Saturday 31 July 2010 - Filed under Dumbassery + Environment

When talking about energy policy and fossil fuels, one of the many things that the libertarded like to throw about is the idea of externalities in the cost of fossil fuels. The things which can’t always be quantified, like environmental costs. They talk of the evils of fossil fuels and the wonders of renewable energies, completely dismissing that they too have their own externalities. But what happens when renewables aren’t the hassle-free magic greentards claim they are? The New York Times:

Residents in small towns are fighting proposed projects, raising concerns about threats to birds and big game, as well as about the way the giant towers and their blinking lights spoil some of the West’s most alluring views.

Here, just west of where the Columbia bends north into Washington, some people are fighting turbines that are already up and running. In a region where people often have to holler to be heard over the roar of the wind across the barren hills, they say it is the windmills that make too much noise.

[. . .]

Opponents say the constant whooshing from the turbines makes them anxious and that the low-level vibrations keep them awake at night. Some say it gives them nausea and headaches. Many other residents say they hear little or nothing at all, and the question of whether windmill noise can harm health is in dispute.

Critics say those complaining about Willow Creek are just angry that they were not able to lease their land to wind developers. Some opponents say they would be happy if Invenergy just turned certain turbines off at night, but others say they want reimbursement for losing their pastoral way of life.

But what’s even worse than the externalities of not being able to fucking hear the person next to you talking, is the reasons why they’re trying to shove waivers and hush money down peoples’ throats:

Some people who did not sign said that Ms. Pilz made them feel uncomfortable, that she talked about how much Shepherd’s Flat would benefit the struggling local economy and the nation’s energy goals, and that she suggested they were not thinking of the greater good if they refused (Emphasis added).

“The lady that came said everyone else signed,” said Jarrod Ogden, 33, a farmer whose house would be directly opposite several 300-foot turbines once Shepherd’s Flat is completed. “But I know for a fact that some people didn’t. I’m all for windmills, but I’m not going to let them buy me like that. I think they’re just trying to buy cheap insurance.”

So people are supposed to suffer the externalities of wind power for “the greater good?” What would people say if we offered a one-time five grand to “deal with” the effects of the oil spill for the greater good of the nation having cheap and highly efficient energy? I suspect that wouldn’t go over too well, and would be spun as a company trying to pay their problems away while individuals suffer for their greed.

I’m sure that the “hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to cultivate alternative energy” provided by taxpayers has nothing to do with trying to buy these people off. Apparently big wind gets a pass on the greed front, even though those corporations are living solely off of coerced taxpayer funds. People, individuals, are supposed to suffer so that “the rest of us” can feel better about our energy choices, without taking in to account that a corporation is pulling in mad cash at the expense of tax payers?

Fuck off, wind fuckers.

2010-07-31  »  madlibertarianguy

Talkback x 2

  1. Anna!
    31 July 2010 @ 3:01 pm

    I, for one wonder how many dinosaurs and plant life could have possibly existed to create the amount of “fossil fuels” we consume. Would it be completely out of the question to actual question if perhaps we were mistaken as to the origins of fossil fuels? Could what we call “fossil” fuels actually be a naturally occurring substance that the Earth itself renews? Maybe, maybe not. I just wonder why we’re currently not living in a Mad Max, road Warrior era, as was predicted in the 70’s for the turn of the century.

  2. madlibertarianguy
    1 August 2010 @ 1:35 am

    The science is pretty settled on this (as in actually settled as opposed to anthropogenic global warming scientifically settled) in that it is little more than ultra decayed old life. But even supposing that your theory is correct, it hasn’t been producing this substance at a rate which can keep up with us taking it. In short, it isn’t the theory of how oil is created that matters, but the rate at which is created. Which is to say really fucking slowly.