Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I offer this up not because I agree, which I don't, but because it is Lovelock.

Ministerial hectoring on green energy is fascism in the wind
A campaign is being fought that uses social rejection to make us accept industrial-scale wind energy stations across the UK
By James Lovelock - guardian.co.uk

In Prague Castle at a Forum 2000 conference hosted by President Vaclav Havel, I heard the distinguished novelist and freedom fighter Wole Soyinka say with great passion that political correctness is evil. He argued that while brute force is one way to take away our democratic rights, they can be lost as easily by the social rejection of political correctness.

It seems we are now subject to a campaign that uses social rejection as a force to make us accept industrial-scale wind energy stations across the UK; to call them windfarms is disingenuous.

As part of this campaign, the great and the good are hectoring on the moral need to embrace wind energy. No less a person than the environment minister, Ed Miliband, said: "Opposition to windfarms should be as unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt."

Knowing that seatbelts are a legal requirement, those who care for freedom should beware. To reinforce the minister's warning, the Green party pleaded for wind energy in a broadcast as if it were holier than motherhood. Even that much-loved and respected charity, the RSPB, is now using our subscriptions to lobby for wind energy.

If wind energy were the one practical and affordable answer to global warming then I would grit my teeth at the loss of the countryside and accept it. But I know that windfarms are no answer to global warming in northern Europe.

As far as I can tell, Lovelock does not address offshore wind farms. His sole solution is more expensive nuclear power.

In a follow-on story —

James Lovelock attacks climate change minister's 'preaching' on wind power
By James Randerson, guardian.co.uk

...

Lovelock said he was afraid that any move to smooth the passage of wind farms with the introduction of new planning laws would remove the right of local people to object. "The right to have public hearings over energy sources is threatened by legislation soon due. Although well-intentioned it is an erosion of our freedom and draws near to what I see as fascism," he said.

He added that his argument did not stem from "nimbyism".

"If wind energy were the one practical and affordable answer to global heating then I would grit my teeth at the loss of the countryside and accept it."

Lovelock sees nuclear power as a solution to reducing carbon emissions criticises the whole concept of renewable power. "There is no such thing as renewable energy; it belongs as an idea with perpetual motion and other delusions but politicians and ideologues have become skilled at using enticing words to cover essentially rotten ideas."

...

Lovelock also returned to a familiar theme that the planet will survive the climate crisis, but not necessarily humans. "It is false pride and hubris to think that we can do anything to 'save the planet'...It is time we fully and deeply understood that our Earth can and always has saved itself although not necessarily for our benefit."

Personally, I think Lovelock sometimes wants humans to go extinct.

by Magnifico on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 05:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I felt this was a nice and pithy response from BoredwithLabour

Germany is emitting more CO2 than before wind turbines because the turbines that they built are inefficient? Are you suggesting that if they hadn't built turbines, they would be emitting less CO2 right now? Are you really suggesting that the coal plants are less effiicient now because of the wind turbines? Then stop using the damn things.

There's no such thing as renewable energy? You really need to explain this point in more detail. Do you mean practically? Cost-effectively? Literally?

There are others. Lovelock sounds like he's out of his mind on this one. It's really some sort of Hardy-esque pastoral fantasy writ large, I had to check he wasn't a spokesman for Prince Charles.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 05:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup. He comes across as a Grumpy Old Man at best and borderline senile at worst.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 06:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
get off my planet!
by Magnifico on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 07:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What a stupid piece


Why? Because the turbines are only 17% efficient. The wind does not blow at the right speed often enough for them to do better.

As a result, 83% of the electricity that should have come from wind has to be made in coal-burning power stations that can never work at optimum efficiency because they are forever adjusting to the fluctuating flow from wind generation. Even with the huge attraction of subsidies, energy companies are increasingly abandoning wind as an effective and green source of energy.

There are so many things that are wrong in that paragraph... but they are the same lies peddled over and over again, that I discuss here about a similar NYT hit piece.

And maybe should tell him about the efficiency of thermal power plants (including nuclear ones) and how much of the chemical energy is wasted in the generation process...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 31st, 2009 at 07:21:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series