I Call Them ‘Bat-Chomping, Bird-Slicing Eco Crucifixes’ Because They ARE Bat-Chomping, Bird-Slicing Eco Crucifixes

It’s hard to pick which aspect of the global green movement disgusts me most: really, we’re spoilt for choice. But if I had to choose one thing, I think it would be its grotesque, almost pathological hypocrisy. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the greenies’ ongoing obsession with wind farms – about as environmentally-unfriendly a way of generating energy as any lunatic could possibly have dreamed.

If you really hate nature, you’ll love wind farms. Not only do they destroy the landscape, blight views, increase flooding and disturb the peace, but, as this Spectator article reveals, they kill rare birds and bats on an industrial scale.

Because wind farms tend to be built on uplands, where there are good thermals, they kill a disproportionate number of raptors. In Australia, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In North America, wind farms are killing tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, the Egyptian vulture is threatened, as too is the Griffon vulture — 400 of which were killed in one year at Navarra alone. Norwegian wind farms kill over ten white-tailed eagles per year and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against the opposition of ornithologists.

Nor are many other avian species safe. In North America, for example, proposed wind farms on the Great Lakes would kill large numbers of migratory songbirds. In the Atlantic, seabirds such as the Manx Shearwater are threatened. Offshore wind farms are just as bad as onshore ones, posing a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, and reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks).

But what interests me at least as much as Dr Hambler’s fascinating and timely piece is the outraged response of some greenies. This fellow, Keith Kloor, for example. Is he bothered by the increasing evidence that wind farms act like gigantic Cuisinarts on our avian populations? Is he troubled by the fat subsidies taxpayers and energy users are funneling into the pockets of greedy, rent-seeking corporations? Is he not puzzled by the complicity of bird charities like the Audubon Society in this disgraceful scam? Does he not recognize that there’s a certain inconsistency in professing to care for the environment while simultaneously speaking out for devices that do so much damage to it? Nope. As with so many adherents of the green religion, his ire is directed at those who would criticize one of most important articles of his faith.

Wind energy is “renewable” and renewables are good – regardless of all the copious evidence there might be to the contrary.

  1. DutchTex

    Perhaps someone should write another Silent Spring, except base this one actual, you know, science and clear evidence…

  2. Al Sparks

    I’ve noted Delingpole’s bitterness towards wind farms from his podcasts. Maybe it’s because there aren’t that many wind farms in Alaska, but I don’t share that bitterness.

    That being said, if they need subsidies to survive and grow, then that’s enough of a reason for me to be against them. There also should be regulations that include dismantling a wind turbine that’s no longer being used, and that should be factored into the total cost when determining their viability.

    As for the arguments about scenic blight, it’s over rated. For example, I get annoyed against cell phone tower regulations, which actually provide a pretty good, even vital service. Or how about the regulation of neighborhoods so that the houses conform to a certain style? I’m against all that.

  3. Delingpole is spot on and I’m glad to finally see some of the many legitimate criticisms of wind energy making their way onto the national stage. Wind energy, as currently “practiced” in the U.S. is, in a nutshell, a scam. First of all, we, the taxpayers, are funneling billions of dollars into a “technology” that is so successful that we stopped using it a few centuries ago in favor of, apparently, less enlightened approaches.

    Secondly, most of that money (in the form of grants and production tax credits) is NOT going to Americans, but to various foreign-owned companies that “specialize” in wind energy or, rather, they specialize in convincing ignorant and/or gullible politicians that truly “green” elected officials are all in for this promising energy source.

    In addition, tens of thousands of some of the most productive acres of farmland in the Midwest are being covered over with millions of tons of concrete so these 400 – 500 foot tall monstrosities can be built.

    The fact that wind turbines destroy so much wildlife has been swept under the rug ever since the first ones were built is testimony enough to the corrupt nature of this industry.

  4. James Delingpole
    C

    @ejhill He sure gets around, that Delingpole character…

  5. EJHill

    @jamesdelingpole = Zelig

  6. Raw Prawn

    I can’t help thinking the argument against wind power on the grounds that it kills birds and bats is made in an attempt to penetrate the wilful ignorance of the loony left: if they won’t listen to common sense, give them nonsense: return hysteria for hysteria.

    (Does my use of the word hysteria allow them to dismiss me as sexist?)

    I am far more convinced by the argument that it would not need subsidies  if it made any economic sense, and what wind farmers are farming is subsidies.

    Can anyone tell me why the noise that drives people away from wind turbines does not warn birds away?  And why an eagle that can see a mouse from thousands of feet above can’t see a huge turbine blade?

  7. EJHill
    Raw Prawn:  And why an eagle that can see a mouse from thousands of feet above can’t see a huge turbine blade?  

    Most flying creatures are killed because the predator birds are concentrating on prey on the ground and the blade hits them from behind, from where they are not looking.

    And nature’s creatures are not always attuned to our creations. If they were they would shoot back.

  8. Margaret Sarah

    The reason eagles that can se a mouse from thousands of feet above can’t see huge turbine blades is pretty simple. The eagle is looking down. His sightis not trained by natural dangers that revolve (instead of just wave like trees in a storm).

    About the noise–it certainly qualifies as a horrendous problem of human beings living near the turbines.

  9. Jo

    I couldn’t agree with you more James. I read your post after a morning of birding at the Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge in Washington state.

    I took up birding last fall as an antidote to the depressing election season. Since then I was surprised and disappointed to learn the national Audubon Society supports wind farms. The local Portland, Oregon chapter does as well with one exception. They are fighting a proposed wind farm on Steens Mountain in southern Oregon due to it’s high elevation and its specific location in the Pacific Flyway.

    Hydroelectric power is abundant here in the Pacific NW due to the mighty Columbia River and yet there are wind turbines aplenty on the east end of the gorge. At times the farms are paid to not produce power. It makes no sense.

    Posters above have mentioned why birds have trouble with turbines. Bats die because the change of barometric pressure in the blades’ wake bursts their organs.

  10. Tran Quil

    Wind turbines produce low voltage.  The electricity produced has to be converted to high voltage to be moved via powerlines to where it’s needed.  About 30 per cent of the power generated is used transforming from low to high voltage….

  11. Melanie Graham
    C

    The same lunatics who scream about the blight of oil rigs off shore have no problem sticking these monstrosities all over the landscape. The drive into Palm Springs makes your eyes bleed. Where does PETA stand on this issue? 

  12. outstripp

    The towers attract lightening and when the blades are hit they have to be replaced. The blades are enormously expensive.

  13. Gus Marvinson
    Melanie Graham: The same lunatics who scream about the blight of oil rigs off shore have no problem sticking these monstrosities all over the landscape. The drive into Palm Springs makes your eyes bleed. Where does PETA stand on this issue?  · 11 hours ago

    You beat me to it. Most of the time about half aren’t even turned on.

  14. wilber forge

    Not only are the blades expensive, the cost of replacing a gearbox is ghastly, which fail frequently. The real GotCha is that the warrnties only apply when the unit is purchased from the manufacturer. Utlilities are finding out that as these farms are assembled, the turbines have passed thru sub contractors hands and the warranties do not apply. Big suprise for ratepayers in the end.

    Question, What happens to all the dead birds ?

  15. Hartmann von Aue

    Ironically, the google-placed ad appearing right next to this column on my current display is an ad for….wind turbines. Not kidding.

  16. Sisyphus

    Shift the homeless with a little kindling and a camping kitchen beneath these proud green abattoirs and they can enjoy fresh air and fresh fowl.

  17. Nick Stuart
    Al Sparks: As for the arguments about scenic blight, it’s over rated. For example, I get annoyed against cell phone tower regulations, which actually provide a pretty good, even vital service. Or how about the regulation of neighborhoods so that the houses conform to a certain style? I’m against all that. · 1 hour ago

    If scenic blight is a legitimate argument against any activity (e.g. new coal or nuclear plants, or an oil refinery, hog rendering plant, sewage disposal, bilboards, or anything else you would care to name) it’s a legitimate argument against wind farms.

    And they are ugly. There is a huge wind farm just north of Lafayette, Indiana on I-65. The towers stretch off into the distance for miles. And that’s “just a cornfield.”

    I’ll know our green elites are serious about wind when there are wind farms in Nantucket Sound and against a backdrop of Mt. Rainier for all Seattle to admire.

  18. Nick Stuart

    You can’t make a green omlette without breaking eggs, or the birds that produce them.

  19. EJHill

    WJD.jpg“If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the wind farms as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for eco-power by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of green!”

  20. Tommy De Seno
    C

    I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.   I like wind turbines.  Their shapes are interesting and the movement and layout can be artistic.

    If the high cost is conquered I’d favor putting up more, particularly in the Ocean.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In