Earth First! vows to fight against industrial wind power (in Maine)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.sunjournal.com/franklin/story/1050035

Earth First! vows to fight against industrial wind power

Jun 23, 2011 12:00 am

FARMINGTON — Earth First! activists vowed Tuesday to continue its opposition to locating wind turbines in Maine, according to a press release.

The statement follows the conviction of two of its associated members this week for failure to disperse during a demonstration in Franklin County last summer.

“We feel strongly that industrial wind is a false solution to climate change, and remain committed to defending Maine’s mountain forests as a carbon-sink and as habitat for rare and endangered species” said Jessie Dowling of Maine Earth First!

A Franklin County Superior Court justice sentenced Erik Gillard, 27, of Plainfield, Vt., and Willow Cordes-Eklund, 27, of Minneapolis, Minn., to each serve 10 days in jail and each pay a $500 fine.

…

[Ian David]

1. Let me guess... Astro Turf? n/t

[kristopher]

3. I think so.

There are no over-arching policy experts at Earth First to guide the actions of the self-identified activists at the local level, and the writings on wind are taken directly from the stockpile amassed by the Kochs beginning with their astroturf group against Cape Wind.

For example a common claim from the EF group in Maine is that wind power turbines require more energy to make than they produce. In fact, wind has an energy payback of about 3 months, IIRC.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. "3-5 months"

http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

…

3. Myth: Building a wind farm takes more energy than it ever makes
Fact: The average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation⁴. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for more than 20 years and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental costs. Wind energy is a form of development which is essentially reversible – in contrast to fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.

…

[joshcryer]

9. Doubtful, they're luddites.

Used to hang out with those types during the Green Scare. Glad I never bought into their madness.

[leveymg]

2. There are so many better targets in a target-rich environment.

:eyes:

[n2doc]

5. They should be made to swim 100 yards in a pool of coal ash

:grr:

[txlibdem]

12. Now *that* I'd like to see

Own the consequences of your actions.

I've posted it many times: any person who actively worked to stop a nuclear power plant in the last 50 years is directly responsible for global climate change and the species extinctions that it is and will cause as well as the deaths of at least a million human beings so far. Own your actions anti-nukers.

[txlibdem]

6. This reminds me of the so-called environmentalists who protest large solar plants in the desert

"There might be a turtle there."

Meanwhile, global climate change continues unabated and that "special" turtle is certain to die from the floods, droughts, higher temperatures, storms, etc., that huge solar power plants in the desert would prevent.

Not to mention that ocean acidification from coal and oil use will kill millions of species in the oceans (100% of coral species expected to be extinct by 2050). But, yeah, let's save that one "precious" turtle -- never mind the fact that it dooms millions of other species elsewhere, in the seas, in tidal marshes, in a thousand niche habitats where other endangered species live.

[Nihil]

7. Apples vs. fictitious oranges

If there was a turtle in the desert it would already be dead.
Now if you were to talk about certain species of tortoise ... :P

The problem with slapping up huge solar farms in pristine desert
can be fixed by using brownfield sites instead. (And that's without
considering the rooftop options.)

The "problem with terrestrial wind farms" as stated in the OP is
that those particular activists have swallowed the more extreme
forms of anti-renewable propaganda (in this case more likely to
have been put out by the coal industry) and so they don't really
have a leg to stand on (e.g., the claims quoted in the OP are known
to be false by practically all readers of E/E).

It's a shame that wind farms will tend to have a larger impact
on pristine woodland but that's because there is very little in
the way of brownfield sites on the top of hills ...

Either way, there is no hard & fast rule that fits all cases
so there *will* be a learning curve - not just for the post-Altamont
wind companies but for the likes of Earth First! too.

:shrug:

[GliderGuider]

8. I'd have been happier if they had been clear this was a pure anti-technology play.

I'd rather be known as a kaczynski than a tool...

[joshcryer]

10. Eh, going by the names of the people involved...

...and this is purely conjecture... I think that at least some of them are anti-technology. Anyone can write up an EF! "statement" so I'm trying to find the full statement to see what they actually said.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Wait a second…

Anti-technologists promulgating their views with a web site?

[GliderGuider]

14. Sigh

It was lame the first time someone used it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. OK, enlighten me

Technology is a tool. Anti-technologists, choose not to use that tool, which I can respect.

However, I would not expect to see (for example) “Pennsylvania Dutch” webmasters.

It’s like a vegetarian butcher shop to my mind.

[GliderGuider]

16. I guess I didn't get the memo...

The one that said if I want to criticize technology I'm not permitted to use any technology at all to do it. I don't think such a memo was issued, that would just be silly.

"Anti-technologists" come in all kinds and degrees. Some are against specific technologies and don't use them, some are against many sorts of technology but still use many of them, some think some or all advanced technology has been a bad idea for one reason or another but accept that it's part of modern life, and some are Amish. If you dig down a bit you'll usually find that most people with an anti-technology position usually have particular types of technology, or particular effects of technology, in mind. I don't think I've heard of anyone who is against all technology (including sharpened sticks and flint arrowheads), and no one except the odd feral child that doesn't use any technology at all.

Discounting someone who claims to be anti-tech because they use tech is as lame as slagging off climate change activists for not swimming to Copenhagen.

[Kolesar]

11. Agreed

And kristopher exposed the anti Cape Wind propaganda in his post yesterday.