USA or Alaska
Absurdity aside, this prosecution is all the more remarkable because the wind industry each year kills not 28 birds, or even a few hundred, but some 440,000, according to estimates by the American Bird Conservancy based on Fish and Wildlife Service data. Guess how many legal actions the Obama Administration has brought against wind turbine operators under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act? As far as we can tell, it's zero.
Twenty-four-cent wind power would more than double the electric bills of tens of millions of Americans. But Obama and the liberals don't care about what would amount to a gigantic new tax on families who are far from the millionaires the president claims he wants to hurt.
"There is no evidence that DDT harmed eagles in any way, but we know windmills actually do harm the eagles -- and environmentalists are all bent out of shape about endangered species status of eagles," says Milloy. "Well, those big Cuisinarts in the sky -- they seem to be whacking a lot of eagles."
Republicans argue that it’s inappropriate for the Obama campaign to raise money from a donor who has benefited directly from the Recovery Act.
Missouri Republican Party executive director Lloyd Smith compared the situation to the Solyndra affair, in which the Obama administration reportedly rushed federal support to a green-energy firm that subsequently collapsed.
The gigantic public investments in green energy may be stimulating innovation and helping the environment. But they are not evidence that the government knows how to create private-sector jobs. ...There's a wealth of other evidence to suggest that the green economy will not be a short-term jobs machine.
Then again, the Obama administration's entire green-jobs initiative has been a massive boondoggle.
As The New York Times reported last month, Obama's grand plan to create 5 million green jobs over 10 years has turned into an enormous "pipe dream."
The extreme position is the one being effectively advocated by the wind power industry: that the industry should receive a blanket exemption from the government's enforcement of these laws.
The wind industry's refrain that birds are also killed by other sources, particularly cats, is fallacious.
As the country grapples with economic havoc, some are pointing to carbon taxes as a potential solution to the government's revenue shortage. Carbon taxes might be "better" than cap-and-trade or regulations, but then, in a train-wreck, losing a hand is better than losing a forearm, which is better than losing an entire arm. Most would rather skip the wreck. Even in flush economic times, carbon taxes would be bad policy. When economies are already laboring under too much spending, and are at diminishing-return levels of taxation, implementing a carbon tax would be a mistake.
Wind isn't just unequal in terms of reliability; windmills actually cause more air pollution than coal plants operating as designed. Texas is a nasty reminder of this. Along with other facilities, state utilities often depend on two coal-fired plants to "balance" the wind power, which means they fill in when the wind stops.
The wind-energy lobby has been masterly at garnering huge subsidies and mandates by claiming that its product is a "green" alternative to conventional electricity. But the hype has obscured a dirty little secret: When power demand is highest, wind energy's output is generally low.
AWEA's Denise Bode was right a year ago when she said the wind industry is in distress. Her industry's still in peril today because it cannot survive without mandates and taxpayer subsidies. And unless or until it can, she cannot expect any sympathy from cash-strapped voters.
Environmentalists do not classify wind farms as having the same negative impacts on an area's natural beauty and habitat which other conventional projects would simply because they are willing to sacrifice an area's natural beauty, all the wildlife and some endangered species as well for natural renewable energy.
This would be fine if wind farms were really contributing to reducing fossil fuel usage. However, nothing could be further from reality.
ATI, along with the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University estimated the cost to the economy of forcing renewable energy mandates. They estimate in addition to the extra cost of energy to consumers, the cost to business would be passed along in reduced income or layoffs.
Can you imagine the opinion-poll results if respondents were asked to choose between spending fewer taxpayer dollars on renewable energy or basic government services? I doubt the American Wind Energy Association or the Solar Energy Industries Association would commission such a poll.
The wind energy business is the electric sector's equivalent of the corn ethanol scam: it's an over-subsidized industry that depends wholly on taxpayer dollars to remain solvent while providing an inferior product to consumers that does little, if anything, to reduce our need for hydrocarbons or cut carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, it only increases costs.
A group of Senators opposed to the NOPR ..."They call it socialization and they persist in theorizing that FERC is about to spread the cost of major new transmission projects not just regionally but across entire interconnections and even the entire nation," Hoecker said.
"It's just not going to work that way.
The Tribunal’s 223-page ruling provides a fascinating, in-depth look at the state of current wind farm science and policy; many pages are devoted to the testimony of each of the witnesses, which included well-known researchers with a wide range of viewpoints, including Rick James, Geoff Levanthall, Christopher Hanning, Robert Colby, and many others.
The reality: wind energy's carbon dioxide-cutting benefits are vastly overstated. Furthermore, if wind energy does help reduce carbon emissions, those reductions are too expensive to be used on any kind of scale.
The price of Cape Wind power comes in at well over $1 billion above market averages, according to Cape Wind's own regulatory filings about its contract with National Grid, the utility company that has agreed to buy half its power. ...it is safe to deduce that National Grid customers would be getting fleeced.