One of the things that UKIP* politicians whine on about** presumably they think bashing wind farms is a vote winner? They’ll bring up issues like they’re a danger to birds***, confuse radar and are a hideous eye sore. I suppose they can’t just say “We oppose wind farms because we’re an irrational bunch of reactionary nutters”.
Do they really have a genuine problem with wind power? Do they prefer to look at gas or coal fired power stations? Are they also opposed to transparent windows, which kill a lot of birds?
Is this just a UK thing or does in infect right-wingers elsewhere?
a party that mostly exists to make the Tories look reasonable. They’re a single issue anti-europe party I don’t know why they have a policy on wind farms.
** It came up on last week’s question time where a UKIP started ranting about wind farms completely out of context, I looked up the subjects for that program and there’s nothing even remotely connected. I think the question he was “answering” was about the Andrew Mitchell plebgate row.
*** It’s not like right-wingers usually care much about wildlife, they usually support shooting it or chasing it with dogs and horses.
Wind power is a response to Global Climate Change, which doesn’t exist. So, it’s a scam to get government R&D money and make people feel good by spending money on a solution in search of a problem. We have plenty of gas, coal, and oil, if only the government would get out of the way.
I’m going with “irrational bunch of reactionary nutters”, although they’re positively statemanlike next to the English Democrats and far more respectable than the BNP.
I really want to like UKIP and I think there is a legitimate argument to be made about the extent to which the UK is tied to the EU (I disagree with most of it but I think the argument exists). But every time Nigel Farrage appears on one of these shows he answers every questions with “[Noun] [Verb] Europe” even when the question has nothing to do with Europe. At least the focus on windfarms offers a little variety.
None of which is answering your question, admittedly.
Fish and game wildlife preserves are often owned (privately I might add), by hunter’s, hunter associations and “right-wing” organizations.
Here land is re-cultivated, the animals are tagged and given medicine, the population is culled so the animals do not starve.
Meanwhile, “left-wingers” stereotypically join PETA and other deranged cults as a means to achieve status quo and all they do is talk or soft-protest by promising to not wear( or be caught wearing) fur from an animal.
Maybe that doesn’t exist as much in the UK with all their gun hating politics and control over the people, but I would imagine the sentiment and thinking of those same “right-wing” people is relatively the same.
As for the dislike of wind energy, is because it is/was an alternative method proposed which has turned out to be not as fruitful as promised.
Right or left, people should be concerned with more practical means.
P.S. Shame you guys can’t get your sh*t together and vote the BNP in - they’d actually fix your devolving country!
The usual arguments I hear are (a) they’re ugly and/or noisy and (b) they’re a waste of time and effort and subsidies because wind power is just a tiny drop in the bucket.
Here in the US it’s left wingers who are opposed to wind power. The Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod in MA is opposed by people on the left mostly. Ted Kennedy was a huge opponent of it.
I’m conservative and I don’t have a problem with wind power as long as it is efficient enough to make sense and not just be a highly subsidized feel good project. T Boone Pickens is right wing and he’s huge into wind power.
I suppose it could be a matter of simple economics, and mistaken forced “investment” in a technology that doesn’t work.
Take Denmark-despite 30 years of investment in wind power, the Danes have learned:
-wind power is variable-and you need a stable source to balance the grid
-the cost of maintainance (especially at sea mills) is prohibitive. Gearbox lubrication is a huge problem.
-investment in windmills takes away from investment in clean, safe nuclear power, which has none of the limitations of windmills
Right wingers support wildlife through various methods like the NRA, Ducks Unlimited and others. There is a massive amount of funding raised in the US through the Pittman-Robertson act which taxes firearms and ammo.
If not for “right wingers” many species that thrive today wouldn’t even exist.
I too am conservative, although I don’t know that I am truly “right wing”, that said, I am voting for Romney.
My feelings on wind farms, having several in nearby Palm Springs, is that they are not an eyesore any more so than cell phone towers, power lines, or other infrastructure. If I had to live next to one, I might have an issue as I understand the strobe effect can cause headaches and they supposedly really screw with radar near airports. That said, I’m all for the Government helping them provided they are actually worth it from the standpoint of power produced versus maintenance costs. I still think nuclear energy is the way to go, but most of California disagrees with me.
I’m assuming you are an American or something who doesn’t actually know that the BNP is a bunch of White Nationalist idiots who don’t have the two brain cells to rub together.
I’m in violent agreement with this post. I have nothing, not a single thing against alternative forms of energy. We need to develop them, most certainly! But with gas at $4.00 a gallon where I am, we can’t overlook traditional energy, either. It seems like Obama wants to bring our economy to its knees with his energy policies.
The wind energy subsidy expires at the end of December unless Congress extends it. Will be interesting to see what happens.
Gas at $4/gallon is traditional energy, only heavily subsidized so you don’t notice how expensive it would be otherwise.
If you honestly think “traditional” energy is all free market and pays for itself while “alternative” energy is subsidized, then you have no understanding of the issue whatsoever.
It seems like wind farms make bad neighbors. There are three complaints you hear over and over: they make an annoying noise; the strobing effect (when the sun is shining through the spinning blades) is really annoying and has caused siezures in people; and birds get killed when they hit the blades.
To be perfectly honest, I think Ted Kennedy’s opposition was mostly a matter of him thinking they were ugly, and would mess up his favorite yachting spot.
Yeah, it seems odd to insist that wind power be totally unsubsidized so that it can compete in the free market against something like Grand Coulee Dam, which was constructed with federal funds.
No one has actually given the real reason that 90% of them oppose it - they live in rural areas and the things are blights upon the landscape, a landscape that in many cases they’ve known all their lives, moved to have a view of, or possibly even both.
The pejorative term is NIMBYism but that’s unfair - there is a real gripe there and linking it to UKIP or whatever is unreasonable. It’s a cross political spectrum issue.
