[sverige]

I grew up in Iowa. I inherited 160 acres of prime farmland from my grandparents and parents. I actively participated in the successful lobbying of the county commissioners in the county where my property is located to change the offset rules for wind turbines to make life livable for the people directly affected by them. I personally turned down the offer to build turbines on my land.

What skin do you have in the game?

[Robotbeat]

That's astonishing, then, that you weren't aware that wind farms share land with productive farms just fine.

I live on a planet and consume food. My family has rural acreage in Wisconsin, too, but that's irrelevant. Privilege doesn't have to stop the ability to think critically.

That you're lobbying to make wind harder to deploy doesn't give you better moral or intellectual clarity, here...

[sverige]

When you do the research, you discover that wind is not the panacea it has been portrayed to be. Building and placing turbines is not carbon neutral, the cleanup costs of decommissioned turbines are completely ignored because they are 40 years out, and they are not very profitable without subsidies. There are better alternatives that are less destructive to the environment.

This also ignores the other part of my original comment, which was to build turbines nearer to population centers. Why aren't the hills east of Oakland and southwest of SV filled with wind turbines?

[j88439h84]

How do turbines affect people living nearby?