LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Editorial off the mark in support for wind power 

Credit:  Maine Sunday Telegram, www.pressherald.com 22 April 2012 ~~

According to a recent Telegram editorial (“PUC made right call on wind power investment,” April 15), “From an environmental perspective, the benefits of expanded windpower are worth the costs.” Oh?

Those of us who have examined the cost/benefit ratio aren’t making that kind of blanket statement.

In fact, we’ve found it’s only worth the costs if you don’t know what those costs are.

For the fact that anyone still has to ask this, we can thank the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Angus King.

King has been a major player at NRCM for years, alternately with writing Maine’s expedited wind law, pushing it through the Legislature and setting up First Wind to profit from it.

This would be fine if it made environmental sense. But does it?

Does windpower reduce atmospheric carbon? No.

It can’t, because it doesn’t provide enough energy to replace other sources, so you must still run those other sources.

Plus, there’s the huge amount of pollution embedded in the construction process: New roads into wild places, trees destroyed (a major carbon sink), diesel and gas burned and pollution at the factory level.

All this to provide less energy than we can provide with conservation.

If the NRCM was doing its job, the rest of us wouldn’t need to still point this out.

Particularly shameful is NRCM’s silence on the topic of bird and bat deaths.

These are far worse than industry estimates.

With some birds, such as eagles, any deaths at all are illegal. Industry knows it has a looming problem here.

Again, they are getting cozy with environmental groups, crafting regulations that would give them immunity from prosecution in exchange for donations.

To quote John 8:32: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Let’s hope.

Does windpower reduce atmospheric carbon? No. It can’t, because it doesn’t provide enough enough energy to replace other sources, so you must still run those other sources.

Sally McGuire
Carthage

Source:  Maine Sunday Telegram, www.pressherald.com 22 April 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky