Saturday, March 24, 2012

The Ecologic Cost of Windmills -- 'Green' Hypocrisy

When the Soviet Union fell, many hardcore Marxists fled to a new-found ally in the so-called "Green" movement. The "green" movement is one of economic and ecological terrorism. Most of their attacks do not come in the form of violence but disturbing propaganda meant to instill fear.

People within the intelligence community understand that the true victims of a terrorist attack are those who change their patterns, habits, and lives in response to the terrorist action. These changes are usually in some form of self-defense. However, the main goal of a terrorist activity is to force a change in policy, governance, and ideology that will assist them in further promoting their cause.

For an example of a non-violent action meant to instill fear and change policy, you need to look no further than Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Much of this missive, by Gore, has been proven unsubstantiated or false by actual scientists. Gore is a lawyer and a politician, not a scientist. I may actually take with more than a grain of salt a case study of his about the relevance of Roe v Wade to the founding principles behind the US Constitution as established with the Federalist Papers and the works of John Locke. However, I consider him no authority of any merit on ecological science. Still, his video has led to our society to use terms such as "carbon footprint" in everyday speech. His scare tactics worked.

Within the "green" movement, these Marxist radicals found an ideological haven. They see a movement they can operate within to effectively subvert our foundation of a constitutional republic. They found a platform within which to mold public perspectives towards division. Economically, they attack capitalism by vilifying businesses, companies, corporations, and even family farms as "enemies of the earth". They have even infiltrated the government to set up a bureaucratic arm (the EPA) that imposes laws (policies and regulations) without legislation upon the people. They even attempted to regulate what type of light bulbs you use in your house or what car you drive. They do so under the false banner of "the public good" or "general welfare". It isn't for the "general welfare". It is for the sole purpose of taking away individual rights and imposing socialist tyranny one millimeter (policy, regulation, step) at a time. The idea is to do so slowly. As you get accustomed to one regulation, making it "just the way we live", they begin imposing their will on the next one. By the time you notice, all of your rights under Natural Law & the US Constitution are gone or in serious jeopardy.

All of their actions fall under the false banner of "conservation" and "protecting our world". This is pure hypocrisy. However, there are several in our country who have fallen into the myths of "green energy".

Now, for those who endear themselves to the meme that conservatives dislike the environment; don't fall for the hyperbole. There are many conservatives who love to fish, hunt, hike, bird watch, photograph nature, etc. I am among them. If the environment and eco-system are too greatly disturbed, these activities cease to exist. If we poison the lakes and streams, we kill the fish, deer, etc. If we cover the mountains with windmills, we take away the beauty of the land as well as deprive ourselves of hiking areas. That meme is so beyond reality is barely merits mention, except to illustrate how ridiculous it is.

It is true that harvesting renewable natural resources are worth exploring. Hydroelectric plants do produce sustainable energy in some areas of the country. As long as there is naturally running water, there is a source of energy. The drawbacks to this include the fact that, usually, a dam is constructed to do so. Building a dam means, necessarily, an area will be flooded, changing the ecosystem of the area (man-made lakes such as Lake Jackson in Georgia). Drastic changes, such as this, to the ecosystem are in direct opposition to "conserving natural beauty". However, doing so is falsely considered less intrusive than "fracking" for oil and natural gas. In reality, damming a river for hydroelectric power as, or more, intrusive on the environment. Still, we humans can take advantage of these man-made lakes for pleasure or farming fish.

A more recent fad in alternative, renewable energy sources are wind-farms. For those who are unaware, a "wind-farm" is a collection of current-generation windmills. To be effective, trees have to be cut down. to be effective, these ugly contraptions replace the natural flora and fauna along canals (natural or man-made) of wind currents. These contraptions destroy the aesthetic of the natural beauty of the skyline. To top it off, they take up leagues of usable farmland, in many cases. They are just as ugly as oil pumps and drilling rigs. However, drilling rigs and oil pumps can at least be obfuscated or beautified with surrounding plant life. We are stuck seeing these huge, white windmills littering our skyline.

These wind-farms also bring their own form of pollution. They are loud. The decibels they produce drown out your car stereo if set at a comfortable, safe level. That is while driving on a highway past one of these farms. While stationed in Germany, we had a unit run to a mountain top that hosted such a farm. The windmills there are half the size (and produce 75% the noise level) as the wind farms in California and Arizona. The person standing next to me had to shout at the top of his lungs in order for me to barely hear him above the womp and woosh of the windmills'  blades. Even then, I barely caught every third word.

The wind farms are also inconsistent. They produce power only when the wind is blowing at a certain rate and in a certain direction. On still and calm days, they fail to produce much power. Like with solar energy working only during the peak hours on clear days when the sun strikes the panels at the correct intersecting angle, windmills turn only when the conditions are optimal. If the wind is too strong, the generators go offline to prevent surges that will damage the grid or the generators themselves. If the wind is too light, they won't turn. If the wind is in the wrong direction, the vector fails to hit the blades to turn them efficiently, if at all.

At least with hydroelectric power, the rivers will flow as long as they don't dry up or freeze. Coal or natural gas powered electric generators will turn as long as they are maintained and the fuel is consistently applied, usually by a group of employees. Nuclear plants also provide consistent, long-term fuel for electric power plants.

The "green energy" propagandists and their enforcement arm of the EPA will inundate you with facts about the carbon footprint of coal and methane fueled electric plants. They will sound off with statistics and data about the "greenhouse gasses" and "hydrocarbons" released into the air. While much of these figures may be true, the direct impact upon the ecosystem is still largely theoretical. They extrapolate what things could be like if "cleaner" sources are applied "immediately" versus "not at all". They do not tell you how minimal the difference could be between implementing them today and perhaps 10 years from now when better engineering produces more consistent and cheaper technology for these sources that may actually work. They refuse to publish that speculation or study. They also refuse to take engineering advancements in making fossil fuel consumption "cleaner" that occur more regularly and with greater frequency than they do with these "clean" sources.

"Fracking" is not new technology. It existed in the 1950s when Ayn Rand described it in her book Atlas Shrugged. It was already a reality back then. However, proponents understood that numerous advancements in technology were necessary to make it safer and more viable (as well as cost effective) before widely introducing it. Today, it is a safe means of acquiring natural gas and petroleum. For more facts about the truth concerning "fracking" than just the limited diatribe of the "green energy movement", please visit FrackNation.com. To support documentary film makers who seek to divulge the truth about fracking, donate here.


Still, "green-energy" advocates fail to describe the current ecological impacts of the wind farms while vilifying "fracking" technology and nuclear energy. By and large, with support of talking points generated by Media Matters for America, the so-called "mainstream media" networks fail to fully represent all of the facts relevant to these "green energy" programs.

If you were to shoot at golden eagle, a California condor, or a bald eagle, you would face up to a $10,000 fine and a year in prison, even if this is done accidentally. That is per incident. So, will the USDA, US Dept. of the Interior, and EPA hold wind-farmers to these penalties? Of course not, because these wind-farms support a political agenda designed to deprive people of their individual liberties. It doesn't matter that these farms also violate federal environmental protection laws in the process.







In West Virginia, wind farms contributed or caused the deaths of hundreds of birds each year. This is far more than any hunting season or events of natural predatory nature generated. They are also in addition to the above, and not "instead of". These avian deaths not only deprive bird lovers from seeing their favorite winged friends fly and sing, they impact the ecosystem. The deaths allowed a drastic increase in the mosquito and locust populations. These lead to devastating impacts upon crops as well as an increase in disease vectors. Many avian species also feed on rodents such as mice and rats. So, additional consequences include a rise in rat infestations. Rats also vector diseases.

In California, scores of golden eagles, a protected raptor species, are killed each year by wind farms. Not only do these farms threaten the protected species, but allow for its natural prey to thrive. That means the population balance of such animals as rabbits, rats, and certain fish go unchecked and become a menace to human populations and farms. 100-400 burrowing owls, another protected species of raptor, are killed each year in California's Altamount Pass wind-farms alone. Is the cost worth it considering that these wind-farms, at full production, are capable of providing less than 2% of California's power requirements?



These are not isolated incidents or problem areas. Incidents and data from around the world demonstrate the negative environmental impact that wind-farms present. They kill more endangered avian species a year than poachers or natural predators combined. Across the US alone, scientists estimate approximately 440,000 birds are killed each year by windmills, mostly victims of industrial wind-farms.

More and more, the facts concerning the negative impacts of these "green, clean energy sources" are discovered, only to be buried, obfuscated, and omitted. They will refer to conservatives, who do, in fact, care about conservation and ecology, as "hating the environment". They will deny and obfuscate the facts and reality while falsely stating that conservative capitalists "don't care about clean air and clean water". They will continue to push this meme while attempting to convince you that these severe, negative ecological impacts of wind-farms are "not an issue", claiming "we're working on that" and "give it time to mitigate the problem". They will do so just like they have attempted  to tell the people that Barack Obama's dangerous associations and ascriptions to the extreme ideologies of Derrick Bell, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshal Davis, and Saul Ailinsky don't matter. These facts matter. Gather as much data as you can. Make up your own mind. Do NOT let MMfA, the mainstream media, and the socialists embedded in the eco-terrorist movements tell you what to think.