| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Please note that opinion pieces (including letters, editorials, and blogs), reflect the viewpoints of their authors; National Wind Watch does not necessarily agree with them in their entirety or endorse them in any way, nor should it be implied that the writers endorse National Wind Watch.
Better uses for $22 billion
Credit: The Weekly Times | ~~
Congratulations to Peter Tuohey of the VFF who “gets it”. (Weekly Times September 10th “Ill wind blows over RET).
Tuohey understands that $9 billion of taxpayer’s money has already been spent on the ill-conceived and flawed technology of wind power. He understands that wind power is unreliable and inefficient and needs to be backed up by base load power. He understands that not only do we pay as taxpayers, but that we also pay as consumers of electricity.
Tuohey and the VFF understand that if the RET scheme is left untouched a further $22 billion of OUR money will be handed to developers and turbine hosts.
I have no sympathy for hosts or potential hosts who feel their $100,000s of our money EACH year is threatened. They give no consideration to the impacts on residents in the surrounding district when they make their grab for money. They ignore the fact that people are suffering severe sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea and other debilitating symptoms. They don’t care that people have deserted their homes because they can no longer put up with the torture. It doesn’t concern them that our farms, our superannuation, are unsaleable.
Hosts fall for the propaganda perpetuated by Andrew Bray of the Australian Wind Alliance, and Leigh Ewbank of Friends of the Earth that turbines are clean and green.
Are they unaware of the thousands of tonnes of concrete that will be planted in their land? Do they not consider the footprint involved in the production of that concrete, or the footprint of the steel production, the rare earths used in the turbines that poison environments and people, and the millions of litres of fuel consumed in construction and transport?
As taxpayers we should all be standing up and saying that this $22 billion would serve us better being spent on health, education, police, ambulance, roads…
rather than lining the pockets of the few.
Chris Jelbart
Penshurst 3289
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 Contributions |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=66640 ]
