The editorial “Blanket Wind Bans” tries to discredit proponents of a ban on industrial wind by labeling them NIMBYs, then attempts to shift the arguments away from legitimate economic and health concerns by inventing “reasons,” as it did in a previous article that denounced NIMBYs for making the view an issue.
Now they divert attention from real issues by accusing concerned citizens of “branding” wind farms as “commercial” as though that were a reason for the ban (it is not) and for being opposed to “the greater good,” a buzz phrase that will not stand up to scrutiny. Ask the residents of Sunderland how they feel about the state Supreme Court decision ordering them to issue a permit for a housing project in their town that will surely raise their taxes because the “region” needs more government-subsidized, low-income housing.
You mentioned that bylaws are expected to help mitigate the effects, but the government and the industry deny that there are any effects, and there is no mitigation possible for infrasound except adequate setbacks. Recommendations by government and the industry have proved to be inadequate. Some towns have decided that there is no possible wind site in their towns that would be a safe distance from residences, businesses or schools. A ban would save potential investors and local permitting authorities time and legal fees that would be wasted researching projects that would eventually be denied.
Finally, the power of the government and corporations make enforcement of mitigation or compensation impossible. Once a project of this size is in place, all the power is on one side – just look at Vermont Yankee. The state of Vermont may have all the right in the world, but they do not have the power. This consideration could motivate a town to try to keep the lid on Pandora’s box.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding