Gal Luft of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security writes:
At a time of economic decline and record-high gas prices, there is something refreshing in an oilman turning into one of the nation's leading advocates of renewable energy. This could explain why T. Boone Pickens' multibillion-dollar efforts to reduce America's oil dependence and develop clean energy have garnered so muchpublic attention.
Pickens is right to suggest that America's oil dependence is a source of economic ruin and that Congress must act to stop the biggest transfer of wealth in human history. But Pickens stands to benefit from his own campaign -- and his proposal could do more damage than good to U.S. energy security.
Pickens' proposal involves a California ballot initiative to provide $5 billion in subsidies for developing clean-energy fuels on top of a $58-million public relations campaign to reduce America's oil dependence through wind power. Not coincidentally, the Texas oilman is heavily invested in natural gas and wind power.
The Pickens plan promises to dramatically reduce oil use by shifting the transportation sector from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to natural-gas-powered vehicles. This would allegedly reduce oil imports by more than 30% and would supposedly save the U.S. economy $300 billion that otherwise would end up in the coffers of oil-rich foreign countries. According to the plan, wind energy would substitute for natural gas, now generating 20% of the nation's electricity, freeing natural gas to power a third of the vehicles in the U.S. ...
Pickens' assertion that increased use of wind power would displace natural gas is based on wishful thinking. Our energy system is not a Lego game -- one piece can't replace another at whim. Even if 78 [actually, more like 124 --Ed.] other billionaires were willing to follow Pickens' footsteps and build a 4,000-megawatt wind farm -- that's the number needed to displace the current electricity production from natural gas -- there's no way to guarantee that natural gas would be the only energy source that would be displaced by all those turbines. Why not coal, or [hydro]?
Furthermore, implementation of the Pickens plan might actually tie more natural gas to the power sector. Wind is an intermittent source of power -- the wind doesn't blow 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- and until and unless our electricity grid has sufficient power storage capacity, utilities counting on wind need to have backup power plants that can be powered up to fill in the gaps when the wind does not blow. This back-up power is today generally provided with natural gas.
Pickens also claims that a shift from oil to natural gas would strengthen U.S. national security. But contrary to Pickens' proclamations, in relation to its need, the U.S. is not rich in natural gas. Just as with oil, the U.S. consumes 23% of the world's natural gas but it only has 3% of the world's reserves. Its reserve-to-production ratio is less than 10 years. ...
A shift to natural gas could even weaken U.S. national security: More than 60% of the world's reserves are concentrated in five countries -- Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- countries that are already engaged in discussions on the establishment of an OPEC-like natural-gas cartel. Shifting from dependence on one authoritarian regime's energy source to another's is like jumping from the frying pan to the fire. ...
August 6, 2008
August 5, 2008
Puttin' the Boone (Pickens) in Boondoggle
A three-part analysis of the "Pickensplan" by Steven Milloy:
The Wind Cries 'Bailout!'
July 10, 2008
Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens launched a media blitz this week to announce his plan for us "to escape the grip of foreign oil." Now he's got himself stuck between a crock and a wind farm.
Announced via TV commercials, media interviews, a Wall Street Journal op-ed (July 9) and a web site, Pickens wants to substitute wind power for the natural gas currently used to produce about 22 percent of our electricity and then to substitute natural gas for the conventional gasoline currently used to power vehicles.
Pickens claims this plan can be accomplished within 10 years, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the cost of transportation, create thousands of new jobs, reduce our carbon footprint, and "build a bridge to the future, giving is time to develop new technologies."
It sounds great and gets even better, according to Pickens.
Don't sweat the cost, he says, "It will be accomplished solely through private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or government regulation."
What's not to like?
First, it's worth noting Pickens' claim made in the op-ed that his plan requires no new government regulation. Two sentences later, however, he calls on Congress to "mandate" wind power and its subsidies.
Next, Pickens relies on a 2008 Department of Energy study claiming the U.S. could generate 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030.
Setting aside the fact that the report was produced in consultation with the wind industry, the 20-by-2030 goal is quite fanciful. Even if wind technology significantly improves, electrical transmission systems (how electricity gets from the power source to you) are greatly expanded, and environmental obstacles (like environmentalists who protest wind turbines as eyesores and bird-killing machines) can be overcome, the viability of wind power depends on where, when and how strong the wind blows -- none of which are predictable.
Wind farm siting depends on the long-term forecasting of wind patterns -- but climate is always changing. When it comes to wind power, it is not simply, "build it and the wind will come."
Even the momentary loss of wind can be a problem. As Reuters reported on Feb. 27, "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency." The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes.
Wind isn't a standalone power source. It needs a Plan B for when the wind "just don't blow."
This contrasts with coal- or gas-fired electrical power which can be produced on demand and as needed. A great benefit of modern technology is that it liberates us from Mother Nature's harsh whims. Pickens wants to re-enslave us with 12th century technology. ...
... So what's up with him?
Not only does Pickens' firm, BP capital, have significant investments in natural gas, but last June he announced plans to build the world's largest wind farm in west Texas, capable of producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity.
The federal government currently subsidizes wind farm operators with a tax credit worth 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour -- potentially making for a tidy annual taxpayer gift to Pickens based on his anticipated capacity.
But all is not well in Wind Subsidy-land.
Since Congress didn't renew the wind subsidy as part of the 2007 energy bill, it will expire at the end of this year unless reauthorized.
Subsidies are perhaps more important to the wind industry that wind itself. Without them, wind can't compete against fossil fuel-generated power. As pointed out by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (July 9), "In 1999, 2001 and 2003, when Congress temporarily killed the credits, the number of new turbines dropped dramatically."
It's little wonder that Pickens is waging a $58 million PR campaign to promote his plan. If it works, his short-term gain will be saving the tax credit and his wind farm investment. In the long-term, he stands to line his already overflowing pockets with hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
What will the rest of us get from this T. Boone-doggle? That's anybody's guess, but it probably won't be cheaper energy, energy independence or a cleaner environment.
Is T. Boone Pickens 'Swiftboating' America?
July 24, 2008
Liberals have done a U-turn on conservative billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens.
Formerly reviled for funding the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" campaign against Sen. John Kerry, he's now adored by the Left -- unfortunately, for trying to gaslight the rest of us on energy policy.
Already having addressed the proposal's flaws -- and Pickens' plan to profit at taxpayer expense from it -- let's consider how Pickens' marketing shades the truth.
On his Web site and in TV commercials, Pickens tries to frighten Americans about being "addicted to foreign oil."
"In 1970, we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today, it's nearly 70 percent and growing," he intones.
Aside from the fact that the Department of Energy (DOE) puts the import figure at a more moderate 58 percent, Pickens gives the impression that imported oil is scary because it all comes from the unstable Mideast.
His TV commercials feature images of American soldiers fighting in Iraq and he likens the annual $700 billion cost of foreign oil to "four times the annual cost of the Iraq war."
But hold the phone. Only 16 percent of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf -- barely up from 13.6 percent in 1973, according to the DOE. Imports from OPEC countries are actually down -- from 47.8 percent in 1973 to 44.5 percent in 2007.
Contrary to Pickens' assertion that oil imports are growing, the DOE expects oil imports to decrease by 10 percent by 2030.
Pickens tries to shame Americans because, "America uses a lot of oil ... That's 25 percent of the world's oil demand, used by just 4 percent of the world population."
Some might think these figures make us sound greedy and wasteful.
But what Pickens omitted to mention is that the size of the U.S. economy in 2007 was about $13.8 trillion and the size of the global economy was $54.3 trillion.
This means that the U.S. economy represents about 25.4 percent of the global economy. ...
Finally, Pickens laments the $700 billion (less at current oil prices) "wealth transfer" from America to foreigners every year because of our "addiction."
But is he also concerned about our "addiction" to other imports?
In 2007, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit -- the difference between imports of goods from and exports of goods to foreign countries -- exceeded $815 billion.
Contrary to Pickens' demagoguery, "wealth transfer" is a term generally used in the context of estate planning, where money is simply "gifted" to heirs.
Our purchases of foreign oil, in contrast, are more reasonably known as "trade" ...
Then there's Carl Pope, the head of the Sierra Club, who not only flies in Pickens' private jet but writes paeans about him on the liberal Huffington Post blog.
"T. Boone Pickens is out to save America," Pope wrote on July 3. ...
Machinations
July 31, 2008
Simply put, Pickens' pitch is "embrace wind power to help break our 'addiction' to foreign oil." There is, however, another intriguing component to Pickens' plan that goes unmentioned in his TV commercials, media interviews and web site -- water rights, which he owns more of than any other American.
Pickens hopes that his recent $100 million investment in 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts County, Texas, located over the Ogallala Aquifer, will earn him $1 billion. But there's more to earning such a profit than simply acquiring the water. Rights-of-way must be purchased to install pipelines, and opposition from anti-development environmental groups must be overcome. Here's where it gets interesting, according to information compiled by the Water Research Group, a small grassroots group focusing on local water issues in Texas.
Purchasing rights-of-way is often expensive and time-consuming -- and what if landowners won't sell? While private entities may be frustrated, governments can exercise eminent domain to compel sales. This is Pickens' route of choice. But wait, you say, Pickens is not a government entity. How can he use eminent domain?
Are you sitting down?
At Pickens' behest, the Texas legislature changed state law to allow the two residents of an 8-acre parcel of land in Roberts County to vote to create a municipal water district, a government agency with eminent domain powers. Who were the voters? They were Pickens' wife and the manager of Pickens' nearby ranch. And who sits on the board of directors of this water district? They are the parcel's three other non-resident landowners, all Pickens' employees.
A member of a local water conservation board told Bloomberg News that "[Pickens has] obtained the right of eminent domain like he was a big city. It's supposed to be for the public good, not a private company."
What's this got to do with Pickens' wind-power plan? Just as he needs pipelines to sell his water, he also needs transmission lines to sell his wind-generated power. Rights of way for transmission lines are also acquired through eminent domain -- and, once again, the Texas legislature has come to Pickens' aid.
Earlier this year, Texas changed its law to allow renewable energy projects (like Pickens' wind farm) to obtain rights-of-way by piggybacking on a water district's eminent domain power. So Pickens can now use his water district's authority to also condemn land for his future wind farm's transmission lines.
Who will pay for the rights-of-way and the transmission lines and pipelines? Thanks to another gift from Texas politicians, Pickens' water district can sell tax-free, taxpayer-guaranteed municipal bonds to finance the $2.2 billion cost of the water pipeline. And then earlier this month, the Texas legislature voted to spend $4.93 billion for wind farm transmission lines. While Pickens has denied that this money is earmarked for him, he nevertheless is building the largest wind farm in the world.
Despite this legislative largesse, a fly in the ointment remains.
Although Pickens hopes to sell as much as $165 million worth of water annually to Dallas alone, no city in Texas has signed up yet -- partly because they don't yet need the water and partly because of resentment against water profiteering.
Enter the Sierra Club.
While Green groups support wind power, "the privatization of water is an entirely different thing," says the Sierra Club. Moreover, the activist group has long opposed further exploitation of the very groundwater Pickens wants to use -- the Ogallala Aquifer.
"The source of drinking water and irrigation for Plains residents from Nebraska to Texas, the Ogallala Aquifer is one of the world's largest -- as well as one of the most rapidly dissipating ... If current irrigation practices continue, agribusiness will deplete the Ogallala Aquifer in the next century," says the Sierra Club.
In March 2002, the Sierra Club opposed the construction of a slaughterhouse in Pampa, Texas, because it would require a mere 275 million gallons per year from the Ogallala Aquifer. Yet Pickens wants to sell 65 billion gallons of water per year -- to Dallas alone. In a 2004 lamentation about local government facilitation of Pickens' plan for the Ogallala, the Sierra Club slammed Pickens as a "junk bond dealer" who wanted to make "Blue Gold" from the Ogallala.
But while the Sierra Club can't seem to do anything about Pickens' influence with state legislators, they do have enough influence to make his water politically unpotable. This opposition may soon abate, however, now that Pickens has buddied up with Sierra Club president Carl Pope.
As noted last week, Pope now flies in Pickens' private jet and publicly lauds him. The two are newly-minted "friends," since Pope needs the famous Republican oilman to lend propaganda value to the Sierra Club's anti-oil agenda and Pickens needs Pope to ease up on the Ogallala water opposition.
This alliance isn't sitting well with everyone on the Left.
A TreeHugger.com writer recently observed, "... I am left asking myself why the green media have neglected [the water] aspect of Pickens' wind-farm plans. Have we been so distracted by the prospect of Texas' renewable energy portfolio growing by 4000 megawatts that we are willing to overlook some potentially dodgy aspects to the project?" ...
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
The Wind Cries 'Bailout!'
July 10, 2008
Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens launched a media blitz this week to announce his plan for us "to escape the grip of foreign oil." Now he's got himself stuck between a crock and a wind farm.
Announced via TV commercials, media interviews, a Wall Street Journal op-ed (July 9) and a web site, Pickens wants to substitute wind power for the natural gas currently used to produce about 22 percent of our electricity and then to substitute natural gas for the conventional gasoline currently used to power vehicles.
Pickens claims this plan can be accomplished within 10 years, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the cost of transportation, create thousands of new jobs, reduce our carbon footprint, and "build a bridge to the future, giving is time to develop new technologies."
It sounds great and gets even better, according to Pickens.
Don't sweat the cost, he says, "It will be accomplished solely through private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or government regulation."
What's not to like?
First, it's worth noting Pickens' claim made in the op-ed that his plan requires no new government regulation. Two sentences later, however, he calls on Congress to "mandate" wind power and its subsidies.
Next, Pickens relies on a 2008 Department of Energy study claiming the U.S. could generate 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030.
Setting aside the fact that the report was produced in consultation with the wind industry, the 20-by-2030 goal is quite fanciful. Even if wind technology significantly improves, electrical transmission systems (how electricity gets from the power source to you) are greatly expanded, and environmental obstacles (like environmentalists who protest wind turbines as eyesores and bird-killing machines) can be overcome, the viability of wind power depends on where, when and how strong the wind blows -- none of which are predictable.
Wind farm siting depends on the long-term forecasting of wind patterns -- but climate is always changing. When it comes to wind power, it is not simply, "build it and the wind will come."
Even the momentary loss of wind can be a problem. As Reuters reported on Feb. 27, "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency." The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes.
Wind isn't a standalone power source. It needs a Plan B for when the wind "just don't blow."
This contrasts with coal- or gas-fired electrical power which can be produced on demand and as needed. A great benefit of modern technology is that it liberates us from Mother Nature's harsh whims. Pickens wants to re-enslave us with 12th century technology. ...
... So what's up with him?
Not only does Pickens' firm, BP capital, have significant investments in natural gas, but last June he announced plans to build the world's largest wind farm in west Texas, capable of producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity.
The federal government currently subsidizes wind farm operators with a tax credit worth 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour -- potentially making for a tidy annual taxpayer gift to Pickens based on his anticipated capacity.
But all is not well in Wind Subsidy-land.
Since Congress didn't renew the wind subsidy as part of the 2007 energy bill, it will expire at the end of this year unless reauthorized.
Subsidies are perhaps more important to the wind industry that wind itself. Without them, wind can't compete against fossil fuel-generated power. As pointed out by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (July 9), "In 1999, 2001 and 2003, when Congress temporarily killed the credits, the number of new turbines dropped dramatically."
It's little wonder that Pickens is waging a $58 million PR campaign to promote his plan. If it works, his short-term gain will be saving the tax credit and his wind farm investment. In the long-term, he stands to line his already overflowing pockets with hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
What will the rest of us get from this T. Boone-doggle? That's anybody's guess, but it probably won't be cheaper energy, energy independence or a cleaner environment.
Is T. Boone Pickens 'Swiftboating' America?
July 24, 2008
Liberals have done a U-turn on conservative billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens.
Formerly reviled for funding the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" campaign against Sen. John Kerry, he's now adored by the Left -- unfortunately, for trying to gaslight the rest of us on energy policy.
Already having addressed the proposal's flaws -- and Pickens' plan to profit at taxpayer expense from it -- let's consider how Pickens' marketing shades the truth.
On his Web site and in TV commercials, Pickens tries to frighten Americans about being "addicted to foreign oil."
"In 1970, we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today, it's nearly 70 percent and growing," he intones.
Aside from the fact that the Department of Energy (DOE) puts the import figure at a more moderate 58 percent, Pickens gives the impression that imported oil is scary because it all comes from the unstable Mideast.
His TV commercials feature images of American soldiers fighting in Iraq and he likens the annual $700 billion cost of foreign oil to "four times the annual cost of the Iraq war."
But hold the phone. Only 16 percent of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf -- barely up from 13.6 percent in 1973, according to the DOE. Imports from OPEC countries are actually down -- from 47.8 percent in 1973 to 44.5 percent in 2007.
Contrary to Pickens' assertion that oil imports are growing, the DOE expects oil imports to decrease by 10 percent by 2030.
Pickens tries to shame Americans because, "America uses a lot of oil ... That's 25 percent of the world's oil demand, used by just 4 percent of the world population."
Some might think these figures make us sound greedy and wasteful.
But what Pickens omitted to mention is that the size of the U.S. economy in 2007 was about $13.8 trillion and the size of the global economy was $54.3 trillion.
This means that the U.S. economy represents about 25.4 percent of the global economy. ...
Finally, Pickens laments the $700 billion (less at current oil prices) "wealth transfer" from America to foreigners every year because of our "addiction."
But is he also concerned about our "addiction" to other imports?
In 2007, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit -- the difference between imports of goods from and exports of goods to foreign countries -- exceeded $815 billion.
Contrary to Pickens' demagoguery, "wealth transfer" is a term generally used in the context of estate planning, where money is simply "gifted" to heirs.
Our purchases of foreign oil, in contrast, are more reasonably known as "trade" ...
Then there's Carl Pope, the head of the Sierra Club, who not only flies in Pickens' private jet but writes paeans about him on the liberal Huffington Post blog.
"T. Boone Pickens is out to save America," Pope wrote on July 3. ...
Machinations
July 31, 2008
Simply put, Pickens' pitch is "embrace wind power to help break our 'addiction' to foreign oil." There is, however, another intriguing component to Pickens' plan that goes unmentioned in his TV commercials, media interviews and web site -- water rights, which he owns more of than any other American.
Pickens hopes that his recent $100 million investment in 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts County, Texas, located over the Ogallala Aquifer, will earn him $1 billion. But there's more to earning such a profit than simply acquiring the water. Rights-of-way must be purchased to install pipelines, and opposition from anti-development environmental groups must be overcome. Here's where it gets interesting, according to information compiled by the Water Research Group, a small grassroots group focusing on local water issues in Texas.
Purchasing rights-of-way is often expensive and time-consuming -- and what if landowners won't sell? While private entities may be frustrated, governments can exercise eminent domain to compel sales. This is Pickens' route of choice. But wait, you say, Pickens is not a government entity. How can he use eminent domain?
Are you sitting down?
At Pickens' behest, the Texas legislature changed state law to allow the two residents of an 8-acre parcel of land in Roberts County to vote to create a municipal water district, a government agency with eminent domain powers. Who were the voters? They were Pickens' wife and the manager of Pickens' nearby ranch. And who sits on the board of directors of this water district? They are the parcel's three other non-resident landowners, all Pickens' employees.
A member of a local water conservation board told Bloomberg News that "[Pickens has] obtained the right of eminent domain like he was a big city. It's supposed to be for the public good, not a private company."
What's this got to do with Pickens' wind-power plan? Just as he needs pipelines to sell his water, he also needs transmission lines to sell his wind-generated power. Rights of way for transmission lines are also acquired through eminent domain -- and, once again, the Texas legislature has come to Pickens' aid.
Earlier this year, Texas changed its law to allow renewable energy projects (like Pickens' wind farm) to obtain rights-of-way by piggybacking on a water district's eminent domain power. So Pickens can now use his water district's authority to also condemn land for his future wind farm's transmission lines.
Who will pay for the rights-of-way and the transmission lines and pipelines? Thanks to another gift from Texas politicians, Pickens' water district can sell tax-free, taxpayer-guaranteed municipal bonds to finance the $2.2 billion cost of the water pipeline. And then earlier this month, the Texas legislature voted to spend $4.93 billion for wind farm transmission lines. While Pickens has denied that this money is earmarked for him, he nevertheless is building the largest wind farm in the world.
Despite this legislative largesse, a fly in the ointment remains.
Although Pickens hopes to sell as much as $165 million worth of water annually to Dallas alone, no city in Texas has signed up yet -- partly because they don't yet need the water and partly because of resentment against water profiteering.
Enter the Sierra Club.
While Green groups support wind power, "the privatization of water is an entirely different thing," says the Sierra Club. Moreover, the activist group has long opposed further exploitation of the very groundwater Pickens wants to use -- the Ogallala Aquifer.
"The source of drinking water and irrigation for Plains residents from Nebraska to Texas, the Ogallala Aquifer is one of the world's largest -- as well as one of the most rapidly dissipating ... If current irrigation practices continue, agribusiness will deplete the Ogallala Aquifer in the next century," says the Sierra Club.
In March 2002, the Sierra Club opposed the construction of a slaughterhouse in Pampa, Texas, because it would require a mere 275 million gallons per year from the Ogallala Aquifer. Yet Pickens wants to sell 65 billion gallons of water per year -- to Dallas alone. In a 2004 lamentation about local government facilitation of Pickens' plan for the Ogallala, the Sierra Club slammed Pickens as a "junk bond dealer" who wanted to make "Blue Gold" from the Ogallala.
But while the Sierra Club can't seem to do anything about Pickens' influence with state legislators, they do have enough influence to make his water politically unpotable. This opposition may soon abate, however, now that Pickens has buddied up with Sierra Club president Carl Pope.
As noted last week, Pope now flies in Pickens' private jet and publicly lauds him. The two are newly-minted "friends," since Pope needs the famous Republican oilman to lend propaganda value to the Sierra Club's anti-oil agenda and Pickens needs Pope to ease up on the Ogallala water opposition.
This alliance isn't sitting well with everyone on the Left.
A TreeHugger.com writer recently observed, "... I am left asking myself why the green media have neglected [the water] aspect of Pickens' wind-farm plans. Have we been so distracted by the prospect of Texas' renewable energy portfolio growing by 4000 megawatts that we are willing to overlook some potentially dodgy aspects to the project?" ...
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
August 4, 2008
Dark (K)night
James Howard Kunstler writes (click title of this post for his site):
The most striking thing about the new Batman movie, now smashing the all-time box office records, is its emphasis on sado-masochism as the animating element in American culture these days. It must appeal to the many angry people in our land who want to hurt others, even while they themselves feel deserving of the grossest punishments. In other words, the picture reflects the extreme depravity of the current American sensibility. Seeing it all laid out there must be very validating to the emotionally confused audience, and hence pleasurable, in all its painfulness. ...
At the center of all this is the character called "The Joker." Judging by the reams of reviews and reportage about this movie elsewhere in the media, the death of actor Heath Ledger, who played the role, adds another layer of juicy sadomasochistic deliciousness to the proceedings -- we get to reflect that the monster on screen may have gotten away, but the anxiety-ridden young actor who played him was carted off to the bone orchard before the film even officially wrapped (and therefore deserves extra special consideration for America's greatest honor, the Oscar award, while the audience deserves its own award for recognizing the lovely ironies embroidered in this cultural phenomenon.)
The Joker is not so much a person as a force of nature, a "black swan" in clown white. He has no fingerprints, no ID, no labels in his clothing. All he has is the memory of an evil father who performed a symbolic sadomasochistic oral rape on him, and so he is now programmed to go about similarly mutilating folks, blowing things up, and wrecking everyone's hopes and dreams because he has nothing better to do. He represents himself simply as an agent of "chaos." Taken at face value, he would seem to symbolize the deadly forces of entropy that now threatens to unravel real American life in the real world -- a combination of our foolish over-investments in complexity and the frightening capriciousness of both nature and history, which do not reveal their motivations to us.
By the way, forget about God here or anything that even remotely smacks of an oppositional notion to evil. All that's back on the cutting room floor somewhere (if it even got that far). And I say this as a non-religious person. But the absence of any possible idea of redemption for the human spirit is impressive. In the world of "the Batman," humanity at its very best is capable only of being confused about itself. This is perhaps an interesting new form of dramaturgy -- instead of good-versus-evil you only get befuddlement-versus-evil. Goodness has lost its way in the dark night of the American psyche, as might be understandable considering the nation of louts, liars, grifters, bullies, meth freaks, harpies, and tattooed creeps we have become. The best we can bring to this predicament is the low-grade pop therapy that passes for thinking nowadays in educated circles. Any consideration of the heroic is off the menu here. We can't ask that much of ourselves. It's too difficult to imagine. Meanwhile, The People -- that is, the citizens of Gotham City -- literally banish even the possibility of heroism from town at the end of the movie -- they take an axe to it! -- perhaps indicating that they deserve whatever befalls them or, shall I say, "us."
A few other striking elements of this spectacle deserve attention. One is the grandiosity that saturates the story elements, and the remarkable impotence of it all. The Batman possesses every high-tech weapon and survival implement ever dreamed up, yet they avail him nothing ...
Finally there is the derivation of all this sadomasochistic nihilism out of a comic book. How appropriate, since we have become a cartoon of a society living on a cartoon of a North American landscape, that the deepest source of our mythos comes from cartoons. We're so far gone that real human emotion is beyond us. We're too far gone -- and even without shame -- to care how this odious movie portrays us to the rest of the world. It is already making a fortune out there.
The most striking thing about the new Batman movie, now smashing the all-time box office records, is its emphasis on sado-masochism as the animating element in American culture these days. It must appeal to the many angry people in our land who want to hurt others, even while they themselves feel deserving of the grossest punishments. In other words, the picture reflects the extreme depravity of the current American sensibility. Seeing it all laid out there must be very validating to the emotionally confused audience, and hence pleasurable, in all its painfulness. ...
At the center of all this is the character called "The Joker." Judging by the reams of reviews and reportage about this movie elsewhere in the media, the death of actor Heath Ledger, who played the role, adds another layer of juicy sadomasochistic deliciousness to the proceedings -- we get to reflect that the monster on screen may have gotten away, but the anxiety-ridden young actor who played him was carted off to the bone orchard before the film even officially wrapped (and therefore deserves extra special consideration for America's greatest honor, the Oscar award, while the audience deserves its own award for recognizing the lovely ironies embroidered in this cultural phenomenon.)
The Joker is not so much a person as a force of nature, a "black swan" in clown white. He has no fingerprints, no ID, no labels in his clothing. All he has is the memory of an evil father who performed a symbolic sadomasochistic oral rape on him, and so he is now programmed to go about similarly mutilating folks, blowing things up, and wrecking everyone's hopes and dreams because he has nothing better to do. He represents himself simply as an agent of "chaos." Taken at face value, he would seem to symbolize the deadly forces of entropy that now threatens to unravel real American life in the real world -- a combination of our foolish over-investments in complexity and the frightening capriciousness of both nature and history, which do not reveal their motivations to us.
By the way, forget about God here or anything that even remotely smacks of an oppositional notion to evil. All that's back on the cutting room floor somewhere (if it even got that far). And I say this as a non-religious person. But the absence of any possible idea of redemption for the human spirit is impressive. In the world of "the Batman," humanity at its very best is capable only of being confused about itself. This is perhaps an interesting new form of dramaturgy -- instead of good-versus-evil you only get befuddlement-versus-evil. Goodness has lost its way in the dark night of the American psyche, as might be understandable considering the nation of louts, liars, grifters, bullies, meth freaks, harpies, and tattooed creeps we have become. The best we can bring to this predicament is the low-grade pop therapy that passes for thinking nowadays in educated circles. Any consideration of the heroic is off the menu here. We can't ask that much of ourselves. It's too difficult to imagine. Meanwhile, The People -- that is, the citizens of Gotham City -- literally banish even the possibility of heroism from town at the end of the movie -- they take an axe to it! -- perhaps indicating that they deserve whatever befalls them or, shall I say, "us."
A few other striking elements of this spectacle deserve attention. One is the grandiosity that saturates the story elements, and the remarkable impotence of it all. The Batman possesses every high-tech weapon and survival implement ever dreamed up, yet they avail him nothing ...
Finally there is the derivation of all this sadomasochistic nihilism out of a comic book. How appropriate, since we have become a cartoon of a society living on a cartoon of a North American landscape, that the deepest source of our mythos comes from cartoons. We're so far gone that real human emotion is beyond us. We're too far gone -- and even without shame -- to care how this odious movie portrays us to the rest of the world. It is already making a fortune out there.
July 30, 2008
Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?
Let's start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine -- over 3 times its total height -- unless absolutely necessary.
That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise, shadow flicker, or visual intrusion.
In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet) -- more than 8 times its total height.
The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet -- over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.
But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors. When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that's 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet -- well over half a mile.
Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors -- it still doesn't help wildlife).
Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, were forced by the noise to rent another home in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.
Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a minimum 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas. James himself suggests that 2 km is better between turbines and homes, and Kamperman proposes 2-3 km as a minimum. German consultant Retexo-RISP also has suggested that "buildings, particularly housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the windfarm"; and that was written when turbines were half the size of today's models.
Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km, just under a mile) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.
Dr. Michael Nissenbaum and colleagues surveyed residents near wind turbines in Maine and found significantly worse sleep and mental health among those living 1.4 km or closer than those living farther from the machines.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, the preeminent expert on "wind turbine syndrome", recommends 1.25 miles (2 km). That is the minimum the Davises insist on as safe as well. In France, Marjolaine Villey-Migraine concluded that the minimum should be 5 km (3 miles). In June 2010, Ontario's environment ministry proposed requirements that offshore wind turbines be at least 5 km from the shoreline.
To protect human health, these distances are simply crude ways to minimize noise disturbance, especially at night, when atmospheric conditions often make wind turbine noise worse and carry it farther even as there is a greater expectation of (and need for) quiet. The World Health Organization says that the noise level inside a bedroom at night should be no greater than 30 dB(A) or 50 dB(C) (the latter measure includes more of the low-frequency spectrum of noise, which is felt as much as, or even more than, heard). A court case in Great Britain resulted in the “Den Brook” amplitude modulation conditions, which define and limit pulsating noise, which is especially intrusive, as any change, outside the dwelling, of >3 dB in the LAeq,125ms (125-millisecond averaged sound level) in any 2-second period at least 5 times in any minute with LAeq,1min (1-minute averaged sound level) ≥28 dB, and such excess occurring within at least 6 minutes in any hour.
Updates:
Since 2008, Queensland, Australia, has limited night-time noise indoors to 30 dB(A) (1-hour average), with limits of 35 dB(A) no more than 10% of the time and 40 db(A) 1%. Respective daytime limits are 5 dB(A) above the night-time limits. They also specify that existing continuous 90% sound levels should not be increased and that variable noise averages should not increase existing sound levels more than 5 dB(A) in the same time period.
Scottish Planning Policy “recommends” a distance of 2 km between wind energy developments and the edge of cities, towns, and villages to reduce visual impact. Since August 2011, Victoria, Australia, has allowed wind turbines within 2 km of a home only with the homeowner's written consent. In April 2013, the Québec, Canada, government approved a 2-km setback from homes in the municipalities of Haut-Saint-Laurent, Montérégie. Citizens groups in Germany suggest a minimum distance of 10 times the total turbine height to residential areas (see this story). Since July 2013, the state of Saxony has required 1 km between wind turbines and residential areas.
In February 2014, Newport, North Carolina, established a 5,000-ft (1.5-km) setback from property lines, a 35-dB limit for noise at the property lines, and a total height limit of 275 feet. The latter two conditions were also established by Carteret County, North Carolina, in February 2014, as well as a 1-mile setback from property lines.
Also see: “Wind turbine setback and noise regulations since 2010”
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, human rights, animal rights
July 29, 2008
Wind Turbines: Offensive industrialization of human space
By Brian L. Horejsi, behavioral scientist and citizen advocate for democratic process, Calgary, Alberta; Barrie K. Gilbert, wildlife Ecologist and conservation activist, Wolfe Island, Ontario; and George Wuerthner, ecologist and writer, Richmond, Vermont; 28 July 2008:
People are barking up the wrong tree by promoting, or succumbing to, wind turbine construction regardless of where it is proposed and how many there might be. Many North Americans are infected with tunnel vision and erroneously appear to believe that turbine generated energy is somehow linked to reversing the growth in and impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
There exists NO evidence anywhere that [wind] turbine energy is substituting for or displacing fossil fuel dependence, nor is there any evidence that it is in any material way slowing the rate of GHG emission growth. [Wind] turbine energy is a non-factor in the never ending growth agenda of the fossil fuel industry, and it is not a factor in the agenda of governments promoting growth in and dependence on oil and gas consumption. There can be no better example than North America of the failure of turbine energy to slow growth in anything.
People have been hoodwinked into promoting wind turbine energy as some sort of Nirvana all while human population growth and per capita energy consumption continue to spiral upward. Turbine energy generation is fueling growth in human population and energy consumption and growth in a false “economy”. It is NOT doing the opposite.
Matching the folly of the energy replacement misunderstanding is denial by governments and promoters of the ecological impacts and health effects of turbines; the ugly reality is that they are a serious addition to the industrialization of quiet rural landscapes that people have long valued for quality of life, retirement, and recreation.
The list of environmental costs imposed on wildlife and people are now being recognized; they are far from meaningless, but they have been trivialized by turbine promoters and politicians that have systematically tilted the deck sharply in the developers favor. Environmental costs have been systematically ignored by a political and regulatory system that has corrupted individual and societal freedom and environmental integrity by relegating these values to some distant offshoot of economic growth. These costs, and those who stand by them, are treated with contempt; how dare they influence the decision to grant some landowner a chance to make a buck by carving your backyard and your space into fragments with giant chopping machines?
Wind turbines are an assault on human well being and act to degrade the human “gestalt”. Promotion of wind turbine energy is a case of serious misjudgment by those who fraudulently use green wash to promote their commercial aspirations.
Buried deep within the human genome is an innate recognition and suspicion of monsters – large objects – looming on the horizon. Wind turbines are today's versions of a threatening monster, jammed down the throats of neighbors and localities. 30% of the human cortex occupies itself with processing visual information, far more than any other sense, and nothing delivers a more intrusive and intense visual picture than the tower and blades of wind turbines. Turbines erode freedom of the human mind hour after hour, night after day, virtually forever, like a cell phone ringing incessantly and yet no one is able to turn it off. To many people this intrusion into their physical and physiological space is an insidious form of torment. The mental effect is analogous to the physical effects of a heavy smoker sitting next to you essentially for life!
We do not subscribe to the managerial/market approach to democracy or conservation with its deeply entrenched bias against human values such as an unadulterated horizon. This largely corporate view denigrates the value of freedom of the human spirit – the very pedestal upon which human dignity, character and strength are built.
In an honest and fair regulatory and political environment, local citizens and communities would bury turbine projects long before they get to the serious implementation stage. Once again, however, citizens are being forced to try to employ the very tools that degrade our quality of life and humiliate us as mere pawns of some corporate created market economy. ...
The commercial private sector is forcing itself into your life, and that constitutes a taking of your rights, benefits and well being. We propose that each person impacted by a turbine receive, as a starting point for negotiations, $3000 annually, to be paid by the developer for the loss of private and citizen rights, a very large portion of which includes peace and satisfaction, a critical part of your state of mind. We all know that is a significant part of personal, social and democratic well being. The concept is simple; if the developer and some uncaring land owners want to destroy your rights and those of other citizens, inflicting on you suffering and mental distress, the good old “free” enterprise system developers and local governments love to hide behind, comes into play; they pay to destroy part of your life. There has to be pain and resistance in the system for those who knowingly exploit the public and individual vulnerability, a now institutionalized vulnerability which commercial and private sector interests worked hard to establish.
The recent proliferation of wind turbine farms is just one more case of the serious aggression and destruction that reflects the continuing expansion of an extremist private property and commercialism agenda. This socially, legally and politically defective agenda and process is being exploited by corporations, some local residents, and local governments. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not freedom and it is not democracy; it is vandalism and oppression in the name of commercialism. As citizens we have the right, and we say the obligation, and we must marshal the courage, to reject wind turbine invasions as a corruption of our well being that is cached “in our spirit rather than in our wallet”.
[Our thanks to National Wind Watch for bringing this essay to our attention]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
July 22, 2008
Pickens plans to pull one over u
Thomas Pickens has a plan to replace the electricity we currently generate from natural gas with wind-generated electricity, to free it up for fueling transport (via his Clean Energy Fuels Corporation). The fawning coverage of the "Pickensplan" and his own proposed giant wind energy facility in northern Texas (not on his own land, however -- "They're ugly", he says) has been pathetic, especially from environmentalists (read, Sierra Club) who should be a little more skeptical about someone who self-importantly boasts, "I know more about energy than anybody."
The following claim is made on the Pickensplan web site: "At 4,000 megawatts — the equivalent combined output of four large coal-fire plants — the production of the completed Pampa facility will double the wind energy output of the United States."
That's comparing Pampa's rated capacity (which would not be on line until some years in the future) to the actual output (about 25% of capacity) of existing wind plants at the end of 2007.
An accurate statement would begin: "Despite a rating of 4,000 megawatts, covering 400,000 acres, and costing taxpayers $6 billion -- not counting hundreds of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines and heavy-duty roads -- the completed Pampa facility will have an average rate of output of only 1,000 megawatts. And it will generate at or above that average rate only one-third of the time, answering to the wayward wind, not to the actual needs of the grid."
But the real flaw in the Pickensplan is the idea that wind would replace natural gas in the production of electricity. In fact, the addition of substantial wind energy plant would require the addition of a similar amount of natural gas plants, because those are the only ones that are flexible enough to start quickly and operate over a wide range of loads to balance the fluctuating and largely unpredictable infeed from wind turbines.
Of course, that would work out even better for Pickens' natural gas company.
[What would 20% of our electricity (the proportion currently generated from natural gas) from wind mean? Click here for earlier post about the Department of Energy/American Wind Energy Association paper saying it's "feasible".]
wind power, wind energy
The following claim is made on the Pickensplan web site: "At 4,000 megawatts — the equivalent combined output of four large coal-fire plants — the production of the completed Pampa facility will double the wind energy output of the United States."
That's comparing Pampa's rated capacity (which would not be on line until some years in the future) to the actual output (about 25% of capacity) of existing wind plants at the end of 2007.
An accurate statement would begin: "Despite a rating of 4,000 megawatts, covering 400,000 acres, and costing taxpayers $6 billion -- not counting hundreds of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines and heavy-duty roads -- the completed Pampa facility will have an average rate of output of only 1,000 megawatts. And it will generate at or above that average rate only one-third of the time, answering to the wayward wind, not to the actual needs of the grid."
But the real flaw in the Pickensplan is the idea that wind would replace natural gas in the production of electricity. In fact, the addition of substantial wind energy plant would require the addition of a similar amount of natural gas plants, because those are the only ones that are flexible enough to start quickly and operate over a wide range of loads to balance the fluctuating and largely unpredictable infeed from wind turbines.
Of course, that would work out even better for Pickens' natural gas company.
[What would 20% of our electricity (the proportion currently generated from natural gas) from wind mean? Click here for earlier post about the Department of Energy/American Wind Energy Association paper saying it's "feasible".]
wind power, wind energy
July 19, 2008
Turning wilderness over to development in Maine
Bob Weingarten and Nancy O’Toole of Friends of the Boundary Mountains write in the July 10 Daily Bulldog:
The Maine Legislature created the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) in 1971 to serve the people of Maine and act as the authority over 10.4 million acres of unorganized lands, and one of the largest contiguous undeveloped areas in the Northeast. Among LURC’s responsibilities are the promotion of orderly development, and the protection of natural and ecological values.
In 1974, to ensure the protection of fragile and irreplaceable soil and habitat, Maine’s mountainous areas above 2,700 feet were given zoning protection from ecological-damaging development by LURC. That protection stood the test of time until January 2008 when LURC reversed the protection of our mountains.
Now, before us we have the biggest industrial project being approved, by LURC, which will change the western Maine mountains forever. A project so huge it’s difficult to sum up the total environmental impact, but let us provide a brief overview.
LURC is about to give final approval to TransCanada’s Kibby Wind Power Project based on a final design plan that doesn’t have final surveys, core testing completed, or hydrology mapping finished. (Which means add at least 20 percent to the following figures). There will be 47 intermittent and 38 perennial streams impacted by bridgeways and culverts that will divert streams up to 225 feet. For road building and towers, a total of 423.6 acres will permanently be impacted. Another 310 acres will be cleared and changed from forest and wetland to right-of-ways for transmission lines. The estimate for total road length is 30.5 miles, with widths ranging from 25 to 35 feet, and for 21.75 miles a 150-foot wide “right of way” for the kV line. A 60-foot “right-of-way” for the 34.5 kV buried collector system that runs from turbine to turbine, and then moves to overhead poles moving down the slopes and ridges to the substation. There will be new buildings, temporary batch plant that will be producing 700 yds3 of concrete per turbine pad, rock crushers, and at least 20 acres will be filled by the unused rock and dirt from blasting and road construction.
The project will impact many species of Maine. The northern bog lemming is among Maine’s rarest mammals and listed as threatened. The Atlantic Salmon and the Canadian Lynx is listed as endangered and its habitat will be impacted by this development. Five state-listed plants species have been identified in the project through the wetlands that will be impacted by the transmission lines. The accumulation downstream due to unforeseeable erosion from all these disturbances will greatly impact the fish and natural vegetation forever. Over time the culverts will fill with sediment, silt fences washed out and the environmental damage will accelerate in magnitude and increase in intensity. This doesn’t even include the hundreds of migratory birds, bats and raptors that will perish each year as a result of the 400-foot high turbines. ...
The Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development is promoting 2,000 MW by 2015 and 3,000 MW by 2020, by establishing an Expedited Review and Permitting Area in Maine, which includes at least one-third of LURC’s jurisdiction. In the unorganized areas a rezoning would not be required and the DEP will assume jurisdiction for permitting on any proposal that goes through an organized area; the expedited process should take only 185 days.
An Executive Order required LURC to draft a Commercial Industrial Development Subdistrict (D-CI) to streamline permitting and do away with rezoning hearings. In the draft there are two full pages of townships and plantations on the expedited wind energy development area. ...
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
The Maine Legislature created the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) in 1971 to serve the people of Maine and act as the authority over 10.4 million acres of unorganized lands, and one of the largest contiguous undeveloped areas in the Northeast. Among LURC’s responsibilities are the promotion of orderly development, and the protection of natural and ecological values.
In 1974, to ensure the protection of fragile and irreplaceable soil and habitat, Maine’s mountainous areas above 2,700 feet were given zoning protection from ecological-damaging development by LURC. That protection stood the test of time until January 2008 when LURC reversed the protection of our mountains.
Now, before us we have the biggest industrial project being approved, by LURC, which will change the western Maine mountains forever. A project so huge it’s difficult to sum up the total environmental impact, but let us provide a brief overview.
LURC is about to give final approval to TransCanada’s Kibby Wind Power Project based on a final design plan that doesn’t have final surveys, core testing completed, or hydrology mapping finished. (Which means add at least 20 percent to the following figures). There will be 47 intermittent and 38 perennial streams impacted by bridgeways and culverts that will divert streams up to 225 feet. For road building and towers, a total of 423.6 acres will permanently be impacted. Another 310 acres will be cleared and changed from forest and wetland to right-of-ways for transmission lines. The estimate for total road length is 30.5 miles, with widths ranging from 25 to 35 feet, and for 21.75 miles a 150-foot wide “right of way” for the kV line. A 60-foot “right-of-way” for the 34.5 kV buried collector system that runs from turbine to turbine, and then moves to overhead poles moving down the slopes and ridges to the substation. There will be new buildings, temporary batch plant that will be producing 700 yds3 of concrete per turbine pad, rock crushers, and at least 20 acres will be filled by the unused rock and dirt from blasting and road construction.
The project will impact many species of Maine. The northern bog lemming is among Maine’s rarest mammals and listed as threatened. The Atlantic Salmon and the Canadian Lynx is listed as endangered and its habitat will be impacted by this development. Five state-listed plants species have been identified in the project through the wetlands that will be impacted by the transmission lines. The accumulation downstream due to unforeseeable erosion from all these disturbances will greatly impact the fish and natural vegetation forever. Over time the culverts will fill with sediment, silt fences washed out and the environmental damage will accelerate in magnitude and increase in intensity. This doesn’t even include the hundreds of migratory birds, bats and raptors that will perish each year as a result of the 400-foot high turbines. ...
The Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development is promoting 2,000 MW by 2015 and 3,000 MW by 2020, by establishing an Expedited Review and Permitting Area in Maine, which includes at least one-third of LURC’s jurisdiction. In the unorganized areas a rezoning would not be required and the DEP will assume jurisdiction for permitting on any proposal that goes through an organized area; the expedited process should take only 185 days.
An Executive Order required LURC to draft a Commercial Industrial Development Subdistrict (D-CI) to streamline permitting and do away with rezoning hearings. In the draft there are two full pages of townships and plantations on the expedited wind energy development area. ...
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
July 15, 2008
Not So Fast With Wind Power
An editorial:
Climate change, dwindling resources, and the geopolitics and ecology of fossil fuels and nuclear power figure prominently in today's worries. As part of any solution, most people unhesitatingly include large-scale wind energy. Wind power companies promise to break our dependence on other fuels and to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Teaming up with the American Wind Energy Association, the U.S. Department of Energy has promoted providing 20 percent of our electricity from wind by the year 2030.
With handsome subsidies and regulatory support, the U.S. thus faces a push to erect hundreds of thousands of giant wind turbines in the coming years. Does wind energy live up to such enthusiasm? Does it reward such generosity? A look beyond the hype reveals that wind's actual record does not come close to its claims. In addition, big wind has its own substantial adverse impacts on the environment and people's lives.
[] [] []
In Denmark, where wind turbines already produce electricity equal to 20 percent of what the country uses, no conventional power plant has been shut down as a result, and it is hard to find evidence that they are using other fuels any less. In fact, according to the International Energy Agency, natural gas use in Denmark increased more than wind as the latter's turbines went in, and coal has been on the rise in recent years.
Wind turbines produce only 15 to 30 percent of their capacity annually and reach that average rate only one-third of the time. They are essentially idle another third of the time. Because wind is so intermittent and variable, much of its theoretical benefit appears to be cancelled out because the rest of the grid still has to provide electricity as needed in addition to the extra burden of balancing the unpredictable wind-generated supply. Or the spurts of energy from wind are simply tolerated as slight rises in voltage and eventually dissipated over a large grid as heat. Wind is only a symbolic add-on that replaces nothing.
[] [] []
The real results of giant wind turbine facilities have been the opening up of rural and wild places to industrial development and the destruction of communities powerless to stop them. Today's wind turbines are well over 400 feet high, with a rotor span of almost 100 yards, cutting a vertical air space of up to 2 acres. The blades are connected to a bus-sized housing (the "nacelle") for the gears and generator (along with hundreds of gallons of oil) at the top of the tower. The whole assembly weighs 250-350 tons, requiring wide straight heavy-duty roads to transport the parts and cranes for installation and continued maintenance. A large underground foundation, often requiring blasting of bedrock, of hundreds of tons of steel-reinforced concrete, most of which would be left after decommissioning, is necessary to hold it all up. Each tower requires acres of clearance and cannot be close to other turbines, to avoid turbulence. New high-voltage transmission lines and pylons are needed to handle the potential surges and to carry the promised power to distant population centers (or to let it dissipate as heat).
The destructive impact of such construction on, for example, a wild mountain top is obvious: erosion, alteration of wetlands and watersheds, and destruction of wild habitat and plant life.
Other negative impacts follow from this physical reality. At their tips, the rotor blades are slicing through the air at 150 to 200 mph. Substantial numbers of bats (mostly, it seems, by high air pressure rather than collision) and birds (eagles and other raptors being of particular concern) are killed. For two recent examples, at least 2,000 bats were killed by turbines on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia in just 2 months during their 2003 fall migration. And the 195-turbine facility on the Tug Hill plateau in Lewis County, N.Y., will kill at least 8,500-16,000 birds and bats annually, according to data from its first year of operation.
Other animals are adversely affected as well. The breeding and nesting of prairie birds are especially disturbed by disruption of their habitat. Construction on mountain ridges reduces important forest interior habitat far beyond the extent of the clearings themselves. In 2005, several abandoned and dead seal pups were found off Great Yarmouth, England -- investigating biologists concluded that noise from offshore wind turbines disrupted feeding and nurturing. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society recently warned of the threat to cetaceans of low-frequency noise from off-shore wind turbines. In many places, people notice a drastic reduction of wildlife after the turbines go in.
Human neighbors, too, are victimized by the noise of the giant machines. Developers commonly get neighbors to sign gag orders in return for a small "forbearance" payment. Leasing landowners are also required to keep quiet. Thus knowing the problems that will arise, the developers set things up to allow denial of them.
Yet everywhere that people live near industrial wind turbines, they are shocked at the noise. It is unnatural and rhythmic, intrusive and unpredictable. People say they can never get used to it. It's typically worse at night, when not only is the normal noise level much lower but sound also carries much farther. Stress and lack of sleep -- and often more serious health problems, such as migraines, dizziness, and disorientation -- are common. Researchers in Portugal have found that conditions for developing vibroacoustic disease exist in homes near wind turbines. A set of symptoms called "wind turbine syndrome" has been extensively documented by Dr. Nina Pierpont in the U.S. Airplane safety lights at night and strobing shadows when the sun is low add to the turbines' invasive presence.
[] [] []
If there were clear benefits from industrial-scale wind energy, the extra burden on our already diminished landscape, on wildlife, and on people's right to enjoy their homes would have to be weighed. Careful siting and nuisance regulations would have to be established and enforced to minimize the impacts. We sorely need such guidelines.
But as Denmark and other countries have already shown us, benefits from wind on the grid remain elusive. There is no meaningful benefit to weigh against the substantial negative impacts on communities, individual lives, and the environment. The destructive boondoggle of industrial wind should be roundly rejected wherever its promoters try to gain a foothold.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Climate change, dwindling resources, and the geopolitics and ecology of fossil fuels and nuclear power figure prominently in today's worries. As part of any solution, most people unhesitatingly include large-scale wind energy. Wind power companies promise to break our dependence on other fuels and to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Teaming up with the American Wind Energy Association, the U.S. Department of Energy has promoted providing 20 percent of our electricity from wind by the year 2030.
With handsome subsidies and regulatory support, the U.S. thus faces a push to erect hundreds of thousands of giant wind turbines in the coming years. Does wind energy live up to such enthusiasm? Does it reward such generosity? A look beyond the hype reveals that wind's actual record does not come close to its claims. In addition, big wind has its own substantial adverse impacts on the environment and people's lives.
[] [] []
In Denmark, where wind turbines already produce electricity equal to 20 percent of what the country uses, no conventional power plant has been shut down as a result, and it is hard to find evidence that they are using other fuels any less. In fact, according to the International Energy Agency, natural gas use in Denmark increased more than wind as the latter's turbines went in, and coal has been on the rise in recent years.
Wind turbines produce only 15 to 30 percent of their capacity annually and reach that average rate only one-third of the time. They are essentially idle another third of the time. Because wind is so intermittent and variable, much of its theoretical benefit appears to be cancelled out because the rest of the grid still has to provide electricity as needed in addition to the extra burden of balancing the unpredictable wind-generated supply. Or the spurts of energy from wind are simply tolerated as slight rises in voltage and eventually dissipated over a large grid as heat. Wind is only a symbolic add-on that replaces nothing.
[] [] []
The real results of giant wind turbine facilities have been the opening up of rural and wild places to industrial development and the destruction of communities powerless to stop them. Today's wind turbines are well over 400 feet high, with a rotor span of almost 100 yards, cutting a vertical air space of up to 2 acres. The blades are connected to a bus-sized housing (the "nacelle") for the gears and generator (along with hundreds of gallons of oil) at the top of the tower. The whole assembly weighs 250-350 tons, requiring wide straight heavy-duty roads to transport the parts and cranes for installation and continued maintenance. A large underground foundation, often requiring blasting of bedrock, of hundreds of tons of steel-reinforced concrete, most of which would be left after decommissioning, is necessary to hold it all up. Each tower requires acres of clearance and cannot be close to other turbines, to avoid turbulence. New high-voltage transmission lines and pylons are needed to handle the potential surges and to carry the promised power to distant population centers (or to let it dissipate as heat).
The destructive impact of such construction on, for example, a wild mountain top is obvious: erosion, alteration of wetlands and watersheds, and destruction of wild habitat and plant life.
Other negative impacts follow from this physical reality. At their tips, the rotor blades are slicing through the air at 150 to 200 mph. Substantial numbers of bats (mostly, it seems, by high air pressure rather than collision) and birds (eagles and other raptors being of particular concern) are killed. For two recent examples, at least 2,000 bats were killed by turbines on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia in just 2 months during their 2003 fall migration. And the 195-turbine facility on the Tug Hill plateau in Lewis County, N.Y., will kill at least 8,500-16,000 birds and bats annually, according to data from its first year of operation.
Other animals are adversely affected as well. The breeding and nesting of prairie birds are especially disturbed by disruption of their habitat. Construction on mountain ridges reduces important forest interior habitat far beyond the extent of the clearings themselves. In 2005, several abandoned and dead seal pups were found off Great Yarmouth, England -- investigating biologists concluded that noise from offshore wind turbines disrupted feeding and nurturing. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society recently warned of the threat to cetaceans of low-frequency noise from off-shore wind turbines. In many places, people notice a drastic reduction of wildlife after the turbines go in.
Human neighbors, too, are victimized by the noise of the giant machines. Developers commonly get neighbors to sign gag orders in return for a small "forbearance" payment. Leasing landowners are also required to keep quiet. Thus knowing the problems that will arise, the developers set things up to allow denial of them.
Yet everywhere that people live near industrial wind turbines, they are shocked at the noise. It is unnatural and rhythmic, intrusive and unpredictable. People say they can never get used to it. It's typically worse at night, when not only is the normal noise level much lower but sound also carries much farther. Stress and lack of sleep -- and often more serious health problems, such as migraines, dizziness, and disorientation -- are common. Researchers in Portugal have found that conditions for developing vibroacoustic disease exist in homes near wind turbines. A set of symptoms called "wind turbine syndrome" has been extensively documented by Dr. Nina Pierpont in the U.S. Airplane safety lights at night and strobing shadows when the sun is low add to the turbines' invasive presence.
[] [] []
If there were clear benefits from industrial-scale wind energy, the extra burden on our already diminished landscape, on wildlife, and on people's right to enjoy their homes would have to be weighed. Careful siting and nuisance regulations would have to be established and enforced to minimize the impacts. We sorely need such guidelines.
But as Denmark and other countries have already shown us, benefits from wind on the grid remain elusive. There is no meaningful benefit to weigh against the substantial negative impacts on communities, individual lives, and the environment. The destructive boondoggle of industrial wind should be roundly rejected wherever its promoters try to gain a foothold.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
July 6, 2008
20% wind by 2030
The U.S. Department of Energy, in a recent report sponsored by the wind industry, says that it is possible to achieve 20% wind "penetration" by 2030.
Accepting the possibility as valid (which it isn't without massively increasing grid interconnection and excess non-wind capacity), what does that mean?
The Dept. of Energy estimates that electricity production will be 5,397 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030, or an average rate of 616,096 megawatts (MW). Twenty percent of that is 123,219 MW. With a capacity factor of 25% (the ratio of actual output to rated capacity), 492,877 MW of wind turbines would have to be installed.
There is currently about 20,000 MW of wind capacity installed in the U.S. (according to the American Wind Energy Association, 16,818 MW were installed by the end of 2007). So more than 470,000 MW more is needed, more than 21,000 MW a year, a rate of building more than four times that of 2007's record breaker.
Each megawatt of wind turbine capacity needs at least 50 acres around it. An installed capacity of 500,000 MW needs 25 million acres, or 39,000 square miles. With the space requirements, and because the machines are huge (now pushing 500 feet in total height), visually intrusive, and noisy, most of them would be erected in previously undeveloped rural and wild areas, along with heavy-duty roads, transformers, and new high-capacity transmission lines.
And after 2030: then what? Electricity demand will continue to grow. If it grows 2% per year, then 10,000 MW -- and more each year -- of new wind turbines would have to be erected every year after 2030 to keep their nominal share at 20%.
But here's the real futility: When the wind isn't blowing, we'll still need full-capacity backup generation -- the grid has to be planned as if the wind plant isn't even there, because quite often it won't be, especially at periods of peak demand. In other words, there won't be any less coal or nuclear, and probably a lot more natural gas (which is better suited to balancing the fluctuations of wind energy production).
The call for 20% wind by 2030 is for a colossal boondoggle that would drastically alter the landscape, adversely affect wildlife, and not significantly change anything for the better.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
Accepting the possibility as valid (which it isn't without massively increasing grid interconnection and excess non-wind capacity), what does that mean?
The Dept. of Energy estimates that electricity production will be 5,397 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030, or an average rate of 616,096 megawatts (MW). Twenty percent of that is 123,219 MW. With a capacity factor of 25% (the ratio of actual output to rated capacity), 492,877 MW of wind turbines would have to be installed.
There is currently about 20,000 MW of wind capacity installed in the U.S. (according to the American Wind Energy Association, 16,818 MW were installed by the end of 2007). So more than 470,000 MW more is needed, more than 21,000 MW a year, a rate of building more than four times that of 2007's record breaker.
Each megawatt of wind turbine capacity needs at least 50 acres around it. An installed capacity of 500,000 MW needs 25 million acres, or 39,000 square miles. With the space requirements, and because the machines are huge (now pushing 500 feet in total height), visually intrusive, and noisy, most of them would be erected in previously undeveloped rural and wild areas, along with heavy-duty roads, transformers, and new high-capacity transmission lines.
And after 2030: then what? Electricity demand will continue to grow. If it grows 2% per year, then 10,000 MW -- and more each year -- of new wind turbines would have to be erected every year after 2030 to keep their nominal share at 20%.
But here's the real futility: When the wind isn't blowing, we'll still need full-capacity backup generation -- the grid has to be planned as if the wind plant isn't even there, because quite often it won't be, especially at periods of peak demand. In other words, there won't be any less coal or nuclear, and probably a lot more natural gas (which is better suited to balancing the fluctuations of wind energy production).
The call for 20% wind by 2030 is for a colossal boondoggle that would drastically alter the landscape, adversely affect wildlife, and not significantly change anything for the better.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
June 30, 2008
How I installed OS X 10.4/Tiger on my Power Mac G4 after it refused to, and how I did so without a bootable DVD drive.
"BaseSystem cannot be installed on this computer." That's what the Tiger installer kept telling me.
My Power Mac G4 466 MHz "digital audio" has an external DVD drive connected by USB, so I was attempting to install by directly running the OSInstall.mpkg in System / Installation / Packages, since I can't boot from that DVD drive. I have 2 internal hard drives, with a bootable system on each, so this was feasible by booting into each drive in turn to install Tiger on the other.
Alas, "BaseSystem cannot be installed on this computer."
(Note: this refusal appears to be after the compatibility checks that can be edited in the OSInstall.dist file inside OSInstall.mpkg ("show contents") to allow installation on unapproved machines, such as G3s.)
XPostFacto to the rescue
An open-source project sponsored by Other World Computing, XPostFacto helps to install and boot Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server, and Darwin on some unsupported systems.
But you still need a bootable installer disk, so here's what I did:
1. With Disk Utility, make a disk image of the Tiger install DVD. It doesn't matter where you save it -- as long as there's a few gigabytes (at least 3 GB) of space. (If you're on a network with a DVD-equipped machine, you could do this step on that machine and then copy the disk image to your machine.)
2. With Disk Utility, restore the install DVD disk image to a bootable hard drive (or partition) that doesn't have an OS X system on it already. I copied it to a Firewire-connected external hard drive. Again, you need at least 3 GB of space.
3. Launch XPostFacto. Consider donating to this excellent project. XPostFacto presents a list of disks to install to and a list of bootable installer disks. Pick one of each, and "Install".
XPostFacto will copy some kernel extensions to the target volume and then a modified version of BootX that will use these kernel extensions (along with the standard extensions on the installed disk). Then it will restart the computer and launch (after rebooting in verbose mode) the installer.
4. In the OS X installer, select as the target disk the same disk you selected in XPostFacto.
Success! This post was entered under 10.4 in Firefox 3.
My Power Mac G4 466 MHz "digital audio" has an external DVD drive connected by USB, so I was attempting to install by directly running the OSInstall.mpkg in System / Installation / Packages, since I can't boot from that DVD drive. I have 2 internal hard drives, with a bootable system on each, so this was feasible by booting into each drive in turn to install Tiger on the other.
Alas, "BaseSystem cannot be installed on this computer."
(Note: this refusal appears to be after the compatibility checks that can be edited in the OSInstall.dist file inside OSInstall.mpkg ("show contents") to allow installation on unapproved machines, such as G3s.)
XPostFacto to the rescue
An open-source project sponsored by Other World Computing, XPostFacto helps to install and boot Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server, and Darwin on some unsupported systems.
But you still need a bootable installer disk, so here's what I did:
1. With Disk Utility, make a disk image of the Tiger install DVD. It doesn't matter where you save it -- as long as there's a few gigabytes (at least 3 GB) of space. (If you're on a network with a DVD-equipped machine, you could do this step on that machine and then copy the disk image to your machine.)
2. With Disk Utility, restore the install DVD disk image to a bootable hard drive (or partition) that doesn't have an OS X system on it already. I copied it to a Firewire-connected external hard drive. Again, you need at least 3 GB of space.
3. Launch XPostFacto. Consider donating to this excellent project. XPostFacto presents a list of disks to install to and a list of bootable installer disks. Pick one of each, and "Install".
XPostFacto will copy some kernel extensions to the target volume and then a modified version of BootX that will use these kernel extensions (along with the standard extensions on the installed disk). Then it will restart the computer and launch (after rebooting in verbose mode) the installer.
4. In the OS X installer, select as the target disk the same disk you selected in XPostFacto.
Success! This post was entered under 10.4 in Firefox 3.
June 25, 2008
Stop the noise!
From Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon, Jun. 25, 2008:
Modern cities can be so noisy that ornithologists have found birds warbling at the top of their lungs to be heard. Nightingales in Berlin have been documented singing up to 14 decibels louder than their counterparts in woody environs, in an attempt to make their songs audible above all the background noise. Yet the cacophony of modern life is hardly confined to metropolises like New York or Cairo, Egypt, where you literally have to shout on the street to make yourself heard.
In [the movie] "Noise," Bean's protagonist and his family escape to the country for the weekend. Their getaway is besieged by a neighbor's farting leaf blower. Getting away from it all just isn't that easy.
"For 50 years, if people didn't like noise, and they had money, the solution has been: Move to the suburbs. Now we've made our suburbs noisy. They're no longer quiet refuges," says Les Blomberg, executive director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse in Montpelier, Vt. "We got our half-acre lots, and now we have our weed whacker, our leaf blower, our hedge trimmer, our riding lawn mower, and then we hop in our car and drive on four- and six-lane highways past thousands of other suburbs to our place of work, noise-polluting every place we pass."
But you don't have to be an anti-noise crusader to suffer physical effects from noise, even if you're sleeping right through it. Scientists at Imperial College London monitored the blood pressure of 140 sleeping volunteers who lived near London's Heathrow airport. They discovered that subjects' blood pressure rose when a plane few overhead even when the subjects remained asleep. A study of 5,000 45-to-70-year-olds living near airports for at least five years found that they were at greater risk of suffering from hypertension, aka high blood pressure, than their counterparts in quieter realms. People with high blood pressure have an increased risk of developing heart disease, stroke, kidney disease and dementia. In 2007, WHO estimated that long-term exposure to traffic noise may account for 3 percent of deaths from ischemic heart disease among Europeans.
Not only can too much loud noise damage your hearing, or disrupt your sleep, it can literally suck the life out of you thanks to the human body's fight-or-flight response. "The human auditory system is designed to serve as a means of warning against dangers in the environment," explains Louis Hagler, a retired internal medicine specialist in Oakland, Calif. "Noise above a certain level is perceived by the nervous system as a threat." The body responds to that threat with an outpouring of epinephrine and cortisol, the so-called stress hormones. "Your blood pressure goes up, your pulse rate goes up, there is a sudden outpouring of sugar into the bloodstream so the body is prepared to meet whatever threat there is in the environment."
If exposures are intermittent or rare, the body has the chance to return to normal. But if the exposure is unrelenting, the body doesn't have a chance to calm down, and blood pressure and heart rate may remain elevated, Hagler explains. That's why what seems like a mere annoyance can actually have long-term health effects. "There is no question that people who live near a busy roadway are experiencing effects on their blood pressure," says Hagler.
... "There is no evidence that noise causes mental illness itself, but there is little doubt that it may accelerate or intensify some kind of mental disorders," explains Hagler. He adds that symptoms of exposure to noise pollution include anxiety, nervousness, nausea, headaches, emotional instability, argumentativeness and changes in mood. No wonder excessive noise has been used as a form of torture.
... In the United States, back in the '70s, when [psychologist Arline] Bronzaft was documenting how children studying in classrooms next to elevated train tracks had delayed learning, there was an outpouring of official concern about the effects of noise, on both health and quality of life. In 1972, Congress passed the Noise Control Act. The Environmental Protection Agency had its own Office of Noise Abatement and Control, which still exists today, but as an unfunded skeleton. What happened? "A man got elected president named Ronald Reagan and everything stopped," says Bronzaft. The Gipper decided that noise was best regulated by cities and states, but federal funding to help them evaporated. Attempts to re-fund the office have failed. ...
[The results of a 3-year study of the physical effects of living near giant wind turbines is planned for publication late this summer. Click here for more information.]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism<, human rights, animal rights, Vermont
Modern cities can be so noisy that ornithologists have found birds warbling at the top of their lungs to be heard. Nightingales in Berlin have been documented singing up to 14 decibels louder than their counterparts in woody environs, in an attempt to make their songs audible above all the background noise. Yet the cacophony of modern life is hardly confined to metropolises like New York or Cairo, Egypt, where you literally have to shout on the street to make yourself heard.
In [the movie] "Noise," Bean's protagonist and his family escape to the country for the weekend. Their getaway is besieged by a neighbor's farting leaf blower. Getting away from it all just isn't that easy.
"For 50 years, if people didn't like noise, and they had money, the solution has been: Move to the suburbs. Now we've made our suburbs noisy. They're no longer quiet refuges," says Les Blomberg, executive director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse in Montpelier, Vt. "We got our half-acre lots, and now we have our weed whacker, our leaf blower, our hedge trimmer, our riding lawn mower, and then we hop in our car and drive on four- and six-lane highways past thousands of other suburbs to our place of work, noise-polluting every place we pass."
But you don't have to be an anti-noise crusader to suffer physical effects from noise, even if you're sleeping right through it. Scientists at Imperial College London monitored the blood pressure of 140 sleeping volunteers who lived near London's Heathrow airport. They discovered that subjects' blood pressure rose when a plane few overhead even when the subjects remained asleep. A study of 5,000 45-to-70-year-olds living near airports for at least five years found that they were at greater risk of suffering from hypertension, aka high blood pressure, than their counterparts in quieter realms. People with high blood pressure have an increased risk of developing heart disease, stroke, kidney disease and dementia. In 2007, WHO estimated that long-term exposure to traffic noise may account for 3 percent of deaths from ischemic heart disease among Europeans.
Not only can too much loud noise damage your hearing, or disrupt your sleep, it can literally suck the life out of you thanks to the human body's fight-or-flight response. "The human auditory system is designed to serve as a means of warning against dangers in the environment," explains Louis Hagler, a retired internal medicine specialist in Oakland, Calif. "Noise above a certain level is perceived by the nervous system as a threat." The body responds to that threat with an outpouring of epinephrine and cortisol, the so-called stress hormones. "Your blood pressure goes up, your pulse rate goes up, there is a sudden outpouring of sugar into the bloodstream so the body is prepared to meet whatever threat there is in the environment."
If exposures are intermittent or rare, the body has the chance to return to normal. But if the exposure is unrelenting, the body doesn't have a chance to calm down, and blood pressure and heart rate may remain elevated, Hagler explains. That's why what seems like a mere annoyance can actually have long-term health effects. "There is no question that people who live near a busy roadway are experiencing effects on their blood pressure," says Hagler.
... "There is no evidence that noise causes mental illness itself, but there is little doubt that it may accelerate or intensify some kind of mental disorders," explains Hagler. He adds that symptoms of exposure to noise pollution include anxiety, nervousness, nausea, headaches, emotional instability, argumentativeness and changes in mood. No wonder excessive noise has been used as a form of torture.
... In the United States, back in the '70s, when [psychologist Arline] Bronzaft was documenting how children studying in classrooms next to elevated train tracks had delayed learning, there was an outpouring of official concern about the effects of noise, on both health and quality of life. In 1972, Congress passed the Noise Control Act. The Environmental Protection Agency had its own Office of Noise Abatement and Control, which still exists today, but as an unfunded skeleton. What happened? "A man got elected president named Ronald Reagan and everything stopped," says Bronzaft. The Gipper decided that noise was best regulated by cities and states, but federal funding to help them evaporated. Attempts to re-fund the office have failed. ...
[The results of a 3-year study of the physical effects of living near giant wind turbines is planned for publication late this summer. Click here for more information.]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism<, human rights, animal rights, Vermont
June 20, 2008
Many challenges for wind development
"For advocates who are trying to promote the adoption of wind power, there are many challenges: government regulations; transmission access policies; zoning, siting, and licensing restricitins; environmental, avian, noise, and aesthetic opposition; competitor politics; high costs; resistant funding sources; near-neighbor conflict; and radiofrequecy interference. This is just the short list."
--Timlynn Babitsky, Wind Project Community Organizing, an exposé of the manipulative hucksterism developers use to ram through a project.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms<, environment, environmentalism
--Timlynn Babitsky, Wind Project Community Organizing, an exposé of the manipulative hucksterism developers use to ram through a project.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms<, environment, environmentalism
June 6, 2008
Vientos de despojo (Winds of destruction)
¡Basta ya de despojos, basta ya de impunidad, ya no mas muerte!
(No more plunder, no more impunity, no more death!)
"Ejidatarios de La Venta presentaron demandas legales contra la CFE", Juchitan, Oaxaca, a 1º de Febrero del año 2007
Habitantes de La Venta, pertenecientes al Frente de Pueblos del Istmo en Defensa de la Tierra, interpusieron una demanda ante la agencia del Ministerio Publico, contra la Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), organismo al cual acusan de causar daños en sus parcelas por el paso de lineas de transmisión de energía ...
"Carta del Grupo Solidario La Venta a Dr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen", La Venta, Juchitán, Oaxaca a 14 de Febrero del 2007
Dr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Relator Especial de la Oficina en México del Alto Comisionado de las NNUU para los DDHH --
Alejo Girón Carrasco, en mi calidad de Presidente del Grupo Solidario La Venta, vengo por este conducto a expresarle lo siguiente:
Nuestro ejido ubicado en él municipio de Juchitán, Oaxaca, ha venido sufriendo enormes presiones por parte de funcionarios estatales y federales y de empleados de empresas con el fin de que alquilemos nuestras tierras para la ejecución del megaproyecto Eolo eléctrico La Venta II y La Venta III, el primero de los cuales ya se encuentra casi concluido y el segundo esta proyectado para iniciar los próximos meses. Las obras las ha venido realizado la empresa trasnacional de capital español Iberdrola. ...
"Vientos de despojo en La Venta", Silvia Hernández y Sergio de Castro, Noticias de Oaxaca, 4/2007
El pasado 29 de marzo el presidente de México, Felipe Calderón, inauguraba en acto solemne la segunda parte del proyecto eólico La Venta, situado en la región oaxaqueña del Istmo de Tehuantepec. Mientras declaraba que se debían desterrar "problemas como la corrupción, la impunidad, el abuso; problemas como el odio y la violencia entre hermanos", un operativo militar y policial de 2000 efectivos resguardaban las inversiones de las trasnacionales realizadas sobre el despojo de las tierras de los indígenas y campesinos de la región. ...
"Instalaron generadores de energía eólica sobre ruinas arqueológicas", Pedro Matias, 2007-08-22
Autoridades ejidales y asociaciones civiles de La Venta, denunciaron ante el Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, el hallazgo de vestigios arqueológicos en la zona donde se instalaron aerogeneradores de energía eolica. ...
Convocatoria encuentro mexicano por la defensa de las tierra y la soberania nacional y por el derecho a la consulta a los pueblos indios, 29/8/2007 [includes English translation]
En estos últimos años, con la imposición de megaproyectos como el Plan Puebla-Panamá se han venido intensificando por todo nuestro país, las acciones de despojo y de violencia en contra de poblaciones indígenas y campesinas. Los grandes programas de inversión en materia energética que viene impulsando el Gobierno federal, están orientados a beneficiar a las empresas trasnacionales, por ello no son tomados en cuenta los derechos de las comunidades afectadas ni los grandes costos ambientales y económicos que se derivan de la ejecución de estos megaproyectos. Además el Gobierno mexicano viene violando acuerdos y tratados internacionales así como legislación nacional ya que en la ejecución de estos programas no han sido ni informadas ni consultadas las comunidades indígenas afectadas. ...
"Contratos ilegales y rentas miserables por las tierras en el proyecto eólico del istmo", Yesika Cruz y Citlalli Méndez, 26 de octubre de 2007
El proyecto de generación de energía eléctrica, que los expertos aseguran es limpio, se ensucia para los campesinos debido a la falta de información y de claridad en los contratos y pagos por la renta de sus tierras. ...
"Hay ruinas arqueológicas bajo el parque eoloeléctrico La Venta II", Octavio Vélez Ascencio (Corresponsal), Oaxaca, Oax., 19 de diciembre
Autoridades ejidales y asociaciones civiles de La Venta, municipio de Juchitán de Zaragoza, dieron a conocer al Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) el hallazgo de vestigios arqueológicos en la zona donde la Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) instaló generadores de energía eólica. ...
Conflictos intersindicales y condiciones de trabajo en el parque eólico “La Venta I y II”, 31/1/2008
En el Istmo de Tehuantepec, estado de Oaxaca, la apertura de los trabajos del mega proyecto del Plan Puebla Panamá, que pretende conectar un inmenso corredor industrial del Puerto de Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, al Puerto de Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz mediante la instalación de grandes maquiladoras, bancos camaroniferos, explotación de mármol, piedras y otros minerales, ampliación de obras de extracción y refinación de crudo, operación de un ferrocarril de alta velocidad que conecte ambos puertos para el traslado de mercancías, etc. Las obras para la construcción del parque eólico “La Venta I, II y III”, de aerogeneración eléctrica, contemplada como una de las principales medidas del mega proyecto, comenzadas desde 1994 a cargo de empresas extranjeras como GAMESA e IBEDROLA, junto Comisión Federal de Electricidad son parte del preámbulo para la privatización de la industria energética nacional. ...
Declaración Oaxaca Libre, Lunes, 14 Abril, 2008
Los pueblos, organizaciones, colectivos y grupos reunidos en la Ciudad de Oaxaca en el foro estatal por la defensa de los derechos de lospueblos de oaxaca, provenientes de todas las regiones de nuestro estado, y contando tambien con la presencia solidaria de observadoresnacionales e internacionales. Declaramos:
• Que en oaxaca gobierna una mafia, que utiliza los recursos publicos en su propio beneficio, que promueve la privatizacion de las tierras, elagua, los recursos forestales y mineros y que utiliza de manera abierta la violencia y la represion para frenar la justa lucha denuestros pueblos.
• Que la miseria, la injusticia y la violencia que sufre el pueblo oaxaqueño es producto de un sistema caciquil protegido por el gobierno federal. En oaxaca vivimos en un estado de excepcion, donde las garantias constitucionales y los derechos humanos son constantemente violados por los mismos gobernantes.
• Que condenamos energicamente el asesinato y la detencion derepresentantes indigenas y del movimiento ciudadano y manifestamos nuestra indignacion y condena por los recientes homicidios de Felicitas Martinez, Teresa Bautista, Placido Lopez Castro, Lauro Juarez y Rosalino Diaz y exigimos el esclarecimiento de estos crimenes y el castigo a los responsables materiales e intelectuales de los mismos.
• Que exigimos el respeto a las tierras y recursos naturales propiedad de nuestros pueblos indigenas, ratificamos nuestro derecho a la consultaante los megaproyectos y demandamos la salida de nuestras tierras de las empresas electricas, mineras, turisticas, forestales trasnacionales.
• Que demandamos el respeto a las radios comunitarias y el cese alhostigamiento que vienen haciendo los caciques priista, los militares y los funcionarios federales. Exigimos sea respetado el derecho de lospueblos indigenas a la libre expresion y a la utilizacion de los mediosde comunicación para hacer la defensa de nuestro patrimonio y de nuestracultura.
• Que con el pretexto del combate al narcotrafico, las dieferentes regiones de nuestro estado han sido militarizadas, lo cual hasignificado la violacion a los derechos humanos de la poblacion indigena. Estos operativos militares provocan miedo y buscan intimidarlos reclamos de nuestras comunidades. Las violaciones a los derechos humanos alcanzan tambien a nuestros hermanos y hermanas centroamericanos que tienen la necesidad de cruzar por nuestro pais.
• Que una debilidad en la lucha de nuestros pueblos, es la falta deorganización y el aislamiento, por ello coincidimos en que es necesario crear una alianza de nuestros pueblos y organizaciones basada en los principios, en la historia y en la costumbre comunitaria de nuestros pueblos; una alianza independiente de todos los partidos politicos, sinburocracia ni lideres, una alianza construida desde abajo donde mujeres y hombres se amos respetados. Una alianza que nos ayude a frenar la represion, que nos permita defender nuestro patrimonio y cultura y quenos ayude a alcanzar la autonomia de nuestros pueblos.
Llamamiento:
• Hacemos un llamado urgente a las organizaciones y grupos, indigenas, decomunicadores, de mujeres, de derechos humanos de oaxaca, mexico y anivel internacional para que el asesinato de nuestras compañeras Teresa Bautista y Felicitas no quede en la impunidad, es por ello que les solicitamos se unan a nuestro reclamo de que sea la fiscalia especializada para la atencion a delitos en contra de periodistas la querealice la investigacion sobre este crimen que nos indigna.
• Acompañar de manera solidariala lucha de resistencia del ayuntamiento autonomo de San Juan Copala, de San Pedro Yosotatu, Chalcatongo, San Juan del Rio y El Pipila seriamente amenazados por el gobierno de Ulises Ruiz y de las bandas de pistoleros que operan en esas regiones con laproteccion del gobierno estatal. Demandamos castigo para los asesinosandres Castro Garcia e Inocente Castro Victoria autores intelectuales del crimen de nuestro compañero placido lopez.
• Impulsar con renovados brios la lucha por la liberacion de nuestros compañeros presos politicos Pedro Castillo Aragon, Flavio Sosa, Miguel Juan Hilaria, Adan Mejia, Miguel Angel Garcia, Victor Hugo Martinez, Roberto Cardenas Rosas, Reynaldo Martinez Ramirez, Constantino Hilario Castro, Homero Castro Lopez, Juliantino Martinez Garcia. Luchar por el cese de la persecucion en contra de nuestros compañeros y por la cancelacion de cientos de ordenes de aprehension que han sido libradas en contra de representantes comunitarios, de la Mixteca, Sierra Juarez, Valles Centrales, La Cuenca y el Istmo de Tehuantepec.
• Manifestamos que los derechos de las mujeres deben de ser respetados, es por ello que exigimos el cese a la violencia de genero, que seades penalizado a nivel nacional el aborto y que la equidad sea una de las demandas centrales del movimiento social.
• Ante la dificil situacion que vive el pueblo oaxaqueño, hacemos un llamado fraterno y respetuoso a los pueblos, colonias, barricadas, organizaciones, sindicatos, grupos de mujeres, organismos nogubernamentales, de jovenes, artistas y intelectuales para reconstruirla asamblea popular de los pueblos de oaxaca bajo los principios que ledieron vida, basados en la autonomia, independencia, comunalidad, el consenso y el respeto. La APPO no debe de ser patrimonio de ningun grupo politico ni su consejo un espacio sectario de lideres. La APPO debere cuperar su carácter de asamblea, donde sea respetada la diversidad, donde sea reconocida la voz y los derechos de las mujeres, donde las decisiones se tomen por consenso y que cuente con un programa de lucha integral que le permita a nuestro pueblo la defensa efectiva de sus derechos. Solo una APPO fortalecida podra enfrentar la barbarie en la que vivimos los oaxaqueños.
Basta ya de despojos, basta ya de impunidad, ya no mas muerte.
Dada en Oaxaca de Juarez, Oaxaca, la ciudad de la dignidad y la resistencia el dia que recordamos la muerte de Emiliano Zapata, 10 de abril del 2008
Ayuntamiento Autonomo de San Juan Copala, Comunidad de Yosotatu, UDEPI-Mixteca; Coordinadora de Organizaciones y Pueblos de La Chinantla; Bienes Comunales de Chalcatongo, Organizaciones Indias por los Derechos Humanos de Oaxaca, Radio Huave, Cerec-Tepeuxila, Colectivo Autonomomagonista, UCIZONI, Comunidad de Monte Aguila, Mazatlan, RED de Radios comunitarias y Indigenas del Sureste de Mexico; Comunidad La Esmeralda Chimalapa, Radio Ayuuk, Centro de Derechos Humanos Tepeyac, Ceapi, Tierra Blanca, Chimalapa; Cactus; CODEDI-Xanica, CODECI, Comunidad Desan Pedro Evangelista, Matiias Romero, Comision Magisterial de Derechos Humanos (Seccion 22 del SNTE); UVI, FUNDAR, Radio Arco Iris; Comunidad de San Juan Jaltepec, Ejido El Pipila; Ojo de Agua, Comunicación; Radio Tezoatlan; Asamblea Universitaria UAM-A; MPR; Frente Coordilleranorte-Mixteca; Comunidad de Santa Cruz Mixtepec; Ceuco, Maiz, Asoc. Nacional de Abogados Democraticos; AMAP; Radio Planton; CIMAC; Oaxaca Libre; Centro Social Libertario; Grupo Solidario La Venta, Frente de Pueblos del Istmo en Defensa de la Tierra; CODEP; CODEM; Comité Deliberacion 25 de Noviembre; Radio Bemba; Nodho por Derechos Humanos; Consorcio por la Equidad de Genero; Radio Ke-Huelga
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
(No more plunder, no more impunity, no more death!)
"Ejidatarios de La Venta presentaron demandas legales contra la CFE", Juchitan, Oaxaca, a 1º de Febrero del año 2007
Habitantes de La Venta, pertenecientes al Frente de Pueblos del Istmo en Defensa de la Tierra, interpusieron una demanda ante la agencia del Ministerio Publico, contra la Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), organismo al cual acusan de causar daños en sus parcelas por el paso de lineas de transmisión de energía ...
"Carta del Grupo Solidario La Venta a Dr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen", La Venta, Juchitán, Oaxaca a 14 de Febrero del 2007
Dr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Relator Especial de la Oficina en México del Alto Comisionado de las NNUU para los DDHH --
Alejo Girón Carrasco, en mi calidad de Presidente del Grupo Solidario La Venta, vengo por este conducto a expresarle lo siguiente:
Nuestro ejido ubicado en él municipio de Juchitán, Oaxaca, ha venido sufriendo enormes presiones por parte de funcionarios estatales y federales y de empleados de empresas con el fin de que alquilemos nuestras tierras para la ejecución del megaproyecto Eolo eléctrico La Venta II y La Venta III, el primero de los cuales ya se encuentra casi concluido y el segundo esta proyectado para iniciar los próximos meses. Las obras las ha venido realizado la empresa trasnacional de capital español Iberdrola. ...
"Vientos de despojo en La Venta", Silvia Hernández y Sergio de Castro, Noticias de Oaxaca, 4/2007
El pasado 29 de marzo el presidente de México, Felipe Calderón, inauguraba en acto solemne la segunda parte del proyecto eólico La Venta, situado en la región oaxaqueña del Istmo de Tehuantepec. Mientras declaraba que se debían desterrar "problemas como la corrupción, la impunidad, el abuso; problemas como el odio y la violencia entre hermanos", un operativo militar y policial de 2000 efectivos resguardaban las inversiones de las trasnacionales realizadas sobre el despojo de las tierras de los indígenas y campesinos de la región. ...
"Instalaron generadores de energía eólica sobre ruinas arqueológicas", Pedro Matias, 2007-08-22
Autoridades ejidales y asociaciones civiles de La Venta, denunciaron ante el Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, el hallazgo de vestigios arqueológicos en la zona donde se instalaron aerogeneradores de energía eolica. ...
Convocatoria encuentro mexicano por la defensa de las tierra y la soberania nacional y por el derecho a la consulta a los pueblos indios, 29/8/2007 [includes English translation]
En estos últimos años, con la imposición de megaproyectos como el Plan Puebla-Panamá se han venido intensificando por todo nuestro país, las acciones de despojo y de violencia en contra de poblaciones indígenas y campesinas. Los grandes programas de inversión en materia energética que viene impulsando el Gobierno federal, están orientados a beneficiar a las empresas trasnacionales, por ello no son tomados en cuenta los derechos de las comunidades afectadas ni los grandes costos ambientales y económicos que se derivan de la ejecución de estos megaproyectos. Además el Gobierno mexicano viene violando acuerdos y tratados internacionales así como legislación nacional ya que en la ejecución de estos programas no han sido ni informadas ni consultadas las comunidades indígenas afectadas. ...
"Contratos ilegales y rentas miserables por las tierras en el proyecto eólico del istmo", Yesika Cruz y Citlalli Méndez, 26 de octubre de 2007
El proyecto de generación de energía eléctrica, que los expertos aseguran es limpio, se ensucia para los campesinos debido a la falta de información y de claridad en los contratos y pagos por la renta de sus tierras. ...
"Hay ruinas arqueológicas bajo el parque eoloeléctrico La Venta II", Octavio Vélez Ascencio (Corresponsal), Oaxaca, Oax., 19 de diciembre
Autoridades ejidales y asociaciones civiles de La Venta, municipio de Juchitán de Zaragoza, dieron a conocer al Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) el hallazgo de vestigios arqueológicos en la zona donde la Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) instaló generadores de energía eólica. ...
Conflictos intersindicales y condiciones de trabajo en el parque eólico “La Venta I y II”, 31/1/2008
En el Istmo de Tehuantepec, estado de Oaxaca, la apertura de los trabajos del mega proyecto del Plan Puebla Panamá, que pretende conectar un inmenso corredor industrial del Puerto de Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, al Puerto de Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz mediante la instalación de grandes maquiladoras, bancos camaroniferos, explotación de mármol, piedras y otros minerales, ampliación de obras de extracción y refinación de crudo, operación de un ferrocarril de alta velocidad que conecte ambos puertos para el traslado de mercancías, etc. Las obras para la construcción del parque eólico “La Venta I, II y III”, de aerogeneración eléctrica, contemplada como una de las principales medidas del mega proyecto, comenzadas desde 1994 a cargo de empresas extranjeras como GAMESA e IBEDROLA, junto Comisión Federal de Electricidad son parte del preámbulo para la privatización de la industria energética nacional. ...
Declaración Oaxaca Libre, Lunes, 14 Abril, 2008
Los pueblos, organizaciones, colectivos y grupos reunidos en la Ciudad de Oaxaca en el foro estatal por la defensa de los derechos de lospueblos de oaxaca, provenientes de todas las regiones de nuestro estado, y contando tambien con la presencia solidaria de observadoresnacionales e internacionales. Declaramos:
• Que en oaxaca gobierna una mafia, que utiliza los recursos publicos en su propio beneficio, que promueve la privatizacion de las tierras, elagua, los recursos forestales y mineros y que utiliza de manera abierta la violencia y la represion para frenar la justa lucha denuestros pueblos.
• Que la miseria, la injusticia y la violencia que sufre el pueblo oaxaqueño es producto de un sistema caciquil protegido por el gobierno federal. En oaxaca vivimos en un estado de excepcion, donde las garantias constitucionales y los derechos humanos son constantemente violados por los mismos gobernantes.
• Que condenamos energicamente el asesinato y la detencion derepresentantes indigenas y del movimiento ciudadano y manifestamos nuestra indignacion y condena por los recientes homicidios de Felicitas Martinez, Teresa Bautista, Placido Lopez Castro, Lauro Juarez y Rosalino Diaz y exigimos el esclarecimiento de estos crimenes y el castigo a los responsables materiales e intelectuales de los mismos.
• Que exigimos el respeto a las tierras y recursos naturales propiedad de nuestros pueblos indigenas, ratificamos nuestro derecho a la consultaante los megaproyectos y demandamos la salida de nuestras tierras de las empresas electricas, mineras, turisticas, forestales trasnacionales.
• Que demandamos el respeto a las radios comunitarias y el cese alhostigamiento que vienen haciendo los caciques priista, los militares y los funcionarios federales. Exigimos sea respetado el derecho de lospueblos indigenas a la libre expresion y a la utilizacion de los mediosde comunicación para hacer la defensa de nuestro patrimonio y de nuestracultura.
• Que con el pretexto del combate al narcotrafico, las dieferentes regiones de nuestro estado han sido militarizadas, lo cual hasignificado la violacion a los derechos humanos de la poblacion indigena. Estos operativos militares provocan miedo y buscan intimidarlos reclamos de nuestras comunidades. Las violaciones a los derechos humanos alcanzan tambien a nuestros hermanos y hermanas centroamericanos que tienen la necesidad de cruzar por nuestro pais.
• Que una debilidad en la lucha de nuestros pueblos, es la falta deorganización y el aislamiento, por ello coincidimos en que es necesario crear una alianza de nuestros pueblos y organizaciones basada en los principios, en la historia y en la costumbre comunitaria de nuestros pueblos; una alianza independiente de todos los partidos politicos, sinburocracia ni lideres, una alianza construida desde abajo donde mujeres y hombres se amos respetados. Una alianza que nos ayude a frenar la represion, que nos permita defender nuestro patrimonio y cultura y quenos ayude a alcanzar la autonomia de nuestros pueblos.
Llamamiento:
• Hacemos un llamado urgente a las organizaciones y grupos, indigenas, decomunicadores, de mujeres, de derechos humanos de oaxaca, mexico y anivel internacional para que el asesinato de nuestras compañeras Teresa Bautista y Felicitas no quede en la impunidad, es por ello que les solicitamos se unan a nuestro reclamo de que sea la fiscalia especializada para la atencion a delitos en contra de periodistas la querealice la investigacion sobre este crimen que nos indigna.
• Acompañar de manera solidariala lucha de resistencia del ayuntamiento autonomo de San Juan Copala, de San Pedro Yosotatu, Chalcatongo, San Juan del Rio y El Pipila seriamente amenazados por el gobierno de Ulises Ruiz y de las bandas de pistoleros que operan en esas regiones con laproteccion del gobierno estatal. Demandamos castigo para los asesinosandres Castro Garcia e Inocente Castro Victoria autores intelectuales del crimen de nuestro compañero placido lopez.
• Impulsar con renovados brios la lucha por la liberacion de nuestros compañeros presos politicos Pedro Castillo Aragon, Flavio Sosa, Miguel Juan Hilaria, Adan Mejia, Miguel Angel Garcia, Victor Hugo Martinez, Roberto Cardenas Rosas, Reynaldo Martinez Ramirez, Constantino Hilario Castro, Homero Castro Lopez, Juliantino Martinez Garcia. Luchar por el cese de la persecucion en contra de nuestros compañeros y por la cancelacion de cientos de ordenes de aprehension que han sido libradas en contra de representantes comunitarios, de la Mixteca, Sierra Juarez, Valles Centrales, La Cuenca y el Istmo de Tehuantepec.
• Manifestamos que los derechos de las mujeres deben de ser respetados, es por ello que exigimos el cese a la violencia de genero, que seades penalizado a nivel nacional el aborto y que la equidad sea una de las demandas centrales del movimiento social.
• Ante la dificil situacion que vive el pueblo oaxaqueño, hacemos un llamado fraterno y respetuoso a los pueblos, colonias, barricadas, organizaciones, sindicatos, grupos de mujeres, organismos nogubernamentales, de jovenes, artistas y intelectuales para reconstruirla asamblea popular de los pueblos de oaxaca bajo los principios que ledieron vida, basados en la autonomia, independencia, comunalidad, el consenso y el respeto. La APPO no debe de ser patrimonio de ningun grupo politico ni su consejo un espacio sectario de lideres. La APPO debere cuperar su carácter de asamblea, donde sea respetada la diversidad, donde sea reconocida la voz y los derechos de las mujeres, donde las decisiones se tomen por consenso y que cuente con un programa de lucha integral que le permita a nuestro pueblo la defensa efectiva de sus derechos. Solo una APPO fortalecida podra enfrentar la barbarie en la que vivimos los oaxaqueños.
Basta ya de despojos, basta ya de impunidad, ya no mas muerte.
Dada en Oaxaca de Juarez, Oaxaca, la ciudad de la dignidad y la resistencia el dia que recordamos la muerte de Emiliano Zapata, 10 de abril del 2008
Ayuntamiento Autonomo de San Juan Copala, Comunidad de Yosotatu, UDEPI-Mixteca; Coordinadora de Organizaciones y Pueblos de La Chinantla; Bienes Comunales de Chalcatongo, Organizaciones Indias por los Derechos Humanos de Oaxaca, Radio Huave, Cerec-Tepeuxila, Colectivo Autonomomagonista, UCIZONI, Comunidad de Monte Aguila, Mazatlan, RED de Radios comunitarias y Indigenas del Sureste de Mexico; Comunidad La Esmeralda Chimalapa, Radio Ayuuk, Centro de Derechos Humanos Tepeyac, Ceapi, Tierra Blanca, Chimalapa; Cactus; CODEDI-Xanica, CODECI, Comunidad Desan Pedro Evangelista, Matiias Romero, Comision Magisterial de Derechos Humanos (Seccion 22 del SNTE); UVI, FUNDAR, Radio Arco Iris; Comunidad de San Juan Jaltepec, Ejido El Pipila; Ojo de Agua, Comunicación; Radio Tezoatlan; Asamblea Universitaria UAM-A; MPR; Frente Coordilleranorte-Mixteca; Comunidad de Santa Cruz Mixtepec; Ceuco, Maiz, Asoc. Nacional de Abogados Democraticos; AMAP; Radio Planton; CIMAC; Oaxaca Libre; Centro Social Libertario; Grupo Solidario La Venta, Frente de Pueblos del Istmo en Defensa de la Tierra; CODEP; CODEM; Comité Deliberacion 25 de Noviembre; Radio Bemba; Nodho por Derechos Humanos; Consorcio por la Equidad de Genero; Radio Ke-Huelga
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
June 5, 2008
Facing the winds of power in India
Gururaja Budhya writes at "NGO Forum on ADB [Asian Development Bank]" (click on title of this post for original):
“Our village used to have peacocks roaming around. We had strict rules to protect them along with other flora and fauna visiting our village,” said a woman from the community. She has been cursing the installation of the wind mills surrounding their village and has been blaming it for the disappearance of peacocks. She lamented that the installation of the windmills surrounding the hills was done without any consultation with them.
The woman narrated that the hills have been chopped, causing soil erosion and affecting the flora and fauna in the region. Hundreds of windmills in Karnataka have caused the alteration of geography, affected the topography, greenery and the endangered species of flora and fauna.
The proponents of development want the villagers living near the resources to “sacrifice for the development of the nation.” For years, the same people who sacrificed their resources have been denied to get a fair share of the “fruits” of development. They ended up only as contributors. At the same time, they have suffered due to the impact brought by development. The mining case in Orissa is another example of such development devastating the forest lands and forest dwellers.
The promoters of windmills in Davanagere district have begun community development initiatives as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), resulting in the formation of women’s self help groups and construction of toilets, to name a few. I find these initiatives, which are part of the CSR of these so-called corporate houses, totally misguiding.
Corporations have social responsibility – to be sensitive to the nature of their investments and be able to boldly address the issues of social development. As a part of this responsibility, corporations must spend on mitigation measures and environmental impacts assessments, for example. This means said measures must be part of the investment allocated to address the negative impacts of the project. Additionally, a part of the annual profits have to be ploughed back into the development of the community. For me, this is part of fulfilling their Corporate Social Responsibility.
But cleverly, many companies do not address the negative impacts of their projects. They spend a small project allocation for their so-called community development activities – claiming it as Corporate Social Responsibility. No ethics, no sensitivity, no social responsibility – all at the cost of people for high profits.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
“Our village used to have peacocks roaming around. We had strict rules to protect them along with other flora and fauna visiting our village,” said a woman from the community. She has been cursing the installation of the wind mills surrounding their village and has been blaming it for the disappearance of peacocks. She lamented that the installation of the windmills surrounding the hills was done without any consultation with them.
The woman narrated that the hills have been chopped, causing soil erosion and affecting the flora and fauna in the region. Hundreds of windmills in Karnataka have caused the alteration of geography, affected the topography, greenery and the endangered species of flora and fauna.
The proponents of development want the villagers living near the resources to “sacrifice for the development of the nation.” For years, the same people who sacrificed their resources have been denied to get a fair share of the “fruits” of development. They ended up only as contributors. At the same time, they have suffered due to the impact brought by development. The mining case in Orissa is another example of such development devastating the forest lands and forest dwellers.
The promoters of windmills in Davanagere district have begun community development initiatives as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), resulting in the formation of women’s self help groups and construction of toilets, to name a few. I find these initiatives, which are part of the CSR of these so-called corporate houses, totally misguiding.
Corporations have social responsibility – to be sensitive to the nature of their investments and be able to boldly address the issues of social development. As a part of this responsibility, corporations must spend on mitigation measures and environmental impacts assessments, for example. This means said measures must be part of the investment allocated to address the negative impacts of the project. Additionally, a part of the annual profits have to be ploughed back into the development of the community. For me, this is part of fulfilling their Corporate Social Responsibility.
But cleverly, many companies do not address the negative impacts of their projects. They spend a small project allocation for their so-called community development activities – claiming it as Corporate Social Responsibility. No ethics, no sensitivity, no social responsibility – all at the cost of people for high profits.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
Wind Turbine Hell
Carol Cowperthwaite or Mars Hill, Maine, writes in the June 5 Waldo County Citizen (via National Wind Watch):
I am a resident of Mars Hill, whose personal life and community life have been severely impacted by the nearby UPC Wind plant.
Here is my story:
My husband and I had moved away from Mars Hill, and our retirement dream was to come back to old friends, peace, quiet and country living. The first year after building our house back here was heaven. The quiet was so complete that we thought we had gone deaf. The wildlife on our lawn was so much fun.
We had heard about the windmills, but when we asked how they would affect us if we bought the land, the town manager told us we wouldn’t even see them, much less hear them because they were going to be on the front of the mountain.
We believed him. That was our biggest mistake. At the time, we had no idea that the town fathers had not even read the application that they had co-signed, nor hired a lawyer to explain it to them. They had no idea what they had agreed to. They believed everything UPC had told them.
The biggest lie of all was that there would be no noise, or you had to be within 500 feet to hear anything. I believe that is still the propaganda.
We had one winter of quiet solitude, then with the spring came giant bulldozers, and cranes took over our mountain. Roads three lanes wide were being cut through the trees. Blasting began. We never knew when they were going to blast. The windows shook and the ledge would land on our lawn because they wouldn’t use mats. The heavy equipment would start up before daylight and go late in the night.
What a shock it was to all of us when they blasted away the whole end of the mountain. The giant scar got bigger and bigger. Then were more huge scars across our beautiful mountain. The whole terrain was being devastated. ... The beauty and the access to the ridges would never be again. ...
The massive white giants started turning and were on line in March 2007. Our lives greatly changed that day. We had been upset over the blasting and the devastation of the mountain and the eyesore, but nothing compared to the noise. As they added more windmills on line, the louder it got.
If we got up in the middle of the night, we couldn’t get back to sleep. We closed the windows, the doors, had the furnace running and the drumming never stopped. On a foggy or snowy day, it was always worse. Our TV flickers with each turn of the blades.
We both spent those winter nights roaming around the house because we couldn’t sleep. Then, the less we slept, the angrier we would become because of the situation. When I went out the front door, a sense of rage would hit me that I have never known before. Even after 30 years of teaching, raising two boys and going through a divorce has never produced the kind of rage I feel when those windmills are pounding.
When our autistic, seizure-prone granddaughter comes to visit, we spend no time outdoors due to the shadowing effects and the strobing effects. The shadowing and strobing red lights are known to induce seizures. My husband and I have both had depression from sleep deprivation and worries about investments of land, etc. Insomnia has become a way of life for me. We are still on medications for these problems.
We are, by nature, outdoor people. Most of our days were spent outdoors with gardening, the dog or just drinking tea on the porch. Now we have to do what we have to and head inside and turn up the TV. We have had no choices. We have had this lifestyle forced on to us.
When they start talking about tax breaks for the townspeople, ours amounted to $151; we have lost our lifestyle forever. The windmill people are paying three to four mills to the town for taxes. We are paying 20 mills. ...
If we had our privacy invaded, been harassed or had trespassers on our land, it would be illegal. Because it is just noise, all we can do is live with it. If you live within two to three miles, I pity you because of the noise. If you live within 50 miles, I pity you because of the eyesore.
One more thing — if you use your ridge for recreational uses that will be gone. We are not allowed on that mountain at all. All access trails are gated or chained, with no trespassing signs everywhere, even along the top of the mountain, just in case someone does get up there. They will tell you it is up to the landowners that they rent from, but that is another lie. Even with signed permission slips from the owners, try to find a way up.
You will have a hard time to fight these because our government receives money. Our state is 100 percent for wind power for bragging rights that Maine is a forerunner in “green” and the Department of Environmental Protection works for the state and its boss is the governor. The DEP added an extra five decibels to the acceptable noise level so UPC would be in compliance to the application. Politics is a hard thing to fight.
But, one thing is for sure! Once they are up and running, no matter what you do, they are not coming down until they fall down, and certainly never in my lifetime.
We are not against wind power but strongly feel turbines have to be placed where the impact is less. They should never be within five miles of a dwelling. Also, money should be put in escrow to remove them when their earning power is gone or they are too expensive to repair. I worry about Maine becoming a windmill bone yard because no small town will ever be able to afford to remove them.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
I am a resident of Mars Hill, whose personal life and community life have been severely impacted by the nearby UPC Wind plant.
Here is my story:
My husband and I had moved away from Mars Hill, and our retirement dream was to come back to old friends, peace, quiet and country living. The first year after building our house back here was heaven. The quiet was so complete that we thought we had gone deaf. The wildlife on our lawn was so much fun.
We had heard about the windmills, but when we asked how they would affect us if we bought the land, the town manager told us we wouldn’t even see them, much less hear them because they were going to be on the front of the mountain.
We believed him. That was our biggest mistake. At the time, we had no idea that the town fathers had not even read the application that they had co-signed, nor hired a lawyer to explain it to them. They had no idea what they had agreed to. They believed everything UPC had told them.
The biggest lie of all was that there would be no noise, or you had to be within 500 feet to hear anything. I believe that is still the propaganda.
We had one winter of quiet solitude, then with the spring came giant bulldozers, and cranes took over our mountain. Roads three lanes wide were being cut through the trees. Blasting began. We never knew when they were going to blast. The windows shook and the ledge would land on our lawn because they wouldn’t use mats. The heavy equipment would start up before daylight and go late in the night.
What a shock it was to all of us when they blasted away the whole end of the mountain. The giant scar got bigger and bigger. Then were more huge scars across our beautiful mountain. The whole terrain was being devastated. ... The beauty and the access to the ridges would never be again. ...
The massive white giants started turning and were on line in March 2007. Our lives greatly changed that day. We had been upset over the blasting and the devastation of the mountain and the eyesore, but nothing compared to the noise. As they added more windmills on line, the louder it got.
If we got up in the middle of the night, we couldn’t get back to sleep. We closed the windows, the doors, had the furnace running and the drumming never stopped. On a foggy or snowy day, it was always worse. Our TV flickers with each turn of the blades.
We both spent those winter nights roaming around the house because we couldn’t sleep. Then, the less we slept, the angrier we would become because of the situation. When I went out the front door, a sense of rage would hit me that I have never known before. Even after 30 years of teaching, raising two boys and going through a divorce has never produced the kind of rage I feel when those windmills are pounding.
When our autistic, seizure-prone granddaughter comes to visit, we spend no time outdoors due to the shadowing effects and the strobing effects. The shadowing and strobing red lights are known to induce seizures. My husband and I have both had depression from sleep deprivation and worries about investments of land, etc. Insomnia has become a way of life for me. We are still on medications for these problems.
We are, by nature, outdoor people. Most of our days were spent outdoors with gardening, the dog or just drinking tea on the porch. Now we have to do what we have to and head inside and turn up the TV. We have had no choices. We have had this lifestyle forced on to us.
When they start talking about tax breaks for the townspeople, ours amounted to $151; we have lost our lifestyle forever. The windmill people are paying three to four mills to the town for taxes. We are paying 20 mills. ...
If we had our privacy invaded, been harassed or had trespassers on our land, it would be illegal. Because it is just noise, all we can do is live with it. If you live within two to three miles, I pity you because of the noise. If you live within 50 miles, I pity you because of the eyesore.
One more thing — if you use your ridge for recreational uses that will be gone. We are not allowed on that mountain at all. All access trails are gated or chained, with no trespassing signs everywhere, even along the top of the mountain, just in case someone does get up there. They will tell you it is up to the landowners that they rent from, but that is another lie. Even with signed permission slips from the owners, try to find a way up.
You will have a hard time to fight these because our government receives money. Our state is 100 percent for wind power for bragging rights that Maine is a forerunner in “green” and the Department of Environmental Protection works for the state and its boss is the governor. The DEP added an extra five decibels to the acceptable noise level so UPC would be in compliance to the application. Politics is a hard thing to fight.
But, one thing is for sure! Once they are up and running, no matter what you do, they are not coming down until they fall down, and certainly never in my lifetime.
We are not against wind power but strongly feel turbines have to be placed where the impact is less. They should never be within five miles of a dwelling. Also, money should be put in escrow to remove them when their earning power is gone or they are too expensive to repair. I worry about Maine becoming a windmill bone yard because no small town will ever be able to afford to remove them.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
June 4, 2008
New transmission lines needed to shunt wind around
From the Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity Transmission Development Plan, 2008 (click title of this post):
The amount and location of wind generation capacity is important for transmission network development issues, because highly volatile power output (between maximal rated power and almost nil when wind conditions are unfavourable) is inherent to this generation process, with a typical associated load factor much lower than that of thermal units. In addition, regarding the location, new wind farms are usually located in areas with poor transmission networks, so new lines and infrastructure need to be planned in order to be able to evacuate this generation capacity. The consequence is that highly contrasted and variable power flows can be experienced on the transmission network, particularly if the wind farms are concentrated in neighbouring areas.
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
The amount and location of wind generation capacity is important for transmission network development issues, because highly volatile power output (between maximal rated power and almost nil when wind conditions are unfavourable) is inherent to this generation process, with a typical associated load factor much lower than that of thermal units. In addition, regarding the location, new wind farms are usually located in areas with poor transmission networks, so new lines and infrastructure need to be planned in order to be able to evacuate this generation capacity. The consequence is that highly contrasted and variable power flows can be experienced on the transmission network, particularly if the wind farms are concentrated in neighbouring areas.
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
June 3, 2008
Leap of logic in call for wind energy tax credits
"[Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius] said the federal government should accelerate wind power goals, and renew tax credits for renewable energy to decrease climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions."
There is a gaping hole in the logic there. The stated goal is "to decrease climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions".
But the tax credits are demanded for wind power. It is unspoken but assumed that wind power achieves the carbon dioxide goal. But that is unproven and untested. It is a false premise.
The tax credits should be to support the goal: "to decrease climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions". If wind power achieves that goal, then it would benefit.
Instead, the credits are designed to favor a specific industry, whether or not it actually contributes to the stated goal, and at the expense of other -- possibly more effective -- means of achieving the goal.
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
There is a gaping hole in the logic there. The stated goal is "to decrease climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions".
But the tax credits are demanded for wind power. It is unspoken but assumed that wind power achieves the carbon dioxide goal. But that is unproven and untested. It is a false premise.
The tax credits should be to support the goal: "to decrease climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions". If wind power achieves that goal, then it would benefit.
Instead, the credits are designed to favor a specific industry, whether or not it actually contributes to the stated goal, and at the expense of other -- possibly more effective -- means of achieving the goal.
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
May 29, 2008
Why can't UPC Wind close a deal with Vermont utilities?
During the process leading up the Public Service Board (PSB) approval on August 8 last year of UPC's proposed 40-MW wind energy facility in Sheffield, Vt., Washington Electric Co-op (WEC) was a vocal supporter that hoped to benefit from the power. The Army Corps of Engineers halted activity on the project, however, until they could properly assess its effect on wetlands, and Ridge Protectors appealed the approval to the Vt. Supreme Court.
As reported in last week's Barton Chronicle, the PSB set several conditions for their approval, one of which was that UPC "seek" stable price contracts with Vermont utilities for all of the electricity production. It turns out that they have so far failed in their quest for such contracts, even with WEC.
UPC is arguing that they have indeed "sought" to secure the contracts (although I don't think any paperwork to prove even that contention has been presented), and that is all that the condition required.
But the failure reveals the Enron-type shell game essential to big wind's "success".
The rejected East Haven project gained the local utility's (Lyndonville Electric Dept. (LED)) support by essentially letting them skim some of the profits. The wind plant would sell its production to the New England grid, who would send the check to LED, who would take out 5% and send the money on to the wind company. The wind company (Mathew Rubin and Dave Rapaport) thus claimed that they were selling the electricity to LED at 5% below market rates.
A similar arrangement was apparently planned between UPC and WEC, but it fails the requirement for a stable price contract for two reasons. First, the market rate is not stable, and second, it would not be a contract for actually providing WEC with electricity. And there, apparently, is the rub. A direct contract for power is problematic, because power from the wind is variable, intermittent, and significantly unpredictable. What would WEC be contracting for?
Feeding the Sheffield plant's production into WEC's grid would seriously destabilize it, so it would have to go into the much larger New England (where it might represent a very small increase in voltage and could simply be ignored). So WEC would have to procure a stable price contract with the New England grid for an unpredictable amount of power (representing that fed into it by the Sheffield plant), or it would have to arrange a price with UPC above which UPC would pay the balance to WEC's charges from the grid for the amount of power fed in by the Sheffield plant.
Taking a cut to look the other way is so much easier!
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont
As reported in last week's Barton Chronicle, the PSB set several conditions for their approval, one of which was that UPC "seek" stable price contracts with Vermont utilities for all of the electricity production. It turns out that they have so far failed in their quest for such contracts, even with WEC.
UPC is arguing that they have indeed "sought" to secure the contracts (although I don't think any paperwork to prove even that contention has been presented), and that is all that the condition required.
But the failure reveals the Enron-type shell game essential to big wind's "success".
The rejected East Haven project gained the local utility's (Lyndonville Electric Dept. (LED)) support by essentially letting them skim some of the profits. The wind plant would sell its production to the New England grid, who would send the check to LED, who would take out 5% and send the money on to the wind company. The wind company (Mathew Rubin and Dave Rapaport) thus claimed that they were selling the electricity to LED at 5% below market rates.
A similar arrangement was apparently planned between UPC and WEC, but it fails the requirement for a stable price contract for two reasons. First, the market rate is not stable, and second, it would not be a contract for actually providing WEC with electricity. And there, apparently, is the rub. A direct contract for power is problematic, because power from the wind is variable, intermittent, and significantly unpredictable. What would WEC be contracting for?
Feeding the Sheffield plant's production into WEC's grid would seriously destabilize it, so it would have to go into the much larger New England (where it might represent a very small increase in voltage and could simply be ignored). So WEC would have to procure a stable price contract with the New England grid for an unpredictable amount of power (representing that fed into it by the Sheffield plant), or it would have to arrange a price with UPC above which UPC would pay the balance to WEC's charges from the grid for the amount of power fed in by the Sheffield plant.
Taking a cut to look the other way is so much easier!
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont
May 13, 2008
Hillary Clinton and masculine anxiety
Good essay by Stephen Ducat at Huffington Post (click on title of this post):
In applying the GOP approach to feminizing male opponents, and directing class resentment away from the real elites, Hillary Clinton has gone beyond her more familiar adoption of the ruthless, sociopathic say-anything, dirty tricks politics of her erstwhile Rovian right wing enemies. She is reinforcing the conservative attempt to equate manhood with belligerence and predation. In addition, she is trotting out the well worn but still effective propaganda technique employed by this country's actual ruling oligarchy of wealth -- reducing class to personal style, taste, or the specific products people consume (brie versus Velveeta). Those who actually own or wield control over our shared resources are rendered invisible in this rhetorical sleight of hand.
Barack Obama stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the Clinton campaign. His guiding political ethos has always been one of bridging but not overlooking divisions, while privileging dialogue, debate, and negotiation over conquest. This is not only a new politics. It is a new masculinity, one that is inclusive of those panhuman qualities previously disowned and projected onto women. It remains to be seen if Hillary Clinton, with her Hobbesian hard-on, will succeed in turning the Denver convention into a war of all against all. If so, the life span of the Democratic Party may be nasty, brutish, and short.
human rights
In applying the GOP approach to feminizing male opponents, and directing class resentment away from the real elites, Hillary Clinton has gone beyond her more familiar adoption of the ruthless, sociopathic say-anything, dirty tricks politics of her erstwhile Rovian right wing enemies. She is reinforcing the conservative attempt to equate manhood with belligerence and predation. In addition, she is trotting out the well worn but still effective propaganda technique employed by this country's actual ruling oligarchy of wealth -- reducing class to personal style, taste, or the specific products people consume (brie versus Velveeta). Those who actually own or wield control over our shared resources are rendered invisible in this rhetorical sleight of hand.
Barack Obama stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the Clinton campaign. His guiding political ethos has always been one of bridging but not overlooking divisions, while privileging dialogue, debate, and negotiation over conquest. This is not only a new politics. It is a new masculinity, one that is inclusive of those panhuman qualities previously disowned and projected onto women. It remains to be seen if Hillary Clinton, with her Hobbesian hard-on, will succeed in turning the Denver convention into a war of all against all. If so, the life span of the Democratic Party may be nasty, brutish, and short.
human rights
May 9, 2008
Today's lesson
When you insist that the ends justify the means, you will discover that the ends in fact are defined by the means, that you have made the means the end in themselves.
May 8, 2008
Hillary Clinton, George Wallace
Hillary Clinton, in an interview yesterday with USA Today, referred to her appeal among "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans". She cited this as proof of her "much broader base to build a winning coalition on". Yet she has lost, after a long consistent record of losing in this presidential primary.
She sounds like George Wallace, who broke with the Democratic party to make an independent run for President in 1968 to exploit anti-desegregation sentiment. There's always someone who will take advantage of the worst parts of our character instead of acting to strengthen the better parts.
The phrase "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" clarifies her meaning at each comma-demarcated step, to assert that white Americans are the only hard-working Americans, indeed the only Americans who do any real work.
During the knickers-twisting over Jeremiah Wright, Pat Buchanan, who regularly says much more "anti-American" things than Wright did, was similarly seething mostly because Wright did not show sufficient appreciation to everything "we" (Americans, i.e., whites) have given "them" (blacks, i.e., Americans only by the magnanimous indulgence of whites).
And so here is Hillary Clinton, "appealing" to the same bigotry, to "white" America as the "real" America, working from the notion that it's "whites" who do all the real work so everyone else can enjoy their freedom and prosperity, which they only abuse by actually thinking that they, too, are Americans and have some right to speak out and even to lead.
American Independent Party: here she comes!
She sounds like George Wallace, who broke with the Democratic party to make an independent run for President in 1968 to exploit anti-desegregation sentiment. There's always someone who will take advantage of the worst parts of our character instead of acting to strengthen the better parts.
The phrase "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" clarifies her meaning at each comma-demarcated step, to assert that white Americans are the only hard-working Americans, indeed the only Americans who do any real work.
During the knickers-twisting over Jeremiah Wright, Pat Buchanan, who regularly says much more "anti-American" things than Wright did, was similarly seething mostly because Wright did not show sufficient appreciation to everything "we" (Americans, i.e., whites) have given "them" (blacks, i.e., Americans only by the magnanimous indulgence of whites).
And so here is Hillary Clinton, "appealing" to the same bigotry, to "white" America as the "real" America, working from the notion that it's "whites" who do all the real work so everyone else can enjoy their freedom and prosperity, which they only abuse by actually thinking that they, too, are Americans and have some right to speak out and even to lead.
American Independent Party: here she comes!
May 4, 2008
It's not all about race, it's fascism vs. dissent
John Hagee and Jerry Falwell have said much worse things than Jeremiah Wright, hateful twisted things. But they direct their wrath towards the disenfanchised and oppressed, not on their behalf, as Jeremiah Wright (like Martin Luther King) has. The right-wing religious do not threaten the powerful. They help to consolidate a paranoiac and retrograde vision of power that is represented in authoritarianism and totalitarianism, empire and military might, and an absence of meaningful debate. They reinforce the majority mob with racism, sexism, xenophobia, and even speciesism. They represent the reactionary forces that recoil from positive change, from real democracy and a nation of freedom and justice.
Jeremiah Wright is doubly cursed for defining himself in terms of the unique history of Africans in this country and thus for reminding Americans of that shameful history, noting that it is not an aberration but a pattern, and that we reap what we sow.
Wright places the blame with the powerful, not with those who have no power. That is unacceptable.
human rights
Jeremiah Wright is doubly cursed for defining himself in terms of the unique history of Africans in this country and thus for reminding Americans of that shameful history, noting that it is not an aberration but a pattern, and that we reap what we sow.
Wright places the blame with the powerful, not with those who have no power. That is unacceptable.
human rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)