Cowspiracy

There is one single industry destroying the planet more than any other. But the world's leading environmental organizations are too afraid to talk about it. Clips:

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“One quarter-pound hamburger requires over 660 gallons of water to produce. Here I've been taking short showers trying to save water, to find out eating just one hamburger is the equivalent of showering 2 entire months. So much attention is given to lowering our home water use, yet domestic water use is only 5% of what is consumed in the U.S., versus 55% for animal agriculture. That’s because it take upwards of 2500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef.”


Rainforest“Our global rainforests are essentially the planet’s lungs. They breathe in CO₂ and exhale oxygen. An acre of rainforest is cleared every second, and the leading cause is to graze animals and grow their food crops. ... And it is estimated that every day, close to a hundred plant, animal, and insect species are lost through the rainforest’s destruction.”


WildlifeDeniz Bolbol, American Wild Horses Preservation Campaign: “The government has been rounding up horses en masse, and we now have more wild horses and burros in government holding facilities – 50,000 – than we have free on the range. Basically you have ranchers who get to graze on our public land for ... about one-fifteenth of the going rate, and what the Bureau of Land Management has to do is say how much forage and water is on the land and then they divvy it up. They give so much to cows, so much to ‘wildlife’, and so much to the wild horses and burros, and what we see is the lion’s share of the forage and water’s going to the livestock industry. And then they scapegoat the horses and burros and say, ‘Oh there’s too many horses and burros, let’s move them.’ I always tell people that wild horses and burros are just one of the victims of the management of our public lands for livestock, because we also see the predator killing going on: wolves are now being targeted by ranchers. USDA has aircraft and all they do is aerial gunning of predators. All a rancher does is call and say, ‘I’ve got a coyote here’, and they’ll come over and they’ll shoot the coyote, or they’ll shoot the mountain lion, or shoot the bobcat. And this is all for ranchers.”


Population“Some people would say the problem isn’t really animal agriculture, but actually human overpopulation. In 1812, there were 1 billion on the planet. In 1912, there were 1.5 billion. Then just 100 years later, our population exploded to 7 billion humans. This number is rightly given a great deal of attention, but an even more important figure when determining world population is the world’s 70 billion farm animals humans raise. The human population drinks 5.2 billion gallons of water every day and eats 21 billion pounds of food. But just the world’s 1.5 billion cows alone drink 45 billion gallons of water every day and eat 135 billion pounds of food. This isn’t so much a human population issue – it’s a humans eating animals population issue. Environmental organizations not addressing this is like health organizations trying to stop lung cancer without addressing cigarette smoking, but instead of second-hand smoking it’s second-hand eating, that affects the entire planet.”

“You can’t be an environmentalist and eat animal products. Period.”

—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

“17 Reviews” — wind turbine noise and human health

[Now 45 reviews! Go to wndfo.net/revs for just the non-government, non-industry reviews.]

In January 2012, Australian anti-tobacco/pro-wind public health activist Simon Chapman compiled a “Summary of main conclusions reached in 17 reviews of the research literature on wind farms and health”. His list, which not surprisingly ignores many reviews and commentaries that support health concern, and which misinterprets even these 17 to support his and the industry’s determination to dismiss health concerns, has since been used tirelessly (and tiresomely) as a rhetorical cudgel by the wind industry.

In December 2012, Wayne Gulden in Ontario examined Chapman’s “17 reviews”: He found that: 3 of the reviews didn’t even discuss wind turbines; only 4, maybe 5, were peer reviewed, including one of the reviews that didn’t mention wind turbines; only 1 was independent from pro-wind interests (but was not peer reviewed); and the majority based their conclusions on only 4 studies, added to which Gulden suggests a 5th, published after most of the reviews in Chapman’s list:

• Nissenbaum, Michael; Aramini, Jeffery; and Hanning, Christopher. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise & Health, September-October 2012, 14:60, 237-43.
• Shepherd, Daniel; McBride, David; Welch, David; Dirks, Kim; and Hill, Erin. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise & Health, September-October 2011, 13:54, 333-9.
• van den Berg, Frits; Pedersen, Eja; Bouma, Jelte; and Bakker, Roel. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. Project WINDFARMPerception, University of Groningen and Göteberg University, June 3, 2008.
• Pedersen, Eja; and Persson Waye, Kerstin. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2007 Jul;64(7):480-6.
• Pedersen, Eja; and Persson Waye, Kerstin. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise — a dose-response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004 Dec;116(6):3460-70.

(Update, October 7, 2013: Do your own review:  Click here for access to 21 published studies (2003–2012) of health effects of industrial wind turbine noise.)

By using the “17 reviews” as a cudgel against its perceived enemies, the industry hopes nobody actually looks at them for themselves. The fact is, they express uncertainty more than anything and generally recognize the validity of and need for more study of the health effects of wind turbine noise. They certainly do not claim that there are no adverse health effects from wind turbines (because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Here are quotes from each of the 17 reviews that serve the opposite of Chapman’s aim (most of them by courtesy of Gulden’s summary, where links are provided):

1. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: Wind turbine health impact study: report of independent expert panel: “it is possible that noise from some wind turbines can cause sleep disruption” (critiques of the Mass. DEP review can be seen here, here, here, and here) (update: In June 2013, based on continuing collection of information Mass. DEP convened a Wind Turbine and Noise Technical Advisory Group to assess and regulate noise impacts)
2. Oregon wind energy health impact assessment: “people who reported annoyance outdoors were more likely to report sleep interruption, feeling tense and stressed, and feeling irritable. Annoyance indoors was positively associated with sleep interruption.”
3. Fiumicelli D: Windfarm noise dose-response: a literature review (Acoustics Bulletin): “uncertainty about human response to wind turbine noise”
4. Bolin K et al: Infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines: exposure and health effects (Environmental Res Let): “statistically significant association between wind turbine noise and self-reported sleep disturbance”
5. Knopper LD, Ollson CA: Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the literature (Environmental Health): “wind turbines can be a source of annoyance for some people”
6. UK Health Protection Agency: Report on the health effects of infrasound: “Artificial sources of infrasound include ... wind turbines”
7. Australia National Health and Medical Research Council: Wind turbines and health: a rapid review of the evidence: “any potential impact on humans can be minimised by following existing planning guidelines” (this is the only review that thus completely denies the problem [Simon Chapman himself, who is not a physician nor an acoustician, was one of the ‘peer reviewers’]; nevertheless, the same group, ie, the National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] of Australia, stated regarding this “rapid review” that “relevant authorities should take a precautionary approach”, and their own study is ongoing).  Update, February 25, 2014: Chapman has added the NHMRC consultation draft report, Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health, to his list. It concludes: “Further high quality research is needed.”
8. King, A (Chief Medical Officer of Health, Ontario): The potential health impact of wind turbines: “sound measurements at residential areas around wind turbines and comparisons with sound levels around other rural and urban areas, to assess actual ambient noise levels prevalent in Ontario, is a key data gap that could be addressed. An assessment of noise levels around wind power developments and other residential environments, including monitoring for sound level compliance, is an important prerequisite to making an informed decision on whether epidemiological studies looking at health outcomes will be useful.”
9. UK Health Protection Agency: Environmental noise and health in the UK: “noise from wind farms ... these are all subjects that are in need of study”
10. Minnesota Department of Health, Environmental Health Division: Public health impacts of wind turbines: “Sleeplessness and headache are the most common health complaints and are highly correlated (but not perfectly correlated) with annoyance complaints.”
11. Canadian Wind Energy Association: Addressing concerns with wind turbines and human health: “CanWEA is a non-profit trade association”
12. Colby et al: Wind turbine sound and health effects: an expert panel review: “Prepared for: American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association”
13. Colby D, Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit: The health impact of wind turbines: a review of the current white, grey and published literature: precursor of the above
14. US National Research Council: Impact of wind energy development on humans (in: Environmental impacts of wind-energy projects: “In the absence of extensive data, this report focuses mainly on appropriate methods for analysis and assessment and on recommended practices in the face of uncertainty. ... Low-frequency vibration and its effects on humans are not well understood. Sensitivity to such vibration resulting from wind-turbine noise is highly variable among humans. ... More needs to be understood regarding the effects of low-frequency noise on humans.”
15. Jakobsen J: Infrasound emission from wind turbines (J Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control): “a simple assessment of the ‘normal’ wind turbine noise suggests a fair explanation of the adverse public reaction”
16. Leventhall G: Low frequency noise and annoyance (Noise & Health): “Low frequency noise, the frequency range from about 10Hz to 200Hz, has been recognised as a special environmental noise problem, particularly to sensitive people in their homes. Conventional methods of assessing annoyance, typically based on A-weighted equivalent level, are inadequate for low frequency noise and lead to incorrect decisions by regulatory authorities. There have been a large number of laboratory measurements of annoyance by low frequency noise, each with different spectra and levels, making comparisons difficult, but the main conclusions are that annoyance of low frequencies increases rapidly with level. Additionally the A-weighted level underestimates the effects of low frequency noises.” Leventhall had also previously (2003) written a “Review of published research on low frequency noise and its effects” for the U.K. government, noting that “dBA underestimates annoyance for frequencies below about 200Hz. ... Table 5 shows very adverse effects from low frequency noise levels which are close to the threshold and which do not exceed A-weighted limits. ... Infrasound exposure is ubiquitous in modern life ... and as an emission from many artificial sources ... including wind turbines. ... There is no doubt that some humans exposed to infrasound experience abnormal ear, CNS, and resonance induced symptoms that are real and stressful.”
17. Pedersen, E (Sweden Environmental Protection Agency): Noise annoyance from wind turbines: a review: “Noise from wind turbines is not at all as well studied as for instance noise from road traffic. As the number of studies is low no general conclusions could be drawn. However, ... annoyance from wind turbine noise: is to a degree correlated to noise exposure; occurs to a higher degree at low noise levels than noise annoyance from other sources of community noise such as traffic. ... Wind turbine noise: is, due to its characteristics, not easily masked by background noise; is particularly poorly masked by background noise at certain topographical conditions.”

Then there are reviews that Chapman chooses not to include, for example:

Senate inquiry into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms (2010), Australia: “The Committee: considers that the noise standards adopted by the states and territories for the planning and operation of rural wind farms should include appropriate measures to calculate the impact of low frequency noise and vibrations indoors at impacted dwellings; ... recommends that the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health; ... recommends that the National Acoustics Laboratories conduct a study and assessment of noise impacts of wind farms, including the impacts of infrasound; recommends that the draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines be redrafted to include discussion of any adverse health effects and comments made by NHMRC regarding the revision of its 2010 public statement.”

Literature review 2013: association between wind turbine noise and human distress, by Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn: “All studies rejected the Null Hypothesis (no association between wind turbine noise and human distress). In other words, evidence of association was found (weak evidence: Level 4 and 5). No published peer-reviewed study showed no association. Three studies showed dose-response relationship. The studies are level 4 or 5 (a weak type of evidence). Nevertheless, [they] strongly warrant further research (multiple studies, multiple designs, investigating multiple hypothesis).” Update, May 24, 2014: Systematic review 2013: Association between wind turbines and human distress. Cureus 6(5):e183. “In this review, we have demonstrated the presence of reasonable evidence (Level Four and Five) that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans. The existence of a dose-response relationship (between distance from wind turbines and distress) and the consistency of association across studies found in the scientific literature argues for the credibility of this association.”

Wind farm noise and human perception: a review (April 2013), by Noise Measurement Services, Australia: “The hypothesis from this Review is that serious harm to health occurs when a susceptible individual is so beset by the noise in question that he or she suffers recurring sleep disturbance, anxiety and stress. Research for the Review suggests that 5% to 10% of the individuals living in the vicinity of a large wind farm will experience serious harm to their health. The observed markers for serious health effects are: wind farm noise level of LAeq 32 dB or more outside the residence; and wind farm noise is heard or is perceptible (felt) at levels above the individual’s threshold of hearing inside the home.”

(Update 2, October 3, 2013: “32 reviews”. Wind turbine noise, Christopher Hanning and Alun Evans, BMJ 2012;344:e1527 (Published 8 March 2012): “A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions ... Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children, and it may have important implications for public health. ... Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue.”)

Update, May 7, 2013:  “19 reviews”?  Two more “official reviews” were issued in April that Chapman or his acolytes will no doubt add to his list: 1) Wind Farms, Sound and Health, by the Department of Health, Victoria, published in “Technical information” and “Community information” forms; and 2) Report on Health Impacts of Wind Turbines, prepared for the Scottish Government by Sabine von Hünerbein, Andy Moorhouse, Dani Fiumicelli, and David Baguley of the University of Salford, Manchester (“a rapid, desk based analysis of ... literature specified by the Scottish government, peer-reviewed original studies and recent peer-reviewed literature reviews”).

The Victorian Department of Health pamphlet concludes, “Wind farm sound, including low levels of low frequency sound, may be audible to nearby residents. Audible noise from any source, including windfarms, can cause annoyance, resulting in prolonged stress and other health effects.” It also insists, “There is no evidence that sound which is at inaudible levels can have a physiological effect on the human body. This is the case for sound at any frequency, including infrasound.” This clearly means evidence that they choose to consider, because there is indeed such evidence, and it is a growing area of research (see, e.g., the links here). The pamphlet also compares wind turbine infrasound favorably against one’s own heartbeat and breathing, but (ignoring the cited measurements being selective and simplistic) that may in fact be part of the problem as an external source forces itself on the body’s own physical rhythms. Update, May 28, 2013:  Wind Watch has posted two letters to the Victorian Department of Health pointing out shortcomings of their information sheets: 1) from Alec Salt and Jeffery Lichtenhan about the direct physiological effects of low-frequency noise; and 2) from Colin Hansen about the unique characteristics of wind turbine noise.

Von Hünerbein has produced government policy–affirming reports about wind turbine noise before, and this is only the latest. The tone of her conclusions makes her bias clear: in short, although there may well be problems, even to causing ill health, measures to prevent that would be too burdensome for the development of wind energy. “The review shows there to be evidence for annoyance due to WT noise. There is also some evidence for sleep disturbance which has found fairly wide, though not universal, acceptance. It should be noted that environmental noise from other sources such as road traffic and aircraft noise is a known causes of annoyance and sleep disturbance so to find these effects from WTs is not unexpected. Some authors label these effects as health effects and others do not. If low frequency noise and infrasound was an issue an as yet unproven method of human response would have to be involved. Universally agreed noise mitigation strategies have not been identified. Generally noise issues can be minimised by conservative noise limits. Set-back distances are also used internationally but have a number of disadvantages. The relevant [and much criticized] UK guideline document ETSU-R-97 has been derived from research on the response to noise and aims to provide a reasonable degree of protection to noise sensitive listeners; without unduly restricting the development of WT renewable energy resources.”

Update, May 23, 2013:  “20 reviews”!  At least here — Chapman is still at 19, having added the information sheets from the Victoria Department of Health and another government report: Wind Turbines and Health, by Patricia Fortin, Karen Rideout, Ray Copes, and Constance Bos of the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, February 2013.

“The sound level associated with wind turbines at common residential setbacks ... may lead to annoyance and sleep disturbance. ... Sleep interruption has been associated with wind turbine sound among residents living less than 2.5 km from turbines, particularly when sound levels are above 45 dBA at night; however, some people report noise annoyance from wind turbines at outdoor sound levels below 40 dBA and at lower levels than other sources of environmental noise. When aerodynamic modulation (swishing sound) occurs, wind turbine sound may be perceived as more annoying than steady sound or “white noise.” ... [I]f the noise has an outdoor A-weighted level, which corrects measurements to the low-level frequency sensitivity of the human ear, of 40 dBA, there is a risk that some residents will be annoyed by low-frequency noise even indoors. A small increase in sound level at low frequency can result in a large increase in perceived loudness and may be difficult to ignore, even at relatively low sound pressure levels, increasing the potential for annoyance when there is a sizeable low frequency component. It is suggested that problems can be reduced with an outdoor limit of 35 dBA for large wind turbines.”

Update, May 24, 2013:  “24 reviews”.  Public health effects of siting and operating onshore wind turbines, Conseil Supérieur de la Sante, Belgium, publication no. 8738, 3 April 2013: “Modern wind turbines are unlikely to have any direct effects on health and well-being other than annoyance and possibly sleep disturbance. Both annoyance and disturbed sleep can, however, lead to undue stress, which may adversely affect the health and well-being of those concerned. ... It follows that the operation of wind turbines or wind farms may affect the quality of life (i.e. health and well-being), but in a complex fashion that depends on a variety of interrelated factors. ... [L]a nuisance attribuée au bruit du fonctionnement des éoliennes, tant en phase d’éveil que lors du sommeil, constitue un effet environnemental majeur sur la santé. [Annoyance attributed to the operation of wind turbines, while awake as much as during sleep, constitutes a major environmental health impact.] ... The noise levels due to the operation of wind turbines and wind farms near people’s homes should comply with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and WHO Europe guidelines for day-time and night-time noise exposure in order to avoid serious annoyance and (self-reported) sleep disturbance. This would lead to [outside] sound levels below 45 dB(A) during day-time and 40 dB(A) at night. ... Belgium should participate in or take the initiative for an international study on the possible specific impacts of wind turbine operation on the health and well-being of those living in their vicinity.”

Update, May 27, 2013:  “25 reviews”.  There are also older reviews, predating the work of Nina Pierpont and Sarah Laurie, the two physicians primarily attacked by wind advocates for “causing” health problems by documenting them, for example:

Eoliennes, sons et infrasons: Effets de l’éolien industriel sur la sante des hommes (Wind turbines, noise, and infrasound: effects of industrial wind turbines on human health), by Marjolaine Villey-Migraine, Université Paris II–Panthéon-Assas, December 2004: “Les aérogénérateurs émettent des infrasons, ceci n’est controversé par personne. ... Il nous paraît immoral de la part de cet organisme [Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie] d’affirmer, sans référence aucune, que les infrasons émis par les éoliennes sont parfaitement inoffensifs, et d’autre part, de faire état de soi-disant “mesures”, alors qu’on ne peut prouver l’impact de infrasons des éoliennes sur l’homme que par des études épidémiologiques. ... Les sons et infrasons émis par les éoliennes ont un impact certain sur la santé de l’homme et peuvent gâcher la vie des gens. ... Les promoteurs éoliens ont la responsabilité de mettre en place les mesures adéquates pour diminuer les risques d’atteinte à la santé des riverains des éoliennes, en les éloignant des habitations non de 500 m comme ils le suggèrent dans leurs publications, mais à 1600 m en tenant compte de sons, et au minimum à 5 km en tenant compte des infrasons.” (“Wind turbines emit infrasound, this is not disputed by anyone. ... It seems to us immoral on the part of this organization [Agency of the Environment and Energy Management] to assert, without any reference, that infrasound emitted by wind turbines is perfectly harmless, and furthermore, to make claims of so-called “action,” but that we can not prove the impact of wind turbine infrasound on humans by epidemiological studies. ... Noise and infrasound emitted by wind turbines have a definite impact on the health of humans and can harm people’s lives. ... Wind developers have a responsibility to put in place adequate measures to reduce the risks of damage to the health of residents living near wind turbines by siting turbines no closer to homes than – not 500 m as suggested in their publications – but 1600 m considering audible noise and at least 5 km considering infrasound.”)

Le retentissement du fonctionnement des éoliennes sur la santé de l’homme (Repercussions of wind turbine operations on human health), by Claude-Henri Chouard, l’Académie nationale de médecine, France, March 2006: “Qu’il soit très intense, ou qu’il représente une pollution sonore plus modérée, le bruit est le grief le plus fréquemment formulé à propos des éoliennes. Il peut avoir un impact réel, et jusqu’ici méconnu, sur la santé de l’homme. ... [I]l serait souhaitable, par précaution, que soit suspendue la construction des éoliennes d’une puissance supérieure à 2,5 MW situées à moins de 1500 mètres des habitations.” (“Whether it is quite intense or it represents a more moderate noise pollution, noise is the complaint most frequently made concerning wind turbines. It can have a real impact, and so far disregarded, on human health. ... It would be desirable, as a precaution, to halt the construction of wind turbine facilities greater than 2.5 MW closer than 1500 meters from homes.”)

Location, location, location: An investigation into wind farms and noise, by The Noise Association, U.K., July 2006: “[W]ind farm noise generates many more complaints than equivalent levels of noise from most other sources, including road noise. ... [L]ow-frequency noise is much more disturbing indoors than outside ... Dr Geoff Leventhall agrees there are times when ‘A’ weighting is not entirely adequate: “Audible low-frequency noise does have annoying characteristics which are not shown in conventional environmental noise measures, such as A-weighting.” ... There has never been any dispute that wind turbines generate infrasound. ... Wind Farm noise, in common with noise generally, affects different people in different ways, but the evidence suggests there is rarely a problem for people living more than 1-1.5 miles from a turbine.”

(Update, October 24, 2013:  “33 reviews”. Infraschall von Windkraftanlagen als Gesundheitsgefahr (Infrasound from wind turbines as a health hazard), Erwin Quambusch and Martin Lauffer, ZFSH/SGB–Zeitschrift für die sozialrechtliche Praxis 08/2008: “Windkraftanlagen erzeugen unzweifelhaft Infraschall. Im Gegensatz zu den Äußerungen von Behörden und den den Anlagenbetreibern nahestehenden Institutionen, Infraschall sei “völlig harmlos”, verweist eine zunehmende Zahl von Wissenschaftlern auf die gesundheitliche Gefährlichkeit des Infraschalls. Die Gefahr stellt sich inzwischen als so hinreichend wahrscheinlich dar, dass an die Stelle der bisher gepflegten Ignoranz staatliche Maßnahmen der Gefahrenabwehr und der Gefahrenvorsorge treten müssen. Solange und soweit die Gesundheitsgefahren nicht durch technische oder ähnliche Vorkehrungen abgewehrt werden können, können Errichtung und Betrieb der Anlagen nur zulässig sein, wenn diese außerhalb der Sichtweite zu Wohngebieten liegen.” (“There is no doubt that wind turbines produce infrasound. In contrast to the pronouncements of the authorities, plant operators, and related institutions that infrasound is “completely harmless”, there are an increasing number of scientists noting the health risks of infrasound. The risk is sufficient that new regulations are required for prevention. As long as and to the extent that the health risks are not prevented by technical or similar guidelines, construction and operation of these plants should be allowed only if they are out of sight of residential areas.”)

Update, August 2, 2013:  “28 reviews”.  Report on the Health Impacts of Wind Farms, Sarah Taylor, Director of Public Health & Planning, National Health Service Shetland, 15th July 2013: “It is generally accepted that the primary effect of low frequency noise on people is annoyance. Annoyance is recognised as a critical health effect, and is associated in some people with stress, sleep disturbance, and interference with daily living. There is an increasing body of evidence that noise levels associated with wind farms cause annoyance, in a dose-related response. ... A range of symptoms are attributed to the noise of wind turbines in people living close to them, which are those associated with general environmental noise exposure, and are often also described as stress symptoms. They include headache, irritability, difficulty concentrating, fatigue, dizziness, anxiety, and sleep disturbance, and are often described in relation to annoyance. ... [I]t is recognised that low level noise from wind turbines is more often found to cause annoyance than similar levels from other sources. Some consider that the common cause of complaints from wind farms is not associated with low frequency noise but with the audible modulation of the aerodynamic noise, especially at night. There is also evidence that some people perceive the low frequency noise components of wind turbine noise, and that these are more significant at night and with large wind turbines. ... Regardless of whether the perceived impacts of noise from wind farms are physiological or psychological in nature, they are considered to cause adverse health effects through sleep disturbance, reducing the quality of life and as a source of annoyance which sometimes leads to stress related symptoms. ... Conclusions: Wind turbines are known to cause a number of effects that have an impact on health: risks from ice throw and structural failures that are minimised by appropriate setback distances; noise and shadow flicker that are sources of annoyance, sleep disturbance and symptoms of stress in some people. Current mitigations do not entirely deal with the annoyance caused by wind farms, the results of which are a cause of distress and related ill health for a number of people living in the vicinity.”

Update, September 26, 2013:  “29 reviews”.  Kirjallisuuskatsaus – Tuulivoiman terveysvaikutukset (Literature review – Health effects of wind power), Saara Huttunen, Johanna Kohl, and Nina Wessberg, Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus (Technical Research Centre of Finland) for Suomen Tuulivoimayhdistys (Finnish Wind Power Association), 16.8.2013: This industry report concludes that all adverse health effects are merely a problem of public relations.

Update, October 3, 2013:  “30 reviews”.  Health impact of wind farms, Donata Kurpas, Bozena Mroczek, Beata Karakiewicz, Krzysztof Kassolik, and Waldemar Andrzejewski, Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine 2013, Vol 20, No 3, 595–605: “Short description of state of the art: The nuisance caused by wind turbines is stereotypically linked with the noise that they produce. Nevertheless, the visual aspect of wind farms, opinions about them, and sensitivity to sound seem to be of the greater importance. ... Health effects are more probably associated with some environmental factors leading to annoyance or frustration. All types of studies share the same conclusion: wind turbines can provoke annoyance. ... The influence of wind turbines on human emotional and physical health is a relatively new field of research. Further analyses of these issues are justified, especially because none of the studies published in peer-reviewed journals so far meet the criteria for cohort or case-control studies. ... The authors did not analyse coherent publications or website documents (study by M. Alves-Pereira and N.C. Branco and the study by N. Pierpont).” [The authors also missed the Nissenbaum 2012 paper in Noise & Health, which appeared after their submission. And they assert that noise from wind turbines cause only subjective effects, despite the evidence under review of interference with, e.g., sleep, and physiological effects.] “The authors are involved in community public consultations with the advocates of new projects” [rather a major conflict of interest to be mentioned only in passing].

Update, October 7, 2013:  “32 reviews”.  Bedeutung des Ausbaus der Windenergie für die menschliche Gesundheit (Consequences of wind energy for health), Dorothee Twardella, Sachgebiet Arbeits- und Umweltmedizin/-epidemiologie, Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Division of Labor and Environmental Medicine/Epidemiology, Bavarian State Office of Health and Food Safety), Umwelt und Mensch – Informationsdienst (Environment and People Information Service), No. 3, September 2013, pp. 14-19: “Belästigung und Schlafstörungen durch Schallimmissionen im Hörschallbereich können nicht völlig ausgeschlossen werden. Über die alleinige Betrachtung der direkten gesundheitlichen Risiken hinaus wäre eine Analyse der direkten und indirekten Risiken und auch Chancen, die sich durch die Umstellung von fossilen Energieträgern auf Windenergie ergeben, im Sinne einer Gesundheitsfolgenabschätzung sinnvoll.” (“Annoyance and sleep disturbance caused by noise cannot be ruled out. A health impact assessment is needed to evaluate systematically the direct and indirect risks as well as benefits of the substitution of fossil energy with wind energy.”)

Update, November 13, 2013:  “35 reviews”. 

Infraljud från vindkraftverk – en förbisedd hälsorisk (Infrasound from wind turbines – an overlooked health hazard), Håkan Enbom and Inga Malcus Enbom, Lakartidningen (Journal of the Swedish Medical Association), 2013 Aug 7-20;110(32-33):1388-9: “Infraljud från vindkraftverk påverkar innerörat och utgör en möjlig hälsorisk för personer med migrän eller annan typ av central sentitisering. Regelverket för nyetablering av vindkraftverk bör revideras med hänsyn tagen till denna omständighet, anser artikelförfattarna.” (“Infrasound from wind turbines affects the inner ear and is a potential health risk for people with migraine or other type of central sentitisation. Regulations for construction of wind turbines should be revised, taking this fact into account.”)

Industrial Wind Turbines, Human Variability, and Adverse Health Effects, Michael A. Nissenbaum, New England College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Reporter, Volume 2 Issue 38 Fall 2013: “In summary, in many IWT projects, the preconstruction sound modeling has underestimated the eventual real world sound levels those turbine projects eventually produce. When coupled with the underappreciated human physiological responses to the type of noise large turbines produce (adverse sleep and mental health effects), this has had real world consequences for those living near them. The relationship of noise to sleep disturbances is established. The biological plausibility of sleep disturbances resulting in ill health is settled science. Chronic noise exposure leads to chronic sleep disturbance in many of those exposed, often resulting in ill health. Observed adverse human effects must trump preconstruction sound modeling; changes in practice must occur when there are errors. It’s all about distance when siting decisions are made.”

Update, January 12, 2014:  “36 reviews”.  Wind turbines: is there a human health risk? Jennifer Roberts and Mark Roberts, Journal of Environmental Health, April 2013, Volume 75, No. 8. Also: Evaluation of the Scientific Literature on the Health Effects Associated with Wind Turbines and Low Frequency Sound, Prepared for Wisconsin Public Service Commission Docket No. 6630-CE-302, October 20, 2009; and Wind Turbines and Exposure to Low-Frequency Sound, Exponent Heath Sciences News Release, Volume 6, 2010. “[T]he authors present a literature review to determine whether LFS leads to negative human health effects. In the reviewed studies the authors found that annoyance plays a large role in people’s perception of wind turbines and additional research is warranted” (“About the Cover”). “Although limited, research has demonstrated that LFS can elicit adverse physical health effects, such as vibration or fatigue, as well as an annoyance or unpleasantness response. ... [T]he association and particular pathway between LFS specifically generated from wind turbines, annoyance, and adverse physical health effects have yet to be fully characterized. Hence, additional epidemiological research studies are warranted” (poster presentation, Jennifer Roberts, 4 July 2012, 7th International Conference on the Science of Exposure Assessment). [These authors also appear to ignore the Nissenbaum et al. study in Noise & Health (2012).]

Update, June 19, 2014:  “37 reviews”.  Wind turbines and human health, Loren Knopper, Christopher Ollson, et al., Frontiers in Public Health 2014;2:63: “Setbacks should be sound-based rather than distance-based alone. Preference should be given to sound emissions of ≤40 dB(A) for non-participating receptors, measured outside, at a dwelling, and not including ambient noise. ... Post construction monitoring should be common place to ensure modeled sound levels are within required noise limits. If sound emissions from wind projects is in the 40–45 dB(A) range for non-participating receptors, we suggest community consultation and community support. Setbacks that permit sound levels >45 dB(A) (wind turbine noise only; not including ambient noise) for non-participating receptors directly outside a dwelling are not supported due to possible direct effects from audibility and possible levels of annoyance above background. When ambient noise is taken into account, wind turbine noise can be >45 dB(A), but a combined wind turbine–ambient noise should not exceed >55 dB(A) for non-participating and participating receptors. Our suggested upper limit is based on WHO conclusions that noise above 55 dB(A) is ‘considered increasingly dangerous for public health,’ is when ‘adverse health effects occur frequently, a sizeable proportion of the population is highly annoyed and sleep-disturbed’ and ‘cardiovascular effects become the major public health concern, which are likely to be less dependent on the nature of the noise.’”

Update, June 21, 2014:  “38 reviews”.  ‘Wind turbine syndrome’: fact or fiction? Amir Farboud, R. Crunkhorn, & A. Trinidade, Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 127, Issue 03, March 2013, pp 222-226: “There is some evidence of symptoms in patients exposed to wind turbine noise. The effects of infrasound require further investigation.”

Update, July 7, 2014:  “39 reviews”.  A Review of Wind Turbine Noise Perception, Annoyance and Low Frequency Emission, Con Doolan, Wind Engineering, Volume 37, No. 1, 2013, pp 97-104: “Low-frequency noise levels from wind turbines may exceed audibility thresholds and thus it is possible that they are correlated with annoyance. A review of studies related to general low-frequency noise annoyance shows there are similarities with annoyance studies involving wind turbine noise. ... noise levels may comply with existing environmental noise guidelines based on the dB(A) scale yet still cause annoyance due to the uniqueness of low-frequency noise problems. However, there is very little information (level, spectral balance, temporal qualities, etc) regarding low-frequency noise in people’s homes affected by wind turbines. ... Thus more research is needed in understanding the fundamental aspects of wind turbine low-frequency noise generation, propagation and perception.”

Update, September 19, 2014:  “40 reviews”. Wind turbine infra and low-frequency sound: warning signs that were not heard, Richard R. James, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 32(2) 108-127 (2012): “There is sufficient research and history to link the sensitivity of some people to inaudible amplitude-modulated infra and low-frequency noise to the type of symptoms described by those living near industrial wind turbines.”

Update, December 8, 2014:  “42 reviews”. Health effects related to wind turbine noise exposure: a systematic review, Jesper Hvass Schmidt and Mads Klokker, PLoS ONE 9(12): e114183 (2014): “At present it seems reasonable to conclude that noise from wind turbines increases the risk of annoyance and disturbed sleep in exposed subjects in a dose-response relationship. There seems to be a tolerable limit of around L_Aeq of 35 dB. Logically, accepting higher limits in legislations may lead to increased numbers of annoyed subjects. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that a cautious approach is needed when planning future wind farms. Furthermore, there is an indication that noise annoyance and sleep disturbance are related and that disturbed sleep potentially can lead to adverse health effects. These conclusions are, however, affected by a potential risk for selection and information bias even in the larger cross-sectional studies providing the current best evidence. The evidence for adverse health effects other than sleep disturbance is primarily supported by case-series reports which certainly may be affected by various sources of bias. Larger cross-sectional surveys have so far been unable to document a relationship between various symptoms such as tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, headache and exposure to wind turbine noise. One limitation causing this could be that most studies so far have only measured L_Aeq or L_den. An additional focus on the measurement of low-frequency sound exposure as well as a more thorough characterisation of the amplitude modulated sound and the relationship between objective and subjective health parameters could lead to different conclusions in the future. Finally, in regards to the objective measurement of health-related disorders in relation to wind turbine noise, it would be valuable to demonstrate if such health-related outcomes fluctuate depending on exposure to wind turbine noise.”

And an older review from Switzerland:  Eoliennes et santé humaine, Nicole Lachat, June 2011: “Le présent dossier a permis de mettre en évidence, sur la base des travaux de nombreux auteurs, que les contrariétés dues aux éoliennes sont bien réelles, qu’elles ont des effets néfastes avérés sur la santé et que ces effets ne sont pas seulement auditifs.” (“This review presents the evidence, based on the work of numerous authors, that disturbances due to wind turbines are quite real, that they have harmful effects on health and that those effects are not just auditory.”)

Update, February 1, 2015:  “43 reviews”. Wind turbines and health: a critical review of the scientific literature, Robert J. McCunney, Kenneth A. Mundt, W. David Colby, Robert Dobie, Kenneth Kaliski, and Mark Blais, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2014 Nov;56(11):e108-30: “The Canadian Wind Energy Association funded this project.” These authors produced the similar review for the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations in 2009. “Epidemiological studies have shown associations between living near wind turbines and annoyance.”

Update, May 21, 2017:  “44 reviews”. Nuisances Sanitaires des Éoliennes Terrestres, Patrice Tran Ba Huy, Académie Nationale de Médecine, France, May 9, 2017: “[L]e caractère intermittent, aléatoire, imprévisible, envahissant du bruit généré par la rotation des pales, survenant lorsque le vent se lève, variant avec son intensité, interdisant toute habituation, peut indubitablement perturber l’état psychologique de ceux qui y sont exposés. Ce sont notamment les modulations d’amplitudes causées par le passage des pales devant le mât qui sont dénoncées comme particulièrement dérangeantes. [The intermittent, random, unpredictable, invasive character of the noise generated by the rotation of the blades, arising when the wind rises and varying along with its intensity, preventing habituation, can undoubtedly disturb the psychological state of those who are exposed to it. These include amplitude modulation caused by the passage of the blades in front of the mast, which is noted as particularly disturbing.]

“[L]e groupe de travail recommande: ... de revenir pour ce qui concerne leur bruit (et tout en laissant les éoliennes sous le régime des Installations Classées pour le Protection de l’Environnement) au décret du 31 août 2006 relatif à la lutte contre les bruits du voisinage (relevant du code de Santé publique et non de celui de l’Environnement), ramenant le seuil de déclenchement des mesures d’émergence à 30 dB A à l’extérieur des habitations et à 25 à l’intérieur.” [The working group recommends returning to the decree of 31 August 2006 concerning the fight against neighborhood noise, reducing the the threshold for emergency measures to [ambient levels] 30 dBA outside residences and 25 dBA inside [limiting wind turbine noise to +5 dBA in daytime (7am–10pm) and +3 dBA at night (10pm–7am)].]

Update, May 30, 2017:  “45 reviews”. Wind Turbine Noise & Human Health: A Review of the Scientific Literature, Vermont Department of Health, May 2017: “[A]nnoyance attributed to wind turbine noise by respondents was associated with migraines, dizziness, tinnitus, chronic pain, hair cortisol concentrations (an indicator of stress), blood pressure, and self-reported sleep quality. Efforts to minimize annoyance should address both noise and non-noise related factors. In order to minimize annoyance attributed to noise, an annual limit of 35 dBA coupled with community engagement could be considered.”

Go to wndfo.net/revs for just the non-government, non-industry reviews.

Undertake your own review — Click here for a list of, and access to, 21 published studies (2003–2012) of health effects of industrial wind turbine noise.

Also see the tables from “Health Effects Related to Wind Turbine Noise Exposure: A Systematic Review” by JH Schmidt and M Klokker (2014)

Also:  “There is clear evidence of an annoyance or irritability caused by the acoustic signal from wind turbines that appears to be greater compared to other equivalent-level environmental noise such as airport or road traffic noise. In this regard, wind turbine noise is unique in having low-frequency signal components including infrasound (below 20 Hz). The sounds that are audible have a distinct amplitude modulation component, generally described as a “swish” or “thump”. This rhythmic characteristic makes the noise difficult to ignore or to adapt to, and its enhanced perception compared to un-modulated noise appears to contribute to its increased annoyance factor. Biological health issues can arise when the irritability and annoyance leads to sleep disturbance and stress.” —On the biological plausibility of Wind Turbine Syndrome, Robert Harrison, International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 5, 463–468.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, human rights

Against the Giants in Oaxaca

Al Giordano wrote in the Feb. 9, 2006, Narco News:

This is not about windmills, Zapatista Subcomandante Marcos thundered on Monday morning across this windswept plain. "It is about giants."

The greedy grab for the Isthmus of Tehuantepec -- the narrowest stretch of land in Mexico -- is a mega-project by Capital and State that does not stop at windmills. It also includes new highways and oil pipelines connecting the ports on both oceans, an expanded hydroelectric dam in Jalapa del Marques along the way, tourist Meccas to replace small fishing communities between Salina Cruz and Huatulco and a new zone for maquiladoras -- those cheap-labor mills that generate power not from wind but from human muscle and bone along the US-Mexican border -- that will exploit the poverty of the workers that the mega-developments displace from their lands and the natural resources they cultivate.

And so it is to this breezy plain that Zapatista "Delegate Zero" came on Monday morning to harness the wind that only human hands, and not machines, can tap: that of rebellion. "You are not alone," he told yet more communities of fighting (read: still human) people throughout the Isthmus. In La Venta's town square he said, "We will fight with you against these windmills."

Nancy Davies wrote on Mar. 28:

... here's the article I've been predicting: "Teachers and APPO and communal land owners announce the boycott of Venta II," accompanied in action by other organizations including The Front of the People of the Isthmus in Defense of the Land. President Felipe Calderon and Governor Ulises Ruiz are inaugurating the construction of the new wind farm to generate electricity, owned by a Spanish transnational, on Wednesday March 28 (see the video newsreel, The Windmills of Capitalism). About two hundred hectares of communal land and about nine sub-municipalities of Juchitán are in dispute. The wind farm is seen as a basic part of the development of the Plan Puebla Panama, and infringes on the autonomy of the indigenous residents of the area. The area is protected, according to Noticias, by a circle of military soldiers.

Ninety-eight wind generators already operate with a supposed capacity of 83.3 megawatts. In the second stage the transnational company, Iberdrola, has invested $100 million. The World Bank has recently loaned $20 million for the development of La Venta III, which confirms that regardless of who's protesting, the project will go ahead.

On March 3 three-hundred-and-sixty men from the Federal Preventative Police, traveling in vehicles with dark windows and carrying high power weapons, evicted the communal land owners from the neighborhood Tres de Abril located within the polygon of Venta II, because they were an "obstacle to the project." Many believe that the outcry against the wind generators has more to do with the offensively low rental and a voice for the people whose land has been "rented" for thirty years. The rental was reportedly carried out by agents who ignored the community assembly process and were in turn allegedly paid off handsomely by the government and/or Iberdrola.

And George Salzman wrote on Mar. 25:

"Harvard contributes to reconstructing Oaxaca" is the grand headline splashed across the Sunday, March 25, 2007 front page of Noticias, the major daily newspaper published in Oaxaca City. When I saw that announcement this morning I thought, "Oh, my God! (Never mind that I'm an atheist.) That's both good news and bad news."

The good news is that the popular struggle in Oaxaca is serious enough that it is being seen by those pre-eminent intellectual guardians of global capitalism as a potential threat to the status quo. The bad news is that Harvard University, always in the service of the super-rich, and therefore in step with (or ahead of) U.S. government plans and actions, is preparing to put its gloved but dirtied hands to work for the PAN/PRI government of Felipe Calderon and the local PRI governor, Ulises Ruiz Ortiz. The message is clear. It's going to take more than sheer military suppression to crush the popular revolution. But it must be crushed, in the interest of global capitalism, and therefore the 'intellectual power' of Harvard University will be brought to bear in addition to the military state of siege already put in place in the city. What we can be certain of is that Harvard's intellectual prowess will not be used to uncover the fates of the people disappeared and still unaccounted for by the Federal and State armed agents or to assist in the struggle for justice and dignity for the people of Oaxaca.

Also see the press releases posted here from the Union of Indigenous Communities of the Northern Zone of the Isthmus.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, human rights

Omnivores?

Today, the New York Times Magazine published the winning essay in their Ethicist contest for the ethical justification of eating meat. As expected, it is lame.

And in a strange fit, the Times “Public Editor”, Arthur Brisbane, decries the contest for making meat-eaters uncomfortable (which strongly suggests that the ethics of meat eating is indeed elusive).

He cites, apparently as reasonable critique, a blog post by Lisa Henderson, a sophomore at Kansas State University, on the Pork Network: “I believe that humans are omnivores and that meat provides protein and other things that are essential for health. Animals utilize the grass. Animals help us utilize more of the earth. I am not anti-vegetarian, but they seem to be anti-meat, and they seem to want to take that choice away from me.”

The omnivore argument actually justifies a vegetarian diet, because, especially since the invention of cooking, humans can thrive in a large variety of environments without meat. Furthermore, while meat-eaters insist that the imperative of being omnivorous drives their eating habits, they are not in fact omnivorous. Do they eat other humans? Do they (at least the majority in the U.S.) eat horses and dogs? The fact is, they too make ethical and cultural decisions about their diet and do just fine.

It is also telling that meat-eaters always feel threatened by the mere existence of a vegetarian diet. That response suggests that the only justification is indeed cultural in that vegetarians are seen as apostates or traitors.

Brisbane then solicits a comment from Calvin Trillin, which again he cites as apparently meaningful: “If they had a chance, they would eat us.”

Those vicious cows and chickens: terrorists in our midst!

Finally, Brisbane had also noted evocations by animal experimenter Linda Cork of life on the Arctic tundra and arid plains, where she sees fishing and herding to be essential to survival. But that only underscores that animal flesh is not essential to survival in Stanford, California. (Science researchers like Cork, for all their avowed objectivity, generally sugarcoat the fate of their victims as “sacrifice”.)

[[[[ ]]]]
So to the winning essay, by former vegetarian Jay Bost, who, like Linda Cork, apparently saw that life in the Arizona desert would be difficult without eating animals and that therefore it’s OK to eat them in North Carolina and Hawaii, too.

In what Brisbane derides as “awfully complicated”, Bost lays down three conditions (not necessity, not imperative) to feel OK about eating the corpses of other animals: 1) accept that death begets life, that all life is just solar energy temporarily stored in an impermanent form; 2) invoke compassion to choose ethically raised food, vegetable, grain, and/or meat; 3) give thanks.

Bost defines “ethical” as “living in the most ecologically benign way”. He compares boutique organic beef to monoculture/pesticide agriculture and — quel surprise! — concludes that not eating meat may be unethical. He compares the “best” situation on one side (we're not even getting into the horrors of “organic” dairy) to the worst situation on the other. Of course, meat eaters also eat plants, since healthy life without plants is a lot more unlikely than life without meat. They are implicated in both sides.

But let us consider cannibalism again. Since the greatest burden on the earth’s ecology is in fact the burgeoning human population, why wouldn’t it be ethical, by Bost’s definition, to eat other humans? In fact, one might conclude from his argument that not eating humans may be unethical. After all, if grazing animals help the land, it would be unethical to kill them. Whereas the Gospel of John in the Christian testament notes at 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son”. In the ritual of the eucharist (i.e., “thanks”, Bost’s final condition), believers consume the flesh of Jesus (”just solar energy temporarily stored in an impermanent form”), not a sheep or chicken.

[[[[ ]]]]
Which leads me to my own (unsent) entry, imagining the only possible ethical argument, namely, the circular one of religion:

Meat: An Ethical Imperative

In the Book of Genesis, Cain slew Abel, because Abel was a meat-eater and thereby found greater favor with G-D. Having distanced himself from the ways of G-D by foregoing meat, Cain’s ethics had deteriorated to the point that his envy turned to murder. After that, he kept to cities, where a greater variety of sin is possible. But as the mark of his crime faded, his envy rose again, and so today urban vegetarians righteously condemn the diet that has sustained humans for millenia. They denounce meat-eaters as cruel, but instead of being cruel to animals, vegetarians must be cruel to other humans, just as Cain was toward Abel.

Violence and murder are a part of the human psyche. If we don’t regularly kill animals — respectfully, gratefully incorporating their spirits into our own — we end up killing other humans, even loved ones, as Cain killed his own brother. To advocate a vegetarian diet is ultimately to advocate murder. To eat humanely raised and slaughtered animals is to promote peace among men, which is why sacrificial meals are at the core of every religion and community.

As the essential bond of society, shared murder is its ethical basis.

To maintain civilization, if we are to avoid human sacrifice, the crime of Cain, we must slay animals and, to honor them as worthy gifts to the gods, eat them.

In choosing a nonviolent diet, vegetarians deny that ethical necessity. In continuing to eat meat, even to our own and the planet’s harm, we recognize the necessary sacrifice that ethical living demands. We must bear the burden of Cain by emulating Abel.

—o—
Update, April 7, 2013:  Chris Grattan of Brockport, N.Y., writes: “In paleolithic hunting cultures, the rites connected with the killing of game were oriented toward an expression of gratitude to the animal for having given its life and the belief that its spirit would return in another body. In neolithic horticultural and agricultural societies the rites to promote the fecundity of the land were often gruesomely bloody, often in the form of human sacrifice. I try to keep this in mind when being subjected to vegetarian sanctimony.”

Get thee behind me Cain, ye ferking vegetarian!

[[[[ ]]]]
But, back in reality, as omnivores we can choose what we eat. For most people most of the time, there is no need to eat animals. To choose to eat animals is to choose killing and suffering, and ethical justification for that choice — when it is a choice — is impossible.

As I have quipped before, meat-eaters claim to be omnivores, but they can’t swallow the truth.

environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, anarchism, ecoanarchism

Happy birthday, Eugène Pottier

l'Internationale

Awake, the cursed of the earth, Awake, the slaves of hunger, Reason thunders in its crater, It's the eruption of the end. Let's make a clean slate of the past, Enslaved masses, rise up, rise up — The world will change at its foundation; We are nothing, we will be all. This is the final struggle; Let us unite and tomorrow The International Will be the human race. There are no supreme saviors No God, no Caesar, no Court — Producers, let us save ourselves, We decree the common greeting. To make the thief disgorge his booty, To free the spirit from its prison, Let us fan the forge together, Strike the iron while it is hot. This is the final struggle; Let us unite and tomorrow The International Will be the human race. The state represses and the law cheats, The tax bleeds the disenfranchised; No duty is imposed on the rich, The right of the poor is an empty word. No more to languish in submission, Equality means other laws; "No rights without duties," it says, "And no duties without rights." This is the final struggle; Let us unite and tomorrow The International Will be the human race. Hideous in their glory, Kings of the mine and rail, Have they never done anything But steal from the worker? In the strongholds of their gang What work created is melted down — In demanding its return The people claim only their due. This is the final struggle; Let us unite and tomorrow The International Will be the human race. The kings drugged us in their smoke, Peace among us, war to tyrants, Bring the strike to the armies: Surrender and break the ranks! If these cannibals persist To make us heroes They soon will know that our bullets Are for our would-be generals. This is the final struggle; Let us unite and tomorrow The International Will be the human race. City, country, we are The great party of workers, The earth belongs only to us, The idle will stay away. How many have fed on our flesh! But if these ravens, these vultures, One of these mornings are gone, The sun will shine forever.

The Deer Hunter

[New York Times, Dec. 30, 2011]

To the Editor:

In “Hunting Deer With My Flintlock” (Op-Ed, Dec. 26), Seamus McGraw says he has a responsibility to kill deer because there are too many. He has volunteered to kill a deer cruelly, ineptly and with an outdated weapon that causes additional suffering to the deer. I assume that the use of the flintlock is to enhance his self-image as a master of the woodland.

He says he hunts out of a need to take responsibility for his family, who evidently live where the supermarkets offer no meat. He says meat tastes more precious when you’ve watched it die. May I recommend a trip to a slaughterhouse?

I’m tired of hearing people who enjoy killing justify it with specious moral platitudes. Animals suffer when killed. No pearly phrases can make that any better.

MARIE BROWN
Baldwin, N.Y., Dec. 26, 2011

To the Editor:

Seamus McGraw mounts all the standard defenses: I am feeding my family; there are too many deer; I kill as mercifully as possible.

But whether with a flintlock or a modern rifle, hunting cruelly takes the life of a living, sentient being that has as much right to live as any hunter or writer. It is only the prejudice of our species that justifies culling the deer population while protecting our own.

STEPHEN F. EISENMAN
Highland Park, Ill., Dec. 26, 2011

To the Editor:

I don’t have all the answers concerning Pennsylvania’s burgeoning deer population (most of it caused by the burgeoning human population), but I want to comment on the self-serving tone of Seamus McGraw’s article.

For a man who claims not to enjoy killing, he takes considerable pride in his bloodletting. That his flintlock rifle failed him, and more important, the doe, because he flinched is reason enough to put down his antiquated weapon. It ought to be reason enough for such a firearm to be banned entirely.

Beyond that, though, is the tragedy of the doe’s sole contact with a human: a moment that could have initiated a communion between the two was instead reduced to carnage. Nothing noble there. No art in it either.

CYNTHIA A. BRANIGAN
President, Make Peace With Animals
New Hope, Pa., Dec. 26, 2011

To the Editor:

Please give me a break. Seamus McGraw tells us he has to kill deer in his section of Pennsylvania because “with no predators to speak of — the wolves were wiped out centuries ago and the last mountain lion in the state was killed more than 70 years ago — the responsibility for trying to restore a part of that balance fell to me.”

Who wiped out the wolves and mountain lions? Hunters like him.

JIM F. BRINNING
Boston, Dec. 26, 2011

human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, Vermont, ecoanarchism

More on science fetishization

The corporate bullies of GMOs, wind power, “smart” meters, etc. invariably appeal to “science” to dismiss concerns of harm and tout the claims of good. But the actual good is invariably the benefit to their companies’ or research teams’ viability and profits. There is no questioning of their necessity or consideration of what is to be lost or taken away (e.g., farming freedom, open and wild spaces, privacy, etc.).

Their appeal to science is amoral. Their defenders apparently believe that a conclusion is “good” simply for being reached logically. And that criticism of science, however logical, can not in fact be so, because logic has already determined that it is good.

The problem, of course, is an infantile division of human thought between “rational” and “emotional”. Both religion and science operate with both, but the latter claims the exclusive mantle of “reason” and then self-servingly stops there. Any questioning of what science does in the name of reason, or what companies do under the name of science, is called an attack on reason itself, even when it is itself quite reasonable.

The business of science, as its own gatekeeper, is often deaf to reason outside its own self-serving logic. A prime example is the swallowing by GMO supporters of the claim that Roundup-Ready crops would reduce pesticide use, when they are expressly designed to tolerate the company’s own pesticide, thus removing an important check on that pesticide’s use. The result has indeed been an increase in pesticide use, and the “anti-science fear-mongers” who warned of super-weeds and the threat to monarch butterflies have been proved correct. While “golden rice” has been talked about for many years without any practical results, the actual results of GMO “research” have been “terminator” genes to prevent seed saving and plants that produce their own pesticides, as well as pesticide-tolerant crops. Even if golden rice were a beneficial reality, it has nothing to do with all that is wrong with the GMO business.

The assertion that humans have always manipulated the genes of plants and animals illustrates the amoral logic that actually, in the service of corporate science, avoids thought. There is a big difference between selecting the results of a plant or animal’s own natural processes and splicing genes between species and even kingdoms. The latter represents a violation of the natural order that science purports to study.

Reason without consideration of ethics or morals, or simply without considering potential harms or seriously assessing actual benefits, is a mark of a sociopath. Human reason is not a good in itself. It is ultimately self-serving: hence the term “rationalization”. And rationalization of corporate depredation and profit — along with demonization of those who question it — is not science.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, anarchism, ecoanarchism, anarchosyndicalism

Resistance is Never Futile

By Jason Hribal, Counterpunch, April 17 (click on the title of this post for the complete essay):

Whether from the thoughts of the owners or the print of the media, the language used to describe these "escapes" (their term) is most illuminating: "captured," "fugitive," "amnesty," "outlaw," "criminal." These words, in reality, reflect a hidden truth -- a truth that is only exposed when actions are taken by other animals against human domination. In other words, when the curtain is pulled back, our fellow creatures emerge as active beings -- each of whom has the ability to shape the world around them. Agency is not unique to the human animal. Cows, pigs, monkeys, and elephants can also resist their exploitation. Over the centuries, humans have learned to deal with this.

Farmers, ranchers, factory owners, and managers have tried a multiplicity of methods to deter or prevent escapes. Wooden-post fences were erected. Cows leapt over them or crawled under them. Taller, stronger metal fences were developed. Cows found their weak points and busted through them. Barbs were put on the wire to cause pain. A few cows still got over them. The wire was then electrified to cause even more pain.

Humans have used tethers, clogs, and yokes to lessen movement. They have used bull-whips, bull-hooks, and electrified cattle-prods to scar and frighten. They have cut tendons, pulled out teeth, blinded eyes, ringed noses, and muzzled mouths to punish. They have castrated testicles, removed ovaries, and chopped off horns to control aggressiveness. These techniques are not called "breaking" because their targets are mindless, spiritless machines. Quite to the contrary, they are deemed as such because turning autonomous, intelligent beings into obedient, productive workers is difficult.

If these methods failed, humans employed specialized bounty-hunters. They constructed pounds for the detained. Local, state, and federal laws were written. Fines and penalties were levied. The death penalty has always been the final option for those chronic troublemakers. FEMA itself has detailed strategies on how to deal with animal escapes. For this form of resistance can have serious consequences for owners, businesses, and governments. The run-away macaque from Davis, CA, for example, almost brought about the closure of the entire research center. The Tamworth two incited spot inspections and steep fines for the Wiltshire slaughterhouse. But more than bad press and possible loss in profits, these escapes can produce a public awareness of exploitation and resistance. This combination of struggle and recognition then ultimately forces such industries -- their operators, executives, scientists, and engineers -- to adopt animal-welfare legislation and practices.

anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism

Life after Oil and Gas: Pity Earth’s Creatures

Today’s New York Times Sunday Review juxtaposed two pieces on its front page: Elisabeth Rosenthal’s puff piece (last gasp?) for large-scale renewable energy, “Life After Oil and Gas”, and Edward Hoagland’s lamentation about nature’s disappearance under the march of human civilization, “Pity Earth’s Creatures”.

Hoagland’s piece stands as the answer to Rosenthal’s.

Except for some comments by International Energy Agency economist Fatih Birol suggesting that conservation and efficiency are more practical and effective choices, Rosenthal hardly considers why we have an energy crisis, of consequences as much as supply. (She also ignores, of course, the fact that huge investments in wind and solar have never been documented to actually reduce the use of other fuels. And both Rosenthal and Birol ignore the fact that countries and states that produce a high percentage of their electricity from wind are actually on larger grids, which make the percentage very much less.)

Instead Rosenthal assumes that we can “easily” produce the power we need from wind, solar, and water, citing the latest work of Mark Jacobson, whose numbers should frighten rather than inspire:

For New York State alone: 4,020 onshore and 12,770 offshore 5-MW wind turbines, 387 100-MW concentrated solar plants, 828 50-MW PV solar plants, 5,000,000 5-kW home and 500,000 100-kW business rooftop PV solar systems, 36 100-MW geothermal plants, 1,910 0.75-MW wave systems, 2,600 1-MW tidal turbines, as well as 7 1,300-MW hydro plants (half of which already exists).

Except for the rooftop solar, where do these go? Where do all the new “smart-grid” power lines and substations go? Where do all the materials to build and maintain and replace all these things come from? And what if these projections fall short (as they most certainly would)?

Except for rare hydro sources like Niagara Falls (or geothermal sources like Iceland’s volcanoes), renewable energy sources are diffuse. Therefore they require sprawling facilities of huge devices to collect enough to meet even a fraction of our electricity needs, let alone all of our energy (i.e., including transportation, heating, and manufacturing).

Furthermore, wind and solar are intermittent: The wind isn’t always blowing, and the sun shines only during the day. On top of that, their energy is variable, wildly so, in the case of wind. That means they need 100% backup.

Jacobson’s vision has already been imagined by H.G. Wells. In his 1897 “A Story of the Days To Come”, he described “the Wind Vane and Waterfall Trust, the great company that owned every wind wheel and waterfall in the world, and which pumped all the water and supplied all the electric energy that people in these latter days required.”

Far away, spiked, jagged and indented by the wind vanes, the Surrey Hills rose blue and faint; to the north and nearer, the sharp contours of Highgate and Muswell Hill were similarly jagged. And all over the countryside, he knew, on every crest and hill, where once the hedges had interlaced, and cottages, churches, inns, and farmhouses had nestled among their trees, wind wheels similar to those he saw and bearing like vast advertisements, gaunt and distinctive symbols of the new age, cast their whirling shadows and stored incessantly the energy that flowed away incessantly through all the arteries of the city. ...

To the east and south the great circular shapes of complaining wind-wheels blotted out the heavens ...

Where is nature in all this? Where is the countryside? Jacobson’s vision would turn it all into a power plant for the cities, and mines and refineries for endlessly building that power plant. There would be no escape. No nature to marvel at and lose oneself in. No nature to be left alone to live its own lives. Only the vain hand of human expansion.

As Hoagland writes in the other piece, we have already lost so much, as 7 billion people (doubled since 1970, tripled since 1940) trample over and push aside the world of other lives. The dream of renewables, which are inherently inefficient, only expands that process. If we would decry what we have already done to the earth, we need to start doing with a lot less. But the reality of renewables is that their use not only allows but requires more use of fossil and nuclear fuels, more extraction of resources, more paving over paradise.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, ecoanarchism

Freedom for tyranny, socialism for big business

The U.S.A., spreading freedom and democracy ...

Also see:  "A Few Facts About the Honduran Military Coup" by Ken Silverstein, Harper's, July 6; and "Honduras and the Big Stick" by Nikolas Kozloff, Counterpunch, July 20.

Hugh O'Shaughnessy, Independent, July 19, writes about the coup in Honduras:

... For some of the plotters it is their second attempt to overthrow an elected reformist government in Latin America: the group includes prominent figures involved in the 2002 ousting of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who was kidnapped for 48 hours and sent to a Caribbean island before being restored to office after widespread popular protest.

The temporary toppling of Mr Chavez was welcomed by the Bush administration, the Blair government and the International Monetary Fund [Ed:  and the New York Times]. This weekend, the US seems destined for a replay of 2002's Operation Chaotic Coup. Amid a stream of contradictory messages it is clear that last month's putsch against Mr Zelaya was brewed up in Washington by a group of extreme conservatives from Venezuela, Honduras and the US. They appear to have hidden their plans from the White House, but hoped eventually to bounce President Obama into backing them and supporting the "interim president" [Roberto Micheletti]. They are making much of Mr Zelaya's alliance with Mr Chavez, whose sense of nationalism challenges US hegemony.

Financial backing for the coup is identified by some as coming from the pharmaceutical industry, which fears Mr Zelaya's plans to produce generic drugs and distribute them cheaply to the impoverished majority in Honduras, who lack all but the most primitive health facilities. Others point to big companies in the telecommunications industry opposed to Hondutel, Honduras's state-owned provider. Parallels are being made with ITT, the US telecommunications company that offered the Nixon government funds for the successful overthrow of President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973.

A key figure is Robert Carmona-Borjas, a Venezuelan active against Mr Chavez in 2002, who later fled to the US. He runs the Washington-based Arcadia, which calls itself "an innovative 'next generation' anti-corruption organisation". Its website carries three video clips alleging, without evidence, that Mr Zelaya, his associates and Hondutel are deeply corrupt. Behind Arcadia are the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), the well-funded overseas arm of the Republican Party. Currently active among the Uighurs of western China, the NED has this year funnelled $1.2m (£740,000) for "political activity" in Honduras.

The focus of attention in the campaign against Mr Zelaya is now on the office of Senator John McCain, the defeated US presidential candidate, who is chairman of the IRI, takes an interest in telecoms affairs in the US Congress and has benefited handsomely from campaign contributions from US telecoms companies - which are said to have funded the abortive 2002 coup against Mr Chavez.

Mr McCain's former legislative counsel, John Timmons, arranged the visit of Micheletti supporters to Washington on 7 July where they met journalists at the National Press Club "to clarify any misunderstandings about Honduras's constitutional process and ... the preservation of the country's democratic institutions".

Meanwhile, within the US administration, difficulties in co-ordination have emerged between the State Department and the White House, with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, issuing a low-key condemnation of the coup which was quickly superseded by stronger words from Mr Obama. The President called for Mr Zelaya's reinstatement, which Mrs Clinton had failed to demand.

The conservative-minded Mrs Clinton retains John Negroponte, an ambassador to Honduras under Ronald Reagan, as an adviser. He also represented George W Bush at the UN and in Baghdad. Democratic Senator Chris Dodd attacked Mr Negroponte in 2001 for drawing a veil over atrocities committed in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, by military forces trained by the US. Mr Dodd claimed that the forces had been "linked to death squad activities such as killings, disappearances and other human rights abuses".

During his time in Tegucigalpa, Mr Negroponte directed funds to the US-supported Contra terrorists seeking to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. He assured them of arms and supplies from the Palmerola airstrip, the main US base in Central America. As President Rafael Correa of Ecuador is in the final stages of closing the US base in his country, Mr Negroponte is conscious of what the US could lose if a Zelaya government banned its presence at Palmerola. For their part, Hondurans have noted that when Mr Zelaya tried to return on 6 July, and his plane was refused permission to land at Tegucigalpa airport, no room was found at Palmerola.

Since last July, the US ambassador in Tegucigalpa has been the Cuban-born Hugo Llorens. He was the principal National Security adviser to Mr Bush on Venezuela at the time of the failed 2002 coup, when he was working with two other well-known State Department hardliners, Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams.

Mr Reich, a former US ambassador to Venezuela, advised Mr McCain in his presidential bid and previously worked for AT&T, the US telecoms giant. As he goes into battle against Mr Zelaya, the website of his business consultancy, Otto Reich Associates, quotes Mr Reagan: "You understand the importance of fostering democracy and economic development among our closest neighbours."

Mr Abrams was also deep in the business of supplying the Contra terrorists. He tried to sabotage the Central American peace plans proposed by Oscar Arias, then the Costa Rican President, who later received a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. In 1991 Mr Abrams, a neoconservative passionately supportive of Ehud Olmert and other leading Israeli hawks, was convicted of hiding information from the US Congress investigation of the Iran-Contra affair. The New York Times reported in 2006 that he had strong ties to then vice-president Dick Cheney. ...

And Alexander Cockburn comments on, among other things, Obama's international lecturing:

“Africa’s future is up to Africans,” he said in Accra. No it’s not. Africa’s future is to a pervasive extent up to the World Bank, the IMF, international mining and oil companies, the US Congress (which for example votes cotton subsidies to domestic corporate farmers, thus undercutting and laying waste the cotton economies of Burkina Faso, Benin, Mali and Chad).

human rights

Wind is 'dirty business' for farmers in Mexico

(As it is everywhere.)

By Chris Hawley, USA Today, 17 June 2009:

The windmills stand in rows like an army of Goliaths, steel towers taller than the Statue of Liberty and topped with blades as long as a jetliner’s wing. The blades whoosh through the humid air, carving energy from a wind that rushes across Mexico’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec on its journey from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. Nearly every day, another tower rises out of the countryside. ...

But the energy gold rush has also brought discord, as building crews slice through irrigation canals, divide pastures and cover crops with dust. Some farmers complain they were tricked into renting their land for as little as $46 an acre annually.

Opponents of Mexican President Felipe Calderón fear the generators are the first step toward privatizing Mexico’s energy sector. And some residents are angry that the electricity being generated is not going to homes here in Oaxaca, one of the poorest states in Mexico, but to power Walmart stores, Cemex cement plants and a few other industrial customers in Mexico.

“It has divided neighbors against each other,” said Alejo Giron, a communal farmer in La Venta. “If this place has so much possibility, where are the benefits for us?” ...

One day in 2006, a truck with a loudspeaker showed up in the town of Santa María Xadani.

“It went around saying there was going to be a program to help farmers, and that we should show up the next night for a meeting,” said farmer Abel Sánchez.

At the meeting, representatives from Spanish firm Endesa handed out soft drinks and explained that they wanted to rent land for their wind generators, Sánchez said.

It was a complicated deal. The company would pay 1.4% of the profit, plus $300 a year for each tower, with the money divided among the hundreds of landowners, a contract obtained by The Arizona Republic shows. Each landowner would get an additional $4.60 an acre annually, and the company would pay $182 per acre of land damaged during construction. There was a signing bonus of $37.

In exchange, property owners would have to get permission from the energy company before selling their land or striking deals for development.

One good cow can produce $90 of milk a month, so most farmers were unimpressed, Sánchez said. But the company representatives made it sound like a government program, he said, and there seemed to be little to lose. Many small landowners signed up even though they couldn’t read.

Meanwhile, construction began on other wind parks. Many landowners were shocked at the disruption. To support the huge generators, crews built gravel roads 50 feet across, hammered in pylons and poured 1,200 tons of concrete for each tower. Pads of gravel 100 feet long and 50 feet wide were dumped onto sorghum fields and grazing land to support the cranes.

Farmer Salvador Ordaz now has two roads cutting through his 16 acres of pasture and says part of the land is unusable because of dust and blocked irrigation lines. He has had to cut his herd to 10 cows from 30. “When you think of windmills, you just think of this one tower,” Ordaz said. “But it affects a lot more land than that.”

Some companies are paying 50 cents to $1 per square yard annually for damages and have promised to remove much of the gravel once construction is complete. But Sánchez and about 180 other farmers in the towns of Xadani, Union Hildago and Juchitán decided they wanted none of it. They sued Endesa and two other Spanish companies, Preneal and Union Fenosa, saying the companies had misled poorly educated landowners and tricked them into signing lopsided deals.

Endesa and Union Fenosa did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Preneal declined to comment.

Pasqualetti said the payments are a fraction of the $3,000 to $5,000 that energy companies pay annually to farmers in Iowa. “The evidence would indicate (Mexican landowners) are not getting what they should be getting,” he said.

In October, Preneal relented and canceled its contracts with the dissenting landowners. Endesa and Union Fenosa did the same in March.

“It’s clean energy but dirty business,” said Claudia Vera, a lawyer at the Tepeyac Human Rights Center who helped the landowners with their case.

Opposition has spread to other towns, sometimes opening up old racial and political feuds.

In San Mateo del Mar, populated by Huavé Indians, residents voted to keep out the energy companies, re-igniting territorial disputes with neighboring villages dominated by Zapotec Indians, said local activist Roselia Gutiérrez.

In La Venta, proponents and opponents have broken along political party lines, with Institutional Revolutionary Party members supporting the contracts and the more liberal Democratic Revolutionary Party opposing them. On the national level, the Democratic Revolutionary Party has accused Calderón of using the wind farms as a test case for privatizing Mexico’s oil and electricity sector.

Demonstrations in La Venta have halted construction six times at the Eurus wind farm, owned by Acciona Energy. Graffiti in the town blasts company officials and members of the local ejido, or farm cooperative. “Get out, Wilson!” says one. “La Venta belongs to the ejido members!” says another.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Tehuantepec printed fliers depicting the Spanish companies as invading Spanish galleons. “No to the robbery of our territory! No to the wind power projects!” they say. Hundreds of protesters demonstrated when Calderón came to inaugurate a project in January. ...

Many residents say they’ve benefited. ...

Others wonder how long the good times will last. Once construction is finished, Acciona has promised to remove the gravel pads and reduce the access roads from 50 feet wide to 20. The land-damage fees it pays will shrink dramatically then.

“People are not thinking about the long term,” Giron said. “Those generators will be making millions of dollars for the company, and they will be limiting what you can do with your land for 30, 40 years. Soon, whatever they’re paying won’t seem like very much money anymore.”

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, anarchism, ecoanarchism, anarchosyndicalism