CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power outdated-wind-turbines-propaganda

Published on May 9th, 2012 | by Susan Kraemer

23

Anti-Wind Propaganda Plot Exposed by DeSmogBlog

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

May 9th, 2012 by  

anti-wind-propaganda-ati-memo

DeSmogBlog has exposed the memo of a U.S. based propaganda plot to coordinate fossil-funded groups to turn public opinion against wind power. The memo crafted by the American Tradition Institute (ATI) was obtained by DeSmogBlog and written up at the British newspaper the Guardian.

ATI is the right-wing “think-tank” behind the lawsuit to harass hockey stick climatologist Michael Mann.

ATI’s exposed memo outlines the details of the new propaganda push to turn people against wind power by coordinating the efforts of all the other right-wing groups that are willing to destabilize the climate for centuries for the sake of $4 trillion in profits to be made by fossil energy before 2020.

The propaganda memo is laid out in full at the bottom of this page, but here are some highlights.

ATI recommends better organizing the attack and focusing it.

“Consider joining forces w some already established organization where there is substantial commonality and commitment (e.g. ATI, Heartland, IER, CEI, Marshall, Brookings, Cato, Manhattan, AfP, FW, CFACT, ALEC, NA-PAW, etc.).

The idea is to make wind power (or “puff power” as they suggest rebranding it) as unpopular as coal is, by funding scientific studies that:

“Cause the targeted audience to change its opinion and action based on the messages”

 “so that it effectively becomes so bad no one wants to admit in public they are for it (much like wind has done to coal, by turning green to black and clean to dirty).”

An example of this scientific study would surely be the NREL attempt to “harmonize” thousands of Life-Cycle Assessments (LCE) of the various energy sources, that appeared to be very obviously biased against renewables by using outdated technology when comparing renewables to fossil sources.

These studies “harmonized” (or averaged) by NREL analyzed outdated turbines from the 1970s that started at about 250 kW (a fraction of the current capacity) and so they averaged at about 600 kW each – rather than the current average size of about 2 MW – which would obviously skew the results.

“Create a “think-tank” subgroup to produce and disseminate white paper reports and scientific quotes and papers that back-up the message.”

(Or just ask respected government scientists like those at the NREL to “harmonize” a bunch of faulty papers with outdated data on wind turbine capacity.)

outdated-wind-turbines-propaganda

Comparing outdated technology in scientific papers to discredit wind benefits.

The reason for the focus on wind is presumably because wind has  been the first – out of all the new renewable sources now being developed to combat climate destabilization – that is seriously beginning to compete with centuries-old fossil sources like coal and natural gas on price and is possibly changing minds even in reliably red states.

While the biggest wind generating states are both red and blue states, an increasing number of red states like South Dakota and Iowa have so rapidly expanded their wind power that it now provides around 20 percent of each state’s  electricity. This begins to erode the Republican support for fossil energy.

The focus is very much on state level rebranding. The states have had much greater effect in creating the renewable energy sources that we need as a society because only the states have passed legislation requiring utilities use more renewable energy.

ATI specifies working with so-called “true environmentalists” - as opposed to environmentalists who work on reducing climate change?

“Identify and connect with like-minded groups such as tax, tea party, true environmentalists, business organizations, property rights advocates, etc.”

Here is the full memo (word doc) obtained by DeSmog Blog:

1: NATIONAL PR CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL
Draft from Rich Porter: 4/25/11. Edited by John Droz: 1/23/12
— CONFIDENTIAL —

PR Audiences:

Policy/Political
Local-State-Federal
Landowner/Lease Grantor
General Public (including non-rural population)
Tax Payer
Utility Rate Payer
Business Owner
Media
Academics
Students

PR Strategy:

Create a national professional Public Relations (PR) campaign to effectively communicate with the selected audiences using targeted messages. Have a consistent, positive, national message. Be FOR something (e.g. Science), not AGAINST something (e.g. wind energy). Be proactive vs reactive.

The minimum national PR campaign goal is to constructively influence national and state wind energy policies. A broader possible goal is to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies. Resolve: are our interests just wind energy, or broader?

The goal will be realized by coordination of a focused message along many channels and with multiple voices. The intent is to target the identified audiences with consistent messaging to create positive change.  Public opinion must begin to change among citizens at large. Create a grass-roots ground swell from which the clamor for change will reach the elected officials and policy-makers.

The message will be determined from a variety of analysis techniques including inputs from local groups and others who have an interest in spreading the message. The message will be tested for resonance with the audiences, and the dynamic of the audience shall be periodically assessed.

In addition to have the appropriate message, it needs to be communicated optimally. We need to study and apply good communication skills.

Decide whether or not a national organization is advisable as well (Part 2).

Goals of the PR Campaign

A) Cause the targeted audience to change its opinion and action based on the messages.

B) Provide credible counter message to the (wind) industry.

C) Disrupt industry message with countermeasures.

D) Cause subversion  in message of industry so that it effectively becomes so bad no one wants to admit in public they are for it (much like wind has done to coal, by turning green to black and clean to dirty).

Ultimate Goal: Change policy direction based on the message.

Some PR Tactics:

Most of this could be done by volunteers without having a formal national organization. Discuss how this would work and who would have what responsibilities.

Consider joining forces w some already established organization where there is substantial commonality and commitment (e.g. ATI, Heartland, IER, CEI, Marshall, Brookings, Cato, Manhattan, AfP, FW, CFACT, ALEC, NA-PAW, etc.).

Provide training to local leaders regarding PR.

Provide local groups support materials, like PowerPoint templates to put on local education seminars, document templates for them to file with their state utility commission, etc.

Have a high-quality professional brochure available as a handout, that summarizes the situation with wind energy (e.g. Rasmussen).

Encourage critical thinking from members and the public.

Develop a list of experts for testimony to government agencies, etc.

Identify key topics (e.g. health) and get volunteers to act as a clearing house for information and posting timely information for activists on a website.

Assign key people to be media interfaces (those who are knowledgeable, can think on their feet, camera friendly, etc.)

Coordinate messages to address local, state and federal levels of lawmakers

Create some catch phrases of wind energy — e.g. puff power, breeze energy.

Setup a volunteer lobbying effort to reach key lawmakers

Identify and connect with like-minded groups such as tax, tea party, true environmentalists, business organizations, property rights advocates, etc.
2: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL

Some Considerations Regarding a National Organization:

[Note: This is optional. All of the above PR would be done as well, but having a funded national organization would allow for a more comprehensive PR effort.]

Decide on the purpose of a national organization, and how it would interface with local groups. (E.g. local websites would primarily have info pertaining to the local issues. Education re wind energy would be handled nationally.)

Decide on the structure of a national organization, and where the funds would come from to support it.

Create a “think-tank” subgroup to produce and disseminate white paper reports and scientific quotes and papers that back-up the message.

Timely gathering of information as it appears in media outlets on this subject

Media Outreach & Response (communications) Committee will create and coordinate media contact campaigns. Use PR Newswire as the wind industry does currently.

Create advertising campaign for radio, TV, and alternative media.

Coordinate with signage, tee-shirts, hats, bumper stickers etc

Employ a well-known spokesman with star credibility. (Find one to volunteer?)

Develop corporate partnerships where the message goes onto bags, signs, tents and other outlets.

Start a “get people talking” campaign. Use controversy to spark ideas.

Youth Outreach will create program for public school coordination as well as college coordination. This will include community activity and participation with sponsorships for science fairs, school activity etc. with preset parameters that cause students to steer away from wind because they discover it doesn’t meet the criteria we set up (poster contest, essays etc).

Setup a dummy business that will go into communities considering wind development, proposing to build 400 foot billboards.

Social Media Outreach director/create coordination for message on web and in Twitter-type outreach, YouTube, etc.

Create counter-intelligence branch (responsible for communicating current industry tactics and strategies as feedback to this organization)

A team investigates links to any organization supporting wind in order to expose that support.

Provide alternative solutions for public consumption as well as re-branding of the current wind industry?

Write expose book on the industry, showing government waste, harm to communities and other negative impacts on people and the environment.

Meme (self-replicating messages) Response Coordinator
(This will help slow the meme effect of the industry, for instance when a company places a seal showing wind power was used to produce the product, we automatically assign a tax wasting symbol to the product and recommend a boycott on the website.  When a company uses wind power as marketing tool, or illustration such as a toy manufacturer showing turbines on the box, we automatically contact them to tell them we will list them on the web as actively participating in disinformation by favorably showing wind turbines)

Legal Department for contract review and guidance on communication efforts, and also taking developers (etc.) to court on various issues to cause media exposure. Maintain a comprehensive collection of court cases on this subject. Also to provide legal voice for those who have none in this issue.  Develop legal strategies that can be copied in other areas.  Take zoning boards to court to rezone as industrial land to create chilling effect on signing contracts.  Also sue for property value loss to small land holders, and use all legal cases to create media poster child effect. Sue states regarding RPS. Sue state utility commission who don’t do their job. Etc.

National Organization: Details and Narrative

The minimum national PR campaign goal is to constructively influence national and state wind energy policies. A broader possible goal is to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies.

The goal will be realized by coordination of a focused message along many channels and with multiple voices. The intent is to target three audiences with consistent messaging to create the change.  Public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a “groundswell” among grass roots.   The message will be determined from a variety of analysis techniques including interviews with local groups and others who have an interest in spreading the message.  Those who hold opposing views must also be assessed.  The analysis will include scientific polls as well as focus groups to be used on a continuing basis from time to time to direct and focus the campaign on messages that are useful to the end goal.  As perceptions change over time, a barometer must be used to determine those changes and make dynamic adjustments in the message and campaign.

Proposed Structure of a National Organization

A paid, full time director will report to a board on which the director has a voting seat.  The director shall have one paid executive assistant.  The organization shall rely on a network of volunteer state committee chairpeople who are to coordinate efforts to disseminate the message in the state.  The chairperson shall make contacts and maintain them with various adhoc groups throughout the state that would benefit from the coordinated message.
The director shall make use of information gathering technology to stay abreast of developments in the media and industry and then coordinate appropriate messages accordingly.  This technology shall include a subscription to Nexis.

The director shall also develop and maintain contacts and coordinate their actions in regards to the message.

The organization shall maintain 501c3 and PAC status and shall coordinate lobby efforts at the congressional and state levels.

The director will make use of scientific research which is designed to gauge the response to the message and allow for the adjustment of the message from time to time.  The same research is also to determine the weaknesses in opposition messages for the purpose of exploiting them to the end goal of the campaign.

National Organization: Details and Narrative

The purpose of a national organization would be to do a better, quicker job at constructively influencing national and state wind energy policies. A broader possible goal might be to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies.

The goal will be realized by coordination of a focused message along many channels and with multiple voices. The intent is to target three audiences with consistent messaging to create the change.  Public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a “groundswell” among grass roots.   The message will be determined from a variety of analysis techniques including interviews with local groups and others who have an interest in spreading the message.  Those who hold opposing views must also be assessed.  The analysis will include scientific polls as well as focus groups to be used on a continuing basis from time to time to direct and focus the campaign on messages that are useful to the end goal.  As perceptions change over time, a barometer must be used to determine those changes and make dynamic adjustments in the message and campaign.

The amount of time and energy the campaign will consume will necessarily require a minimum of two paid positions with consideration for the addition of other paid positions as the campaign grows and is able to garner more funding.  A director will be appointed by a board, on which the director shall make material contributions to the direction the board takes in its approach.  The director should have at least one administrative assistant paid to help with work loads.  The work load of the director will likely exceed 60 hours per week and more if travel is included.  A travel budget should also be planned to allow the director to meet with key persons in the various states where the campaign will become active.

The director position assumes that volunteers are ready and willing to begin serving in various committee positions as soon as possible.  The beginning committees can be constituted by a board vote and should include the following for immediate activation:
Media
Science
Regional State Coordinators
Networking
Political / Lobby
Group Policy

The group policy committee will decide the key messages and focus and will use data from analysis and research to make its decisions.  The decisions from this committee will be used to guide the efforts of the organization in communicating with the prospective audiences.  This committee is responsible for analyzing and responding to the dynamics of the audiences over time, and is key to successfully implementing the strategy by identifying the correct arguments and tone for resonance among the audiences.

The media committee is responsible for implementing the message in a variety of media resources including traditional media, new media, social media and networking.  This committee will also be responsible for using analysis to determine the most appropriate packaging of the message for the various outlets.  It should consider what channels and voices to use in each instance.  This committee will have the responsibility of message integrity, that is, the continuity of message.  The committee will need resources for message positioning as well as utilizing free message placement techniques.

The science committee will be responsible for assembling a directorate of scientists with the proper credentials to be accepted by main stream media.  Those credentials are also important in making the scientific material harder to target and more difficult to tear down by the opposition.  This committee will coordinate with the directorate to develop a highly respectable collection of scientific white papers and reports that are consistent in their approach to supporting the messages chosen as most likely to succeed.  This committee will provide well respected scientists for media and political symposiums to be conducted to further establish the messages.  They will coordinate their efforts with other committees whose duties will include dissemination of the science.

The state and regional coordinators will be volunteers appointed to regional positions to remain in contact with the state leaders in their area.  They will ascertain the needs of the state and also local campaigns and be responsible for regularly reporting those needs to the organization so they can be addressed.  They will also be responsible for coordinating the flow of information in two directions between the organization and the state.  They should hold a monthly meeting where round –robin information sharing assures the flow of information up into the organization.  The coordinators will also individually be responsible for reaching out weekly to their state contacts to maintain a current picture of the situation on the ground, and should communicate any urgent state needs directly up to the director who should then coordinate the appropriate response.

The networking committee will be responsible for coordinating the response of networked groups with like-mind on our message. These will include the tea party, anti-tax leagues and utility rate groups as well as government watch-dog, anti-waste groups.  This committee will help spread our message to the network groups and then gather feed-back as to their interests and needs for further information from the organization.

Political and lobby committee is the coordinating arm for the message going to elected officials and contact with them in the capacity of lobby efforts.  This group ideally will be able to present a ground swell of public opinion in addition to facts that support the message.  The lobby efforts will include targeted opposition to current bills that continue the policy this organization opposes.   A coordination with the science committee is important to provide facts for lawmakers in a format they can understand easily.

Funding for a National Organization

The organization will need funding and a recommendation of $750,000 for seed and startup is probably a realistic number.  Printed materials, mailing, and the creation of a media packet, plus phone and computer links and information services.  Travel will be necessary as well.  The director should receive a salary of not less than $80,000 per year with an assistant receiving $35,000 per year.  The director should have experience in PR and media with the appropriate understanding of marketing techniques.  High level of creativity in developing media strategies, with emphasis on writing and communications.  This person must think outside the box and be willing to use the latest understanding of PR to counteract the opposing message and strategy across a broad range of audiences.

This is a recommendation to hire a professional fundraiser responsible for coordinating donations to both the 501c3 and Pac.  The fundraising efforts should be separated from the duties of the director so as not to interfere with the day to day activities needed to keep the campaign moving forward.

Example Scenario (for a National Organization)

In this example, the group policy committee has identified that a particular bill providing funding for the opposition has been advanced to committee for a hearing.  Policy committee has asked for a coordinated effort to stop the progress of the funding measure.

First, the lobby committee uses their contacts to begin a campaign from the inside against the bill with phone calls and private meetings.  They meet with several staffers who suggest that the bill is being supported because it has been moved as green legislation and several committee members are afraid to oppose it on that basis.  The lobby committee reports this to media and science for further action.

The media committee decides to use a full page advertisement in the Washington Post as a method of communicating the ‘not so green truth’ to congress, and at the same time coordinates a special interview and story from a scientific point of view that illustrates the dirty side of the industry.  At this same time, the science committee holds a press conference to announce that the industry is using dishonesty and “greenwashing” as a cover for what amounts to corporate welfare.

The message is also repeated in Wash Times, WSJ, Fox and other sources.

State regional coordinators are tapped at this time to provide a letter writing campaign from the grass roots asking the key legislators to back away from the funding measure.  This campaign is also echoed in various directorate groups coordinated from the organization including tea party, anti-tax leagues, etc.

The coordinated effort stretches across multi-channels and multi-voices, and appears to come from as many as a dozen separate sources, but the message is the same and stays on point.  The created barrage of voices provides enough cover that the elected officials have a way to vote no because they can clearly see they have support for our position.

CONCLUSION

A more consistent professional PR campaign is an absolute imperative. With well over a hundred US local groups fighting the same issue, it is clearly advisable that these people be on the same page. What sense does it make for each of these groups to be reinventing the wheel, and duplicating efforts?

There are several options as to how this can be implemented, ranging from the informal to the very structured.

The low cost alternative is to continue to rely on volunteers, and not to have a national organization. That can work, to a degree, but there still is a critical need for the numerous local groups across the country to work more closely together. Exactly how that can be best done is what needs to be resolved.

The more high-end approach would insure the widest distribution of the best message — but will require considerable time effort and funding. A national organization can not be accomplished without full-time people working to coordinate local efforts. Are we prepared to commit to that option at this point?

Establishing a national organization (if that is the chosen route) should be viewed as a long term project.  A three year plan should be developed that can offer some time table for expected results. Due to the size of this undertaking, this plan should include a roll-out period where a test of the organization can be made in a single state or region of states first, before going to a national format.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.



  • Pingback: Important Difference between Clean Energy & Natural Gas - CleanTechnica

  • http://twitter.com/kfriesth Kevin Friesth

    I plan to change that with stored ammonia added to our wind turbine systems output, it doesn’t need coal, natgas or nuclear backup for my wind turbine systems with its integrated energy storage solution whether that is megawatts or terawatts…so the smog creating, CO2 spewing systems aren’t needed.. We don’t have 1/2 the CO2 of Natgas which is what it has of coal power generation my systems have 0% CO2.

  • http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr

    This reminds me of a “grass roots” organization here in PA that called itself SOR meaning Save Our Ridges. On a billboard they had a picture of some wind generators (they are sprouting up like mushrooms here in central PA) with the idea being that they were so ugly as to offend the eyes of those would ‘save our ridges’… I only saw one billboard in my travels but recall thinking “I wonder what coal interest is behind this gem?”

    What I find most disturbing is that they would risk the future of mankind for a few scheckles.

    Thanks for “outing” these frauds for what they are, Susan

    Ed.

    • Alec Sevins

      You must not like the look of non-industrialized rural landscapes, which wind turbines are rendering a thing of the past. You’d have to be blind to overlook 400-foot spinning towers that loom over natural features (and man-made historical structures). What exactly is “green” about stark white skyscrapers all over the place, and new mazes of roads carved to accommodate them? The zero-carbon aspect is also misleading, considering their construction and maintenance requirements.

      Noise and shadow flicker are not trivial issues, either. Calling wind turbines “beautiful” (a common refrain) is a heavily acquired taste, often driven by the bought silence of landowners. Money makes all kinds of people clam up.

      It’s a ruse that only global warming deniers are against wind turbines. They just have too many aesthetic downsides, and rarely generate at their rated capacity.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Have you ever seen mountains with their tops blown off so that their coal can be extracted?

        Have you ever seen massive open pit mines?

        How about enormous areas covered with coal cinders?

        Colorado forests killed by bark beetles enabled by fossil-fuel produced climate change?

        Thousands of acres of burned wildlands and thousands of destroyed homes?

        Cattle ranches turned into desert?

        Coastal cities flooded by storm surge allowed by rising sea levels?

        What’s green about ” stark white skyscrapers all over the place” is that they are less ugly than the alternative.

        Noise and wind flicker are only an issue if turbines are installed too close to where people live. We’ve figured out that a reasonable setback is needed.

      • http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr

        I might beg to differ on the noise issue. There are turbines near me and I’ve stood right at the base and found the noise to be trivial. True it does take some fossil fuel to manufacture and install turbines but it ends there. To compare their aesthetic down side to the damage of the tar sands (just this month a 1000 acres of forest were decimated due to a chemical spill there) or as Bob notes a mountain top removal site. And just what do you suggest might be a better option? Weak argument dude.

  • Dwschnare

    Ms. Kraemer failed to check with ATI to validate here allegations. ATI did not organize the meeting at which the memo was discussed. ATI did not commission the memo. ATI did not prepare the memo. ATI did not endorse the memo. ATI had nothing to do with the memo in any way.

    ATI has examined the cost-efficience and claims of pollution reduction of wind energy and has found it lacking. ATI does encourage people to learn the facts about wind and how it is only used by big energy companies if they obtain subsidies. With the reduction of subsidies we have already seen abandonment of new wind projects. Considering that wind power must be backed up by fossil fuel energy, we also have found that it causes more pollution than it prevents – something a pro-environmental organization like ATI finds unacceptable.

    David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.
    DIrector
    ATI Environmental Law Center

    • B M

      David,

      If anything you said was correct about wind energy, the market would back you up. It doesn’t. Wind is economic in some places without subsidies, and seldom will you find anyone with knowledge advocating that wind supply 100% of the generation supply. To your point that wind must be used with other generation types, no sh!t, Sherlock. We know that. The other generation types however must not be fossil based- they can be nuclear, hydro, gas and geothermal or solar.

      The wind industry has created millions of jobs, replaced the need to drill and carve up mountains for fuel, and is a clean, sustainable source of electrons. You are both a lawyer, and a lobbyist. You create no value in society other than asking organizations for funds to alter the democratic process in your clients’ favor. That, in my opinion, is more harmful to the environment than a coal plant and certainly a wind turbine.

      • Alec Sevins

        Odd that you use the term “carve up mountains” when that’s exactly what wind turbines are doing, especially on ridge-tops. Photos are widely available. Start with Mars Hill in Maine; just a tiny fraction of what’s planned for the future.

        Willful blindness to the visual blight of wind turbines truly astounds me. I never knew so many “environmentalists” had little interest in keeping landscapes natural. They claim it’s just the price we must pay, but who gets to define that?

        • Bob_Wallace

          You greatly exaggerate Alec.

          You don’t like to look at wind turbines?

          Fine, turn a blind eye to them as you seem to be doing to the effects of fossil fuel use.

      • Alec Sevins

        This may get taken out of context, but given the choice between (fully reclaimed!) coal-mined mountaintops and those same ridges with wind turbines all over them, I’ll take the former, as it will look more natural in the long run.

        Same goes for hydroelectric dams, which are essentially the same concept as wind turbines. A man-made lake looks more natural than a landscape littered with stark spinning towers.

        Think about all aspects of that for awhile. I am NOT pro fossil fuels, just pro-nature. “Nature” to me is keeping the landscape as close to its former state as possible. Wind turbines do the opposite. Even fracking rigs eventually come down, but turbines are meant to stay up indefinitely and are a constant reminder of industrialization.

        Imagine if ANWR had permanent wind turbines in place of (temporary) oil rigs. What would “environmentalists” say about the visual blight, which they now use to argue against oil drilling there? I’m against it too, but it’s an example of the hypocrisy that surrounds wind turbines’ impact on the physical landscape.

        • Bob_Wallace

          ” given the choice between (fully reclaimed!) coal-mined mountaintops and those same ridges with wind turbines all over them, I’ll take the former, as it will look more natural in the long run.”

          Alec, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You are clueless.

    • Bob_Wallace

      David, what sort of scum bag would work for fossil fuel interests when we are screwing our planet and harming the future of our children and grandchildren?

      If you’re nothing but a greedy bastard at least do something more honorable and go chase ambulances.

      • Michael

        Nasty language Bob. Wind is ineffecient and wasteful. It’s a drain on taxpayers and rate payers and a blight on unspoiled places. A national campaign to expose it is a fine idea. Even the Kennedy’s don’t want it in their backyard, nor should we force it into yours.

        • Bob_Wallace

          I didn’t say anything even close to what I actually think about David W. Schnare and his ilk.

          Scum of the earth.

          And you can wear that t-shirt as well with your dishonest posting.

          • Michael

            Can’t see honesty and sincerity when it is presented right before you? Shouldn’t discussion of the cost of wind power be on the merits rather than name calling?

          • Bob_Wallace

            I can see GOP written all over your posts Michael.

            They stink of fossil fuel money.

            Want to prove me wrong?

            You could start by posting an honest and inclusive cost of producing electricity with coal.

          • Alec Sevins

            I’m not GOP and it’s largely because of their lack of respect for nature. Wind turbines are a phony type of “green” in that they physically overwhelm natural landscapes, often more than oil & gas drilling; and in addition to it anyhow. You can’t put thousands or even millions of 400-foot structures on rural land, or at sea, and pretend that they are natural looking!

            The GOP just happens to be against wind power because of fossil fuel interests, but there are plenty of other reasons to be against it. Your reactionary attitude is no better than Rush Limbaugh’s.

          • Bob_Wallace

            You have obviously never spent any time in a gas or oil field. You must have not looked when you drove past an oil refinery.

            You want to respect nature? Then work to get more renewable energy in place and cut our use of fossil fuels. We’ll not build wind farms in wilderness areas and in our parks. But if we don’t turn our CO2 problem around we will destroy the most beautiful of all our land, along with all the rest of our lands.

      • Alec Sevins

        The idea that you’re either pro wind or pro fossil fuels is specious. There are many shades of gray to this. Nobody can deny that wind turbines are vastly increasing the human footprint on the landscape. It’s not just about the “carbon footprint.”

        Back in 1998, a group of German professors wrote the “Darmstadt Manifesto,” which explains the core of anti-wind sentiment (not global warming denial). Germany is still being overrun with these rural skyscrapers. They are just too big and intrusive on natural sensibilities. It’s not a trivial matter of adjusting to their presence.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Wind has a small enough and clean enough footprint to justify its use.

          There are no perfect answers. We have to chose among the options at hand.

          I happen to think wind turbines are beautiful because they, to me, are the symbol that we are starting to fight back against climate change.

    • http://muckrack.com/dotcommodity Susan Kraemer

      According to DeSmogBlog, the memo was crafted by John Droz, a Senior Fellow at the American Tradition Institute (ATI)
      Source: Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1bePV)

    • http://muckrack.com/dotcommodity Susan Kraemer

      I see that at DeSmogBlog, you claim that the memo represents the private musings of its author, John Droz, a Senior Fellow at the American Tradition Institute (ATI) and does not represent the thoughts of your think tank ATI.

      Are you claiming that his thoughts on wind propaganda have nothing to do with your think tank ATI that pays him to think?

Back to Top ↑