [link]
- Almer Township, Michigan, Apr. 2018: setback 4× total height to nonparticipating property line; height limit 500 ft; 45 dBA noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; no stray voltage; decommissioning bond; all concrete to be removed [link]
- Tennessee, Apr. 24, 2018: setback 5× total height to nonparticipating property line; height limit 500 ft [link]
- Miami County, Indiana, Apr. 11, 2018: change of setback from 1,000 ft to 2,000 ft to property line [link]
- DeWitt County, Illinois, Apr. 19, 2018: change of setback from 1,500 ft to 2,000 ft to houses [link]
- Pierce County, Nebraska, Mar. 26, 2018: setback 2,700 ft to houses [link]
- Maroa, Illinois, Mar. 26, 2018: setback 1.5 mi from city border [link]
- Hopkinton, New York, Apr. 26, 2018: setback 5× total height to property line; 40 dBA noise limit at nonparticipating residence [link]
- Burnside Township, Michigan, Feb. 26, 2018: change of sound limit to 45 dBA Lmax (maximum) at property line [link]
- Yates, New York, Feb. 8, 2018: change of setback to nonparticipating property line from 3× height to greater of 6× height or 1/2 mi; greater of 6× height or 1/2 mi to residences, public rights of way, and boundaries with other towns; 1 mi to village boundaries, schools, churches, and cemeteries; 3 mi from Lake Ontario shoreline (per US Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation); change of noise limit from 45 dBA during day (7am–8pm) and 40 dBA at night to 42 dBA during day and 39 dBA at night (per Vermont Public Service Board recommendation) [link]
- Somerset, New York, Jan. 29, 2018: height limit 150 ft; industrial zones only; setback greater of 1/2 mi or 6× height to public roads, property lines, and residences; 3 mi from Lake Ontario shoreline; 42 dBA limit during day (7am–9pm), 35 dBA at night [link]
- Wabash County, Indiana, Dec. 18, 2017: 32 dBA limit outside of primary structures; no vibrations detectable on nonparticipant property; no shadow flicker on nonparticipant property; setbacks 3/4 mi to nonparticipant residential structure, 1/2 to nonparticipant business structure, 3/8 mi to participant residence, greater of 1,000 ft or 2× height to public roads [link]
- Rochester, Indiana, Dec. 4, 2017: setback 3 mi from city limits [link]
- Vermont, Nov. 22, 2017: 42 dBA limit 95% of the time 100 ft to nonparticipating residence during day (7am–9pm), 39 dBA at night (9pm–7am; goal to achieve interior sound level of ≤30 dB) [link]
- Stanton County, Nebraska, Nov. 2017: setback 2,700 ft from nonparticipating residence [link]
- Dixfield, Maine, Nov. 7, 2017: setbacks 2,000 ft to property line, 4,000 ft to occupied building or scenic or special resource; sound limits at property line of 42 dBA at night (7–7), 55 dBA at day within 4,000 ft; 5 dBA added to any average 10-minute sound level in which a tonal sound occurs, 5 dBA added to any average 10-minute sound level in which ≥5 short-duration repetitive sounds occur [link]
- Clark County, South Dakota, Aug. 14, 2017 [subject to appeal ruling]: change of setback from 1,000 ft to 3,960 ft (3/4 mi) to residences [link]
- Antelope County, Nebraska [subject to county commission approval]: change of setback from 2,000 ft to 2,700 ft to nonparticipating residence; maximum of 2 turbines within 4,000 ft of nonparticipating residence [link]
- Parishville, New York, June 22, 2017: setback 5× total height to property line; 45 dBA noise limit at nonparticipating residence during day (7am–7pm), 35 dBA at night (7pm–7am) [link]
- Bethel, Maine, June 14, 2017: setback 2 mi to property line; 25 dBA limit at property line 7pm–7am, 35 dBA 7am–7pm; height limit 250 ft [link]
- Walworth County, South Dakota, May 10, 2017: setback 2 mi to off-site residence, business, or church [link]
- Lincoln County, South Dakota, May 2, 2017 [upheld by referendum, July 18, 2017 (link)]: setback 1/2 mi to homes; 45 dB limit at property line; shadow flicker limits [link]
- North Dakota, June 5, 2017: aircraft detection required to minimize lighting at night [link]
- Clayton County, New York, Apr. 26, 2017: own use only; setback 5.5× height to property line [link]
- Livingston County, Illinois, Apr. 20, 2017: setback to participating homes changed from 1,200 ft to greater of 3,250 ft or 6× height; setback to property line 1,640 ft; state Pollution Control Board noise limits measured at residential property line [link]
- County Westmeath, Ireland, Jan. 31, 2017: setbacks from homes 500 m for heights >25 m to 50 m, 1,000 m for heights >50 m to 100 m, 1,500 m for heights >100 m to 150 m, and >2 km for heights ≥150 m [link]
- Rush County, Indiana, Dec. 16, 2016: project approved with setback 2,640 ft to nonparticipating property lines and height limit 200 ft; 32 dB limit at propertly line; no shadow flicker on neighboring property [link]
- Wayne County, Indiana, Dec. 7, 2016: zoning variance required for every turbine; large turbines not permitted: >100 ft tall, >50 kW, blade sweep >30 ft [link]
- Hagerstown, Indiana, Nov. 22, 2016: no structures over 100 ft height within 2 mi of town (extension of airport regulation) [link]
- Sand Beach Township, Michigan, Oct. 2016 [approved by referendum, 413-80, May 2, 2017 (link)]: 40 dB limit at hosting residences during day, 35 dB at night; 35 dB and 30 dB for nonhosting residences [link]
- Wabash County, Indiana, Oct. 17, 2016: 32 dBA limit outside of primary structures; shadow flicker at residential and business structures limited to 15 minutes per day, 4 days per year; setback 1/2 mi to nonparticipating residential or business structure [link]
- Clayton County, New York, Sept. 27, 2016: setback 1 mi to any structure, roadway, or property line; developers required to pay property owners for any damages or decreases in property value [link]
- Palo Alto County, Iowa, Sept. 27, 2016: setback 1,500 ft to dwellings and cemeteries [link]
- L’Anse Township, Michigan, Aug. 10, 2016: setback to nonparticipating property line (without easement) changed from 1,000 ft to 2,540 ft; height limit 500 ft [link]
- County Laois, Ireland, Aug. 5, 2016 [augmented Mar. 29, 2017, by total ban (link)]: setback 1.5 km to schools, dwellings, community centers, and public roads [link]
- Newfield, New York, July 24, 2016: setback 1,760 ft or 3× blade radius to property line without lease or easement [link]
- Tipton County, Indiana, July 2016: setbacks 2,640 ft from residences, 1,500 ft from property lines [link]
- Letcher Township, South Dakota, June 8, 2016; effective July 1, 2016: setbacks 1 mi to nonparticipating residence and 1,500 ft to property line [link]
- Poland, May 2016 (revoked to 700 m setback Mar. 2023): setback 10× total height of turbine to housing [link]
- Gage County, Nebraska, Mar. 30, 2016: 45 dB limit at nonparticipating properties during day, 40 dB at night (10pm–7am); setback 3/8 mi to nonparticipating residence [link]
- New Hampshire, Dec. 15, 2015: sound limits: greater of 45 dBAL90 or 5 dBA above background level during day (8–8), 40 dBA during day, greater of 40 dBAL90 or 5 dBA above background level at night at any temporary or permanent residence; shadow flicker: no more than 8 hours per year at or in any residence, learning space, workplace, health care setting, outdoor or indoor public gathering area, or other occupied building [link]
- Freedom, Maine, Nov. 17, 2015: 13× height setback to property line, 4× height to public roads, 2,500 ft to special resources; sound limits 5 dBA above preconstruction ambient level, 40 dBA during day, and 35 dBA at night at property line, and 20 dBC above preconstruction ambient dBA level at property line and inside dwellings [link]
- Lancaster County, Nebraska, Nov. 10, 2015: sound limits at exterior wall of dwellings 40 dBA and 3 dBA above background (by 10-minute average, Leq,10min) from 7am to 10pm, 37 dBA from 10pm to 7am [link]
- Boone County, Illinois, Nov. 4, 2015: change of setback from 1,000 ft to 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) to property line [link]
- Emmet County, Michigan, Oct. 15, 2015: change of setback from 1,000 ft to 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) to property line [link]
- Oklahoma, Aug. 21, 2015: set back 1.5 mi from public school, hospital, or airport [link]
- Catlin, New York, July 9, 2015: height limit 400 ft;, noise limit 40 dBA at property line [link]
- Rush County, Indiana, July 1, 2015 (upheld by trial court May 27, 2016, appeals court Feb. 14, 2017, and supreme court May 25, 2017 [link]): project approved with change of setback to 2,300 ft to residences and property line [link]
- Peru, Massachusetts, June 6, 2015: height limit [link]
- Garden Township, Michigan, June 1, 2015: 35 dBA or 50 dBC limit at property line from 10pm to 6am [link]
- Iroquois County, Illinois, Apr. 14, 2015: change of setback to property line from 1,500 ft to 12 rotor diameters [link]
- Cleburne County, Alabama, Feb. 9, 2015 [needs state approval]: 2,500 ft setback to property line, 40 dB sound limit [link]
- Howard County, Indiana, Jan. 5, 2015: change of setback from 1,500 ft to 2,000 ft from property line and noise limit at neighboring residence from 50 dBA to 40 dBA [link]
- Pictou County, Nova Scotia, Jan. 5, 2015: 1,000 m setback, 600 m with consent of homeowner [link]
- Bavaria, Germany, Nov. 21, 2014: 10× height setback to homes, 800 m to other dwellings [link]
- Adams Township, Michigan, Oct. 2014, affirmed Apr. 13, 2015 [link]: 3,000 ft setback to lines, roads, and homes [link]
- Plympton-Wyoming, Ontario, Oct. 8, 2014; repealed under threat of lawsuit May 27, 2015 [link]: 50 dB average, +10 dB peak infrasound limit inside dwellings; 15 dBC or 20 dB infrasound limit over dBA level inside or outside dwellings; amplitude modulation limit indoors of 2 mPa RMS for 10 seconds out of any 40 seconds [link]
- Mason County, Kentucky, Sept. 30, 2014: wind turbines >50 kW in already-designated industrial zones only; 1 mi setback of turbines, substations, and maintenance/operation facilities to property line, residences/regularly used buildings, residential zones, rights of way, wetlands, etc.; 30 dBA and 50 dbC limits at property line [link]
- Buckland, Massachusetts, Sept. 25, 2014: limits of 250 kW capacity and 120 ft height, setbacks 360 ft to property line and half-mile to off-site residence [link]
- County Offaly, Ireland, Sept. 15, 2014: setback 2 km from towns and villages [link]
- Fairview Township, Pennsylvania, Aug. 4, 2014: height limit 350 ft, setbacks 1,500 ft to property lines and bodies of water, 1.1× height to roads [link]
- Dallas County, Iowa, July 29, 2014: setbacks 2,640 ft from residence, school, hospital, church, or public library, 2 mi from sensitive natural resource areas, wildlife management areas, prairies, wetlands, forested areas, etc.; 30 dBA noise limit at property line of any dwelling, school, hospital, church, or public library [link]
- County Donegal, Ireland, June 30, 2014 [cancelled by Minister Oct. 6, 2016; reinstated Mar. 27, 2017]: setback 10× tip height to places of residence or public assembly [link]
- Ohio, June 16, 2014: change of setback (1,125 ft from blade tip) to property line (from house) [link]
- Schoolcraft County, Michigan, June 5, 2014: setbacks 3,960 ft (3/4-mi) to dwellings and businesses, 1 mi to scenic areas, parks, highways; 35 dB(A) limit at property line, ambient plus 5 dB limit at dwellings [link]
- Etowah County, Alabama, Mar. 19, 2014: 40 dB limit at property line, 2,500 ft setback from property line [link]
- Cherokee County, Alabama, Mar. 18, 2014: 40 dB limit at property line, 2,500 ft setback from property line [link]
- DeKalb County, Alabama: 40 dB limit at property line, 2,500 ft setback from property line [link]
- Granville, Pennsylvania, May 5, 2014: setbacks 2,000 ft to property line and participating residence and 2,500 ft to nonparticipating residence, 45 dBA or 45 dBC limit at property line [link]
- Carteret County, North Carolina, Feb. 26, 2014: change of setback to 1 mi (from 6× height), plus 275 ft height limit and 35 dB limit (for more than 5 min) at property line [link]
- Iredell County, North Carolina: 350 ft height limit, 30 dB noise limit at property line [link]
- Ashe County, North Carolina: 199 ft height limit [link]
- County Offaly, Ireland, Sept. 15, 2014: setback 2 km from towns and villages [link]
- Kentucky, 2014: setbacks 1,000 ft from property lines, 2,000 ft from residential neighborhood, school, hospital, or nursing home facility [link]
- Eastern Kings, Prince Edward Island, 2013: setbacks 4× height to participating dwelling, 3,280 ft (1,000 m) to nonparticipating dwelling [link]
- Saxony, Germany, July 12, 2013: setback 1,000 m to residence [link]
- Noble County, Indiana, May 2013: 3/4 mi to residence [link]
- Whitley County, Indiana, May 2013: greater of 1/2 mi or 6.5× height to residence [link]
- Woodstock, Maine, Mar. 25, 2013: setback 1 mi to property line; 35 dBA limit at property line 7pm–7am, 45 dBA 7am–7pm [link]
- Crook County, Wyoming, June 6, 2012: setbacks greater of 5× height or 1 mi from residence, 1/2 mi from city or town [link]
- Pratt County, Kansas, May 12, 2012: 3,960 ft to residence [link]
- Wisconsin, Mar. 15, 2012: 1.1× height to property line, 1,250 ft to any residence [link]
- Bingham County, Idaho, 2012: 3× height to property line, 1 mi platted Town sites and cities [link]
- Haut-Saint-Laurent, Montérégie, Québéc, Jan. 9, 2013: 2 km setback [link]
- Denmark, Dec. 15, 2011: addition of 20 dB low-frequency (10–160 Hz) limit (day and night) inside homes [link]
- Frankfort, Maine, Dec. 1, 2011: 1 mi setback to property line, noise limits within 2 mi 35 dB day, 25 dB night [link] [repeal rejected Nov. 4, 2014; link]
- Victoria, Australia, Aug. 29, 2011: 2 km setback without consent of homeowner [link]; reduced to 1 km Mar. 2015 [link]
- Umatilla County, Oregon, June 28, 2011: change of setback to 2 mi from “urban grown boundary”, 1 mi from "unincorporated community" zones (from 3,520 ft) [link]
- Barnstable County (Cape Cod), Massachusetts, Apr. 20, 2011: 10× rotor diameter to property line [link]
- Centerville Township, Michigan, Aug. 18, 2010: height limit 199 ft; setback 10× rotor diameter to property line or road; noise limits at property line 35 dBA or 5 dBA above background during day, 3 dBA above background at night, with low-frequency limits and tonality penalty [link]
- Klickitat County, Washington, Aug. 17, 2010: setback 1,600 ft to residences [link]
- Allegany County, Maryland, Jan. 1, 2010: setbacks 2,000 ft to homes, 5,000 ft to schools [link]
- Dixmont, Maine, 2009: setback 2,500 ft from neighboring residential property line [link]
- Kearny County, Kansas, 2009: setback 2,000 ft from property line [link]
September 29, 2014
Speciesism: the day after
“I can’t pinpoint some time or moment when I thought, when I realized that there was something to the argument ... so it was kind of a cumulative process ... But once there was a tipping point, when you come out on the other side intellectually, it’s almost, I would almost say it’s crippling. You’re immediately confronted with a holocaust that is occurring everywhere at all times, and everybody you know – your loved ones and people you hate, everywhere – they’re all participating in it. And yet here I am, I’m just talking about it, kind of somewhat unpassionately, just talking about it because I’m trying to relay my feelings about it, when really, the only reasonable response to that realization, to wake up to this world we live in, is a fucking explosion. That’s the only reasonable response. Because this is something – it’s never happened before – I can’t ... It’s so bad, that how do you possibly talk about a holocaust that’s happening everywhere all the time every day and everybody’s included? How do you talk about that when no one ... it’s a laughable subject when you bring it up, you know, when your friends and family, when they think it’s cute that you decided to take an interest in animal issues: ‘but I’m glad, you’ve made your choice, please respect my choice’ – How in hell do you possibly go on in that world? How do you not see the world and everybody in it as dark and dangerous and irrational? How in the world do you not see your life that you’ve lived up to that point when you’ve woken up as inexcusable?”
“I realized that it goes much deeper than I could have ever expected. For people who try to see past speciesism, the world becomes very different.”
Speciesism: the movie
September 20, 2014
A 'crisis of bigness'
from “This economic collapse is a 'crisis of bigness'” by Paul Kingsnorth, The Guardian, 25 September 2011:
To listen to a political leader at this moment in history is like sitting through a sermon by a priest who has lost his faith but is desperately trying not to admit it, even to himself. Watch Nick Clegg, David Cameron or Ed Miliband mouthing tough-guy platitudes to the party faithful. Listen to Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy or George Papandreou pretending that all will be well in the eurozone. Study the expressions on the faces of Barack Obama or Ben Bernanke talking about "growth" as if it were a heathen god to be appeased by tipping another cauldron's worth of fictional money into the mouth of a volcano.
In times like these, people look elsewhere for answers. A time of crisis is also a time of opening-up, when thinking that was consigned to the fringes moves to centre stage. When things fall apart, the appetite for new ways of seeing is palpable, and there are always plenty of people willing to feed it by coming forward with their pet big ideas.
But here's a thought: what if big ideas are part of the problem? What if, in fact, the problem is bigness itself?
The crisis currently playing out on the world stage is a crisis of growth.
Published in 1957, The Breakdown of Nations [by Leopold Kohr] laid out what at the time was a radical case: that small states, small nations and small economies are more peaceful, more prosperous and more creative than great powers or superstates. ... Kohr's claim was that society's problems were not caused by particular forms of social or economic organisation, but by their size. ... [O]nce scaled up to the level of modern states, all systems became oppressors. Changing the system, or the ideology that it claimed inspiration from, would not prevent that oppression – as any number of revolutions have shown – because "the problem is not the thing that is big, but bigness itself".
Drawing from history, Kohr demonstrated that when people have too much power, under any system or none, they abuse it. The task, therefore, was to limit the amount of power that any individual, organisation or government could get its hands on. The solution to the world's problems was not more unity but more division. ... Small states and small economies were more flexible, more able to weather economic storms, less capable of waging serious wars, and more accountable to their people. Not only that, but they were more creative. ...
Bigness, predicted Kohr, could only lead to more bigness, for "whatever outgrows certain limits begins to suffer from the irrepressible problem of unmanageable proportions". Beyond those limits it was forced to accumulate more power in order to manage the power it already had. Growth would become cancerous and unstoppable, until there was only one possible endpoint: collapse.
human rights, anarchism, ecoanarchism, anarchosyndicalism
Green Capitalism: The God That Failed
By Richard Smith, Jan. 9, 2014
[excerpts]
The project of sustainable capitalism based on carbon taxes, green marketing, "dematerialization" and so forth was misconceived and doomed from the start because maximizing profit and saving the planet are inherently in conflict and cannot be systematically aligned even if, here and there, they might coincide for a moment.
‘Despite all this good work, we still must face a sobering fact. If every company on the planet were to adopt the best environmental practices of the "leading" companies - say, the Body Shop, Patagonia or 3M - the world would still be moving toward sure degradation and collapse. ... Quite simply, our business practices are destroying life on earth. Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife preserve, wilderness or indigenous culture will survive the global market economy. We know that every natural system on the planet is disintegrating. The land, water, air and sea have been functionally transformed from life-supporting systems into repositories for waste. There is no polite way to say that business is destroying the world.’ (Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce)
But two decades on, for all the organic groceries, the energy-efficient lightbulbs, appliances and buildings, the carbon trading and carbon taxes, the global ecology is collapsing faster than ever.
[T]he capitalist market system is inherently eco-suicidal. Endless growth can end only in catastrophic eco-collapse. No amount of tinkering can alter the market system's suicidal trajectory. Therefore, like it or not, humanity has no choice but to try to find a way to replace capitalism with some kind of post-capitalist ecologically sustainable economy.
[C]onsumerism and overconsumption are not "dispensable" and cannot be exorcised because they're not just "cultural" or "habitual." They are built into capitalism and indispensable for the day-to-day reproduction of corporate producers in a competitive market system in which capitalists, workers, consumers and governments alike are dependent upon an endless cycle of perpetually increasing consumption to maintain profits, jobs and tax revenues.
Paul Hawken and Al Gore call for "offsetting" carbon taxes by reducing income taxes. Hansen's "tax and dividend" plan proposes "returning 100 percent of the collected tax back to the public in the form of a dividend." Yet, as ecological economist William E. Rees, co-founder of the science of ecological footprint analysis, points out, if carbon-tax offsets are revenue-neutral, they are also "impact neutral." Money returned to consumers likely will just be spent on something else that consumes or trashes the planet.
If we're talking about 90 percent cuts in CO₂ and other greenhouse emissions, then we're talking about the need to impose huge cuts in everything from farming to fashion.
Either we radically transform our economic system or we face the collapse of civilization.
Even when it's theoretically possible to shift to greener production, given capitalism, as often as not, "green" industries just replace old problems with new problems: So burning down tracts of the Amazon rain forest to plant sugar cane to produce organic sugar for Whole Foods or ethanol to feed cars instead of people is not so green after all. Neither is burning down Indonesian and Malaysian rain forests to plant palm-oil plantations so Britons can tool around London in their obese Land Rovers. ... Aquaculture was supposed to save wild fish. But this turns out to be just another case of "green gone wrong," because, aside from contaminating farmed fish (and fish eaters) with antibiotics to suppress disease in fish pens, farm-raised fish are carnivores. They don't eat corn. Feeding ever-more farmed fish requires capturing ever-more wild forage fish to grind up for fishmeal for the farm-raised fish, which leaves ever-fewer fish in the ocean, starving those up the food chain like sharks, seals, dolphins and whales. So instead of saving wild fish, fish farming has actually accelerated the plunder of the last remaining stocks of wild fish in the oceans. "Green certification" schemes were supposed to reduce tropical deforestation by shaming Home Depot and similar big vendors into sourcing their wood and pulp from "certified" "sustainable" forests - the "sustainable" part is that these "forests" get replanted. But such wood "plantations" are never planted on land that was previously unforested. Instead, they just replace natural forest. There's nothing sustainable about burning down huge tracts of native Indonesian or Amazonian tropical forests and killing off or running off all the wild animals and indigenous people that lived there to plant sterile eucalyptus plantations to harvest pulp for paper. To make matters worse, market demand from overconsuming but guilt-ridden Americans and Europeans has forced green certifiers to lower their standards so much to keep up with demand that today, in most cases, ecological "certification" is virtually meaningless. For example, the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC), the largest such organization, has come under fire for allowing its tree-with-checkmark logo to be used by rainforest-raping lumber and paper companies, for taking the word of auditors paid by the companies, for loosening its standards to allow just 50 percent certified pulp to go into paper making, and other problems. The problem is that the FSC is not an international government body with a universal mandate and authority to certify the world's lumber. It's just a self-funding NGO environmental organization like the NRDC or the WWF or Greenpeace. Such organizations live on voluntary contributions from supporters, on contributions from corporate funders or on payment for services. As these organizations grew in size and ambition, they sought bigger budgets to better fulfill their "missions" - more than they could solicit from individual contributors. With few exceptions, nearly all these organizations eventually adopted "business" models that drove them into the arms of corporate contributors, in this case, typically lumber companies. When the FSC was founded in 1993, it certified just three producers whose lumber was 100 percent sustainable and not many more in the following years. But by 1997, as the organization faced competition from new "entrants" into the green product-labeling "field" (to use capitalist lingo), the FSC faced the problem, as the Wall Street Journal reported, of "how to maintain high standards while promoting their logos and increasing the supply of approved products to meet demand from consumers and big retailers." This is ever the contradiction in our capitalist world. They started off seeking to protect the forest from rapacious consumers. But demand by luxury consumers in the North is insatiable. To make matters worse, because no one certifier has a monopoly, new certifiers could come into the market. And if they were not so fussy about their criteria for "green certification," they might be more attractive to big retailers hungry for "product." So competition ensued, and, in the end, the FSC could hold onto its dominant position, aka "share of the market," only by caving in - introducing more-relaxed labeling standards, letting producers use just 50 percent sustainable pulp in paper manufacture, letting industry pay for "independent" FSC auditors and so on. In the end, "green" lumber certification has steadily drifted away from its mission and become more and more a part of the corporate plunder of world's remaining forests.
[E]ven if a shift to renewables could provide us with relatively unlimited supplies of clean electricity, we can't assume that this necessarily would lead to massive permanent reductions in pollution. That's because, on the Jevons principle I discussed elsewhere, if there are no non-market constraints on production then the advent of cheap, clean energy production could just give a huge solar-powered green light to the manufacturers of endless electric vehicles, appliances, lighting, laptops, phones, iPads and new toys we can't even imagine yet. But the expanded production of all this stuff, on a global scale, would just consume more raw materials, more metals, plastics, rare earths, etc. It would produce more and more pollution and destroy more and more of the environment. And the products ultimately would end up in some landfill somewhere.
[C]oal is not only burned to generate electricity, coal is critical for making steel. And coal provides carbon for aluminum smelting. And coal and coal byproducts are critical for paper making and many other products, from rayon and nylon to specialist products like carbon fiber, carbon filters, etc. So no coal, no steel or aluminum. No steel and aluminum, no windmills or solar panels or high-speed trains ("goods"). No coal, no carbon fiber, no superlight "hyper cars." So "taxing coal out of business" would undermine some of Hawken's other environmental goals. Same with oil. Oil and oil byproducts are indispensable for petrochemicals, plastics, plastic film for solar panels, plastic insulation for electric wires and countless thousands of other products. Oil is so critical for so many industrial products and processes that it is just inconceivable to imagine a modern industrial civilization without oil. Rare earths mining is a no less dirty process. But no rare earths, no windmill generators, no electric cars, no cellular phones or iPads. And the search for lithium to make the batteries for all those future electric cars threatens fragile ecologies from Bolivia to Finland, Mexico to Canada. Metals smelting is, likewise, an extremely polluting process with little real potential for greening, which is why producers try when possible to do this out of reach of US and European environmental laws. But no copper, no electric lines from those solar panels and no electric motors for those windmills and electric cars. No aluminum, no windmill generators or light vehicles. ... Many metals are recyclable, but world demand for aluminum, copper, steel, nickel and other metals, not to mention "rare earths," is soaring as more and more of the world modernizes and industrializes.
The problem for eco-futurist inventors such as Lovins is that they understand technology but they don't understand capitalist economics.
So if the reality is that, when all is said and done, there is only so much you can do in most industries, the only way to bend the economy in an ecological direction is to sharply limit production, especially of toxic products, which means completely redesigning production and consumption - all of which is impossible under capitalism.
[E]ven in Hawken's "restorative economy," toxic polluters would still be free to spread their carcinogens everywhere - if they just pay to pollute. It is hard to imagine a more bankrupt strategy, guaranteed to fail, nor for that matter, a more hypocritical and immoral strategy.
[H]ow can we "reject consumerism" when we live in a capitalist economy where, in the case of the United States, more than two-thirds of market sales, and therefore most jobs, depend on direct sales to consumers while most of the rest of the economy, including the infrastructure and military, is dedicated to propping up this consumerist "American way of life?" Indeed, most jobs in industrialized countries critically depend not just on consumerism but on ever-increasing overconsumption. We "need" this ever-increasing consumption and waste production because, without growth, capitalist economies collapse and unemployment soars, as we've seen. The problem with the Worldwatch Institute is that, on this issue, they're looking at the world upside down. They think it's consumerist culture that drives corporations to overproduce. So their solution is to transform the culture, get people to read their Worldwatch reports and re-educate themselves so they understand the folly of consumerism and resolve to forego unnecessary consumption - without transforming the economy itself. But it's not the culture that drives the economy so much as, overwhelmingly, the economy that drives the culture: It's the insatiable demands of shareholders that drive corporate producers to maximize sales, therefore to constantly seek out new sales and sources in every corner of the planet, to endlessly invent, as the Lorax had it, new "thneeds" no one really needs, to obsoletize those thneeds just as soon as they've been sold, so the cycle can begin all over again. This is the driving engine of consumerism. Frank Lloyd Wright's apprentice Victor J. Papenek had it right: "Most things are not designed for the needs of people, but for the needs of manufacturers to sell to people." This means that "consumerism" is not just a "cultural pattern." It's not just "commercial brainwashing" or an "infantile regression," as Benjamin Barber has it. Insatiable consumerism is an everyday requirement of capitalist reproduction, and this drives capitalist invention and imperial expansion. No overconsumption, no growth, no jobs. And no "cultural transformation" is going to overcome this fundamental imperative so long as the economic system depends on overconsumption for its day-to-day survival.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, anarchism, ecoanarchism, anarchosyndicalism
[excerpts]
The project of sustainable capitalism based on carbon taxes, green marketing, "dematerialization" and so forth was misconceived and doomed from the start because maximizing profit and saving the planet are inherently in conflict and cannot be systematically aligned even if, here and there, they might coincide for a moment.
‘Despite all this good work, we still must face a sobering fact. If every company on the planet were to adopt the best environmental practices of the "leading" companies - say, the Body Shop, Patagonia or 3M - the world would still be moving toward sure degradation and collapse. ... Quite simply, our business practices are destroying life on earth. Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife preserve, wilderness or indigenous culture will survive the global market economy. We know that every natural system on the planet is disintegrating. The land, water, air and sea have been functionally transformed from life-supporting systems into repositories for waste. There is no polite way to say that business is destroying the world.’ (Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce)
But two decades on, for all the organic groceries, the energy-efficient lightbulbs, appliances and buildings, the carbon trading and carbon taxes, the global ecology is collapsing faster than ever.
[T]he capitalist market system is inherently eco-suicidal. Endless growth can end only in catastrophic eco-collapse. No amount of tinkering can alter the market system's suicidal trajectory. Therefore, like it or not, humanity has no choice but to try to find a way to replace capitalism with some kind of post-capitalist ecologically sustainable economy.
[C]onsumerism and overconsumption are not "dispensable" and cannot be exorcised because they're not just "cultural" or "habitual." They are built into capitalism and indispensable for the day-to-day reproduction of corporate producers in a competitive market system in which capitalists, workers, consumers and governments alike are dependent upon an endless cycle of perpetually increasing consumption to maintain profits, jobs and tax revenues.
Paul Hawken and Al Gore call for "offsetting" carbon taxes by reducing income taxes. Hansen's "tax and dividend" plan proposes "returning 100 percent of the collected tax back to the public in the form of a dividend." Yet, as ecological economist William E. Rees, co-founder of the science of ecological footprint analysis, points out, if carbon-tax offsets are revenue-neutral, they are also "impact neutral." Money returned to consumers likely will just be spent on something else that consumes or trashes the planet.
If we're talking about 90 percent cuts in CO₂ and other greenhouse emissions, then we're talking about the need to impose huge cuts in everything from farming to fashion.
Either we radically transform our economic system or we face the collapse of civilization.
Even when it's theoretically possible to shift to greener production, given capitalism, as often as not, "green" industries just replace old problems with new problems: So burning down tracts of the Amazon rain forest to plant sugar cane to produce organic sugar for Whole Foods or ethanol to feed cars instead of people is not so green after all. Neither is burning down Indonesian and Malaysian rain forests to plant palm-oil plantations so Britons can tool around London in their obese Land Rovers. ... Aquaculture was supposed to save wild fish. But this turns out to be just another case of "green gone wrong," because, aside from contaminating farmed fish (and fish eaters) with antibiotics to suppress disease in fish pens, farm-raised fish are carnivores. They don't eat corn. Feeding ever-more farmed fish requires capturing ever-more wild forage fish to grind up for fishmeal for the farm-raised fish, which leaves ever-fewer fish in the ocean, starving those up the food chain like sharks, seals, dolphins and whales. So instead of saving wild fish, fish farming has actually accelerated the plunder of the last remaining stocks of wild fish in the oceans. "Green certification" schemes were supposed to reduce tropical deforestation by shaming Home Depot and similar big vendors into sourcing their wood and pulp from "certified" "sustainable" forests - the "sustainable" part is that these "forests" get replanted. But such wood "plantations" are never planted on land that was previously unforested. Instead, they just replace natural forest. There's nothing sustainable about burning down huge tracts of native Indonesian or Amazonian tropical forests and killing off or running off all the wild animals and indigenous people that lived there to plant sterile eucalyptus plantations to harvest pulp for paper. To make matters worse, market demand from overconsuming but guilt-ridden Americans and Europeans has forced green certifiers to lower their standards so much to keep up with demand that today, in most cases, ecological "certification" is virtually meaningless. For example, the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC), the largest such organization, has come under fire for allowing its tree-with-checkmark logo to be used by rainforest-raping lumber and paper companies, for taking the word of auditors paid by the companies, for loosening its standards to allow just 50 percent certified pulp to go into paper making, and other problems. The problem is that the FSC is not an international government body with a universal mandate and authority to certify the world's lumber. It's just a self-funding NGO environmental organization like the NRDC or the WWF or Greenpeace. Such organizations live on voluntary contributions from supporters, on contributions from corporate funders or on payment for services. As these organizations grew in size and ambition, they sought bigger budgets to better fulfill their "missions" - more than they could solicit from individual contributors. With few exceptions, nearly all these organizations eventually adopted "business" models that drove them into the arms of corporate contributors, in this case, typically lumber companies. When the FSC was founded in 1993, it certified just three producers whose lumber was 100 percent sustainable and not many more in the following years. But by 1997, as the organization faced competition from new "entrants" into the green product-labeling "field" (to use capitalist lingo), the FSC faced the problem, as the Wall Street Journal reported, of "how to maintain high standards while promoting their logos and increasing the supply of approved products to meet demand from consumers and big retailers." This is ever the contradiction in our capitalist world. They started off seeking to protect the forest from rapacious consumers. But demand by luxury consumers in the North is insatiable. To make matters worse, because no one certifier has a monopoly, new certifiers could come into the market. And if they were not so fussy about their criteria for "green certification," they might be more attractive to big retailers hungry for "product." So competition ensued, and, in the end, the FSC could hold onto its dominant position, aka "share of the market," only by caving in - introducing more-relaxed labeling standards, letting producers use just 50 percent sustainable pulp in paper manufacture, letting industry pay for "independent" FSC auditors and so on. In the end, "green" lumber certification has steadily drifted away from its mission and become more and more a part of the corporate plunder of world's remaining forests.
[E]ven if a shift to renewables could provide us with relatively unlimited supplies of clean electricity, we can't assume that this necessarily would lead to massive permanent reductions in pollution. That's because, on the Jevons principle I discussed elsewhere, if there are no non-market constraints on production then the advent of cheap, clean energy production could just give a huge solar-powered green light to the manufacturers of endless electric vehicles, appliances, lighting, laptops, phones, iPads and new toys we can't even imagine yet. But the expanded production of all this stuff, on a global scale, would just consume more raw materials, more metals, plastics, rare earths, etc. It would produce more and more pollution and destroy more and more of the environment. And the products ultimately would end up in some landfill somewhere.
[C]oal is not only burned to generate electricity, coal is critical for making steel. And coal provides carbon for aluminum smelting. And coal and coal byproducts are critical for paper making and many other products, from rayon and nylon to specialist products like carbon fiber, carbon filters, etc. So no coal, no steel or aluminum. No steel and aluminum, no windmills or solar panels or high-speed trains ("goods"). No coal, no carbon fiber, no superlight "hyper cars." So "taxing coal out of business" would undermine some of Hawken's other environmental goals. Same with oil. Oil and oil byproducts are indispensable for petrochemicals, plastics, plastic film for solar panels, plastic insulation for electric wires and countless thousands of other products. Oil is so critical for so many industrial products and processes that it is just inconceivable to imagine a modern industrial civilization without oil. Rare earths mining is a no less dirty process. But no rare earths, no windmill generators, no electric cars, no cellular phones or iPads. And the search for lithium to make the batteries for all those future electric cars threatens fragile ecologies from Bolivia to Finland, Mexico to Canada. Metals smelting is, likewise, an extremely polluting process with little real potential for greening, which is why producers try when possible to do this out of reach of US and European environmental laws. But no copper, no electric lines from those solar panels and no electric motors for those windmills and electric cars. No aluminum, no windmill generators or light vehicles. ... Many metals are recyclable, but world demand for aluminum, copper, steel, nickel and other metals, not to mention "rare earths," is soaring as more and more of the world modernizes and industrializes.
The problem for eco-futurist inventors such as Lovins is that they understand technology but they don't understand capitalist economics.
So if the reality is that, when all is said and done, there is only so much you can do in most industries, the only way to bend the economy in an ecological direction is to sharply limit production, especially of toxic products, which means completely redesigning production and consumption - all of which is impossible under capitalism.
[E]ven in Hawken's "restorative economy," toxic polluters would still be free to spread their carcinogens everywhere - if they just pay to pollute. It is hard to imagine a more bankrupt strategy, guaranteed to fail, nor for that matter, a more hypocritical and immoral strategy.
[H]ow can we "reject consumerism" when we live in a capitalist economy where, in the case of the United States, more than two-thirds of market sales, and therefore most jobs, depend on direct sales to consumers while most of the rest of the economy, including the infrastructure and military, is dedicated to propping up this consumerist "American way of life?" Indeed, most jobs in industrialized countries critically depend not just on consumerism but on ever-increasing overconsumption. We "need" this ever-increasing consumption and waste production because, without growth, capitalist economies collapse and unemployment soars, as we've seen. The problem with the Worldwatch Institute is that, on this issue, they're looking at the world upside down. They think it's consumerist culture that drives corporations to overproduce. So their solution is to transform the culture, get people to read their Worldwatch reports and re-educate themselves so they understand the folly of consumerism and resolve to forego unnecessary consumption - without transforming the economy itself. But it's not the culture that drives the economy so much as, overwhelmingly, the economy that drives the culture: It's the insatiable demands of shareholders that drive corporate producers to maximize sales, therefore to constantly seek out new sales and sources in every corner of the planet, to endlessly invent, as the Lorax had it, new "thneeds" no one really needs, to obsoletize those thneeds just as soon as they've been sold, so the cycle can begin all over again. This is the driving engine of consumerism. Frank Lloyd Wright's apprentice Victor J. Papenek had it right: "Most things are not designed for the needs of people, but for the needs of manufacturers to sell to people." This means that "consumerism" is not just a "cultural pattern." It's not just "commercial brainwashing" or an "infantile regression," as Benjamin Barber has it. Insatiable consumerism is an everyday requirement of capitalist reproduction, and this drives capitalist invention and imperial expansion. No overconsumption, no growth, no jobs. And no "cultural transformation" is going to overcome this fundamental imperative so long as the economic system depends on overconsumption for its day-to-day survival.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, anarchism, ecoanarchism, anarchosyndicalism
September 14, 2014
Cowspiracy
Global Warming
Richard Oppenlander, author, Comfortably Unaware: “My calculations are that without using any gas or oil or fuel every again from this day forward, we would still exceed our maximum carbon-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2030 ... all simply by raising and eating livestock.”
Kirk Smith, Professor of Global Environmental Health, University of California, Berkeley: “If you reduce the amount of methane emissions, the level in the atmosphere goes down fairly quickly, within decades, as opposed to CO₂ if you reduce the emissions to the atmosphere, you don't really see a signal in the atmosphere for 100 years or so.”
Demosthenes Moratos, Sustainability Institute, Molloy College: “The single largest contributor to every known environmental ill known to humankind – deforestation, land use, water scarcity, the destabilization of communities, world hunger – the list doesn’t stop – it’s an environmental disaster that’s being ignored by the very people who should be championing it.”
Will Tuttle, author: “Free-living animals made up, 10,000 years ago, 99% of the biomass and human beings, we made up only 1% of the biomass. Today, only 10,000 years later ... we human beings and the animals that we own as property make up 98% of the biomass and wild free-living animals make up only 2%. We’ve basically completely stolen the world, the earth, from free-living animals to use for ourselves and our cows and pigs and chickens and factory-farmed fish, and the oceans are being even more devastated.”
Oppenlander: “Concerned researchers of the loss of species agree that the primary cause of loss of species on our earth ... is due to overgrazing and habitat loss through livestock production on land and by overfishing, which I call fishing, in our oceans.”
Tuttle: “We’re in the middle of the largest mass extinction of species in 65 million years, the rainforest is being cut down at the rate of an acre per second, and the driving force behind all of this is animal agriculture: cutting down the forest to graze animals and to grow soybeans, genetically engineered soybeans to feed the cows and pigs and chickens and factory-farmed fish.”
Oppenlander: “Ninety-one percent of the loss of the rainforest in the Amazon area thus far to date, 91% of what has been destroyed is due to raising livestock.”
Ocean
Water
Rainforest
Wildlife
Population
—Howard Lyman, former cattle rancher, author, Mad Cowboy
“To feed a person on an all plant-based vegan diet for a year requires just one-sixth of an acre of land. To feed that same person on a vegetarian diet that includes eggs and dairy requires three times as much land. To feed an average U.S. citizen’s high-consumption diet of meat, dairy, and eggs requires 18 times as much land. This is because you can produce 37,000 pounds of vegetables on one-and-a-half acres but only 375 pounds of meat on that same plot of land.
“The comparison doesn’t end with land use. A vegan diet produces half as much CO₂ as an American omnivore, uses one-eleventh the amount of fossil fuels, one-thirteenth the amount of water, and an eighteenth of the amount of land.
“After adding this all up, I realized I had the choice every single day to save over 1100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 square feet of forested land, the equivalent of 20 pounds of CO₂, and 1 animal’s life. Every single day.”
References and calculations
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, veganism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)