I was going to start today’s blog with some Awkward Questions. I had some lined up: “What on earth is the point? Who actually cares what you say? Will anyone read your blog other than people who already agree with you? Will you change a single person’s mind? Maybe you’re wrong, after all. Maybe the man from the Green Party was right, and wind turbines are the only solution left before the planet implodes. What if? What if?”
I’ll still ask myself these awkward questions, because it’s fun, but now that I’ve hit upon the fundamental axiom that underpins my argument, that people only like wind turbines because someone else told them to, there’s no point typing the same thing over and over; the discussion needs to be moved forward and a pragmatic solution needs to be found.
I’ve realised now that arguing with Watermelons over their honestly-held beliefs is futile; if there’s anyone who needs telling off it’s the Dishonest Bananas, those who secretly know the harm wind turbines do but try and cover it up, actively spreading incomplete and misleading information that plays down the negative impact of wind blight.
I figure that if people only like wind turbines because someone else told them to, the most efficient use of my time and efforts is to directly intercept that “someone else” and to bring a semblance of natural balance back to their skewed communications. If we can stop people telling other people to like wind turbines, the voice of nature will soon reassert itself, and people’s true feelings will gradually make themselves known.
So I guess that’s the point of this blog: to restore some natural equilibrium to the dialogue about wind farms and their impact; to offer people access to a wide range of different opinions and ideas about wind energy that they might not have heard before; and to help humanity assimilate all this new information into the global eco-consciousness.
My aim is simply to shed some light upon the impact wind turbines have had on my own mental health and well-being, to let you judge for yourselves what you make of my story and whether it resonates with your own. It matters a great deal to me that people have the freedom to make their own decisions; I just believe the decisions we make will serve us better if they are based on the truth, not other people’s hidden agendas.
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!
What if I’m wrong though, what if I’m missing some vital piece of information that would instantly win me round to a windy way of thinking? Well, just like the awesome Randi has his million-dollar psychic challenge, we could set up a Windi challenge! I’m a sceptic, you’re a believer (I hope I’m reaching some pro-wind types, I really don’t just want to preach to the converted)… If you can prove that there’s a wind farm out there with a positive impact on my health and well-being (and I don’t just mean “a less negative impact than climate change”, I mean an actual positive impact of its own!), then I’ll pull this website in a heartbeat and give you the keys to my house. Why wouldn’t I? If there was a specific wind farm out there that could cheer me up and make me feel good, it’d be a foolish act of self-sabotage not to support it! Just point me in its direction and I’ll give it every chance to uplift me.
10:10 Climate Action have been irritating a lot of Wind Warriors recently with their trolling pro-wind sponsored posts, so I invite them to take the Windi challenge… Can they prove the positive impact of wind farms on my health and well-being, and win over this arch-critic of their entire weltanschauung? (**Best word of the entire blog so far!!!**)
You be the judge, dear reader…
“We need to talk about wind”, they say. So it’s not just me then, at least we agree on something!
Let’s go through their points one by one, and see if we can find any evidence to prove the positive impact of wind turbines. First up, bird deaths: https://1010uk.org/talk-about-wind/birds
There’s no argument here. There’s no denying or covering up the bird deaths caused by turbines, however their whole argument seems to be built around the fact that Donald Trump said that turbines kill “all” the eagles, instead of just “many” eagles. Oh no, hold the front page, Trump exaggerated something!
They also bring in the RSPB as an appeal to authority, whose sole contribution to the debate seems to be that “well yes, wind turbines kill birds, but climate change would kill even more”, which is either Watermelon or Dishonest Banana, depending on their motivation. They’re either so scared they’re not thinking straight, or else they’re crooked. WHAT IF THEY’RE RIGHT? Well, let’s imagine… The trick, according to the RSPB, would be to “do wind well”. How does one do it well then? And all that time and effort to “do wind well”… If it takes three years of ornithological surveys before even a single megawatt of electricity can be generated, IS IT REALLY WORTH THE EFFORT???
This paragraph about bird deaths reveals an awful lot about the psychological trickery at hand here. I’m so glad these guys popped into my life, just as I started writing about wind farms and mental health. What a perfect case study! I do love serendipity… See, it’s kind of moral blackmail and almost an ultimatum: “Birds are gonna die, right? So either buy our product, and only a few get it, or else watch climate change kill the bloody lot of them…” Imagine going out with someone who said: “Well, I’ll only beat you a little…any other man would beat you five times as hard.” Sorry for the unpleasant analogy, but I really want to convey the hidden aggression behind the “clean, green” sales-pitch. There’s often a hint of menace as to what would happen if we didn’t partake of wind farms, which again proves my point that people only like them because someone else told them to, possibly even under duress of some sort. “Don’t blame us. We’re only supporting them because of what the RSPB said what would happen if we didn’t…”
This is gonna take ages to get through at this rate… Well, I’ve got time. Unless climate change threatens to flood my house before I finish typing. What’s up next then, money? https://1010uk.org/talk-about-wind/cost
Simple answer to this, in fact I don’t even need to read it, because money’s got nothing to do with my argument. A wind turbine could cause a million pounds to come fluttering down from the sky, but that would have no bearing whatsoever on the psychological impact of erecting one in an area of outstanding natural beauty, other than confirmation that certain people would willingly destroy nature for money. The reality is, however, that whatever money wind turbines generate for their operator, it’s simply money knocked off the value of the adjacent housing stock, its worth depreciated by thousands of pounds due to wind blight.
Who do you think is more academic, more scientific, and more rigorous in their approach to mathematics: the RSPB or the London School of Economics?
Now THAT is research!
This is one for the hardcore scientists to get to grips with. Sound waves are very strange things, and their effects very difficult to pin down. I do know that low frequencies can either sound amazing, or else particularly harmful. Well-arranged, harmonically, rhythmically and sonically sculpted bass sounds form the roots of just about all the music I like best. However, unarranged or badly arranged low frequencies – or even just well-arranged low frequencies playing at an inappropriate time (eg late at night when you’re trying to sleep) – have a distinctly toxic effect on human health and well-being. You don’t need me to tell you what it’s like when a distant bass rumble keeps you awake at night, making you feel anxious and on edge.
I see no mention of Enercon or the Cape Bridgewater study in 10:10’s “Aren’t wind turbines quiet?” piece. Follow the links and judge for yourself!
Impacts on Health? None, apparently. https://1010uk.org/talk-about-wind/health
So my blog is just a work of fiction, I thought as much. “All in your mind!” they’ll say, proving my point for me. Blimey, I actually thought debunking this document would be intellectually demanding; in fact it’s proving to be about as difficult as making a cup of tea. Yet again the paragraph about health draws upon the same old trope that I hope you can start to recognise for yourself…”Well OK, um, erm, some people say wind turbines ruin their health. There’s no evidence that they’re genuinely suffering, they’re probably just making it up for fun. But, even if they are suffering due to wind turbines, they’d be suffering even worse due to climate change…” It gets old after a while.
I must remember to break into someone’s house later. I’ll steal everything they own, other than their bed. If they catch me, I’ll just say: “Stop moaning. Climate change would have destroyed your bed as well. You got off lightly.” I’ll just randomly punch someone on the street, and when they complain, I’ll say: “Ah, well climate change would deny you the very oxygen you’re breathing, so shut up, stop being a wimp, and take this. Kapow!”
Right, now for some fun. Here’s one I can really get my teeth into, in fact I already have, but I don’t mind a little encore. Aesthetics: https://1010uk.org/talk-about-wind/eyesore
“Aesthetics are a personal thing.” NO THEY ARE NOT. PEOPLE SPEND THREE YEARS AT UNIVERSITY ON ART, FILM AND MUSIC COURSES, LEARNING THE FINER POINTS OF AESTHETIC APPRECIATION. IF AESTHETICS WERE PURELY PERSONAL, WE WOULD BE SAYING THE MUSIC OF JEDWARD HAS JUST AS MUCH INTRINSIC AESTHETIC VALUE AS THE MUSIC OF MOZART. WE WOULD BE SAYING A LAYBY WITH OLD MATTRESSES AND FURNITURE DUMPED IN IT HAS JUST AS MUCH AESTHETIC VALUE AS WINDSOR GREAT PARK.
THAT’S CLEARLY NOT REALITY.
Still, I do respect people’s right to make their own decisions. I don’t mind if people personally like something ugly, as long as they don’t lose sight of objective reality in the process. Aesthetics are based on certain core values that we all share, that’s the whole point of it, durrr. I’ll even Google it again if you don’t believe me:
“A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty.”
Yes, we all have different tastes, but transcending personal tastes are certain principles that determine whether something has a positive or negative aesthetic quality. I’ve talked in detail about the things that I would argue make wind turbines objectively ugly – the paint for example. Please, please, please, someone explain to me what is aesthetically pleasing about a huge, high-visibility white pillar, with three huge, lethal-looking, high-visibility white blades, dominating an otherwise totally green landscape? Please explain what is aesthetically pleasing about the juddering movement of the blades, not (as cartoon depictions would have you believe), a continuous spinning motion, but in fact a magnetised “pulling”, “jerking” movement that yanks the blades around the nacelle? I’ve already gone into great detail about out of phase blade movements looking like the worst ballet company you’ve ever seen.
Still: “I’ve always loved seeing wind turbines in the landscape, I think they look elegant and majestic. As someone more than a little bit concerned about climate change, I find the sight of wind power in action uplifting and deeply reassuring – perhaps we really are going to solve this problem after all.”
DOES ANYONE REALLY TALK LIKE THAT???
Elegant and majestic? Which turbines were these then? I want names, I want dates, I want addresses. Where did you go? What did you see? OK, maybe I’ll grudgingly accept that wind turbines sometimes resemble trees… DEAD TREES. No leaves. No flesh. Just a bunch of creepy looking, disembodied skeletons, casting a deathly pall over the surrounding fields.
“As someone more than a little bit concerned about climate change…”
That’s not a sentence, that’s a bleedin’ random word generator. But it also makes the point I was making earlier – that is not an AESTHETIC reason for liking wind turbines. They are merely a symbol, a tube map if you like, that represents in this person’s mind a means of combatting climate change. Following this person’s logic, if they have any, a wind turbine could resemble a giant spooky clown that makes children cry from dozens of miles away, but if its meaning is one of tackling climate change, then miraculously it would suddenly look amazing. They totally misunderstand that aesthetics are about the precise, geometric and spatial qualities of an object, nothing whatsoever to do with what that object represents. I could change the aesthetics of this website without changing a single word.
It’s the meaning behind wind turbines that this person claims to be more than a little bit entranced by, not their aesthetics. A meaning, I repeat, that derives from somebody else. This person’s entire reason for liking wind farms comes from somebody else telling him what wind turbines are supposed to mean.
Finally, to their credit, and once again to show I am a fair-minded soul at heart despite the flamboyant displays of anger, I actually agree with everything they say in the second half of this page, regarding communities being involved in the planning process, and wind turbines needing to be something people want near them. Bravo Sirs! Just a shame it’s buried away beneath pages of misleading drivel.
I shouldn’t be too quick to congratulate them maybe, because if anything all this Aesthetics page does is reveal that, deep down, 10:10 Climate Action really do have something of the Banana-In-Disguise about them. If they know and acknowledge the “imposition” (their word) of wind farms onto communities, and they are genuine about “the involvement of local people in planning processes”, then they’d do well to speak out publicly about my next topic, and maybe one of the other reasons I initially felt the need to blog. I almost forgot, there’s so many!
I’m talking about unfair and suspicious Planning Appeals, and I will devote a whole chapter to this single legal loophole that has allowed so many unwanted wind turbines to slip through the net. Maybe it’s the planning process itself that has been the weakest link, the abuse of which leading to almost all of the controversies. Maybe if our planning system hadn’t been corrupted (some might say “rigged”), we wouldn’t even be having this conversation now…
As for who exactly is behind 10:10 Climate Action, and why, well the question you should all be asking yourselves now is: Banana or Watermelon? I’m starting to sound more and more like a teacher! OK, 10:10 are clearly not Honest Bananas like me. But possibly Dishonest ones, ie deliberately trying to misrepresent the true impact of wind power for a hidden agenda of some sort? Or is it a well-intentioned Watermelon operation, people genuinely worried about climate change, reaching out in good faith to the wind industry and the solutions they offer?
We know that UK citizens can’t detect any discernible climate change with our own senses (yet, I might say…) Therefore we can rule out 10:10 Climate Action arising out of any direct grass roots experiences within the communities of Britain. So what made these people come together, if it was nothing they had experienced first-hand? Where did they get their information from? Is there some kind of hidden hand pulling the strings of these well-meaning people, in order to promote its own agenda? Or are the ones pulling the strings none other than 10:10 Climate Action themselves, and they want YOU to be their puppet?
Make your own minds up, as always. Do your research.
You’re getting the hang of this Journalism lark now! I’m really proud of you 🙂