EDITORIAL: WHEN “GREEN” IS ONLY GREENWASHING

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

 
By Nadin Abbott
 
August 25, 2012 (San Diego's East County) -- Watching activists defend "green wind energy" as if it was the only solution turns my stomach. It is like talking to a wall. Facts, and there are facts, make little difference. Green energy is nice and green energy is good, go blindly hug a wind turbine, seems to be the message.
 
So let me ask these same activists: should Pattern Energy, a division of the Carlyle group, target the Rosecrans National Cemetery for development? How dare I suggest this? Well, it's windy there, in fact, probably more so than Ocotillo.

 

Oh wait, but it would be on a designated military cemetery? And, Ocotillo and the McCain Valley are places where the local tribes have buried their ancestors for at least hundreds of years, probably thousands. These are sacred lands, just as sacred to our local tribes as the Rosecrans National Cemetery is to many of us. In fact, probably more. These are the lands where the world was created according to their beliefs..think Jerusalem, and you'd be close.
 
I can hear it now: "Those people need to make sacrifices.” These activists are wearing green blinders. They don’t ask questions.  As long as they get electricity piped into their houses, don't look behind the curtain. It really does not matter that Ocotillo is not that windy to begin with, but was fast tracked with fudged data.
 
There is this wonderful wind corridor in front of Torrey Pines and  La Jolla Shores...you even see sailboats out there regularly. Wait, we could not do that...the term eyesore comes to mind. Here is what it would look like
 
Why are your views more important than other people’s views?
 
Oh and fires, we are getting an increasing number of fires that are being tracked to turbines. And we are sure getting more fires due to our historic drought.
 
You saw the photos the paper ran last week during the Ranchita fire? (photo, left.)
 
I covered that fire last week. Most of it was in pretty rugged terrain. The term air drops comes to mind. Those tall towers would have made the job of firefighters that much more dangerous.  
 
As a former firefighter and paramedic, this gives me cause for alarm.
 
There is a reason Supervisor Diane Jacobs voted against the Tule Wind project, public safety.  She has been outspoken on the fire dangers posed by wind turbines in our fire-prone backcountry.
 
Congressman Bob Filner and Duncan Hunter, usually polar political opposites, also both wrote letters to U.S. Interior Department Secretary Salazar opposing this project, citing severe fire dangers among their reasons. Republican Hunter warns the project “increase the risk of catastrophic wildfires.”  Filner. a Democrat, urged denial of the project, also warning of “catastrophic wildfires” that can result.
 
Wind turbines contain hundreds of gallons of oil. They explode. They also get hit by lightning.   But no, go hug a turbine, they are green so they must be safe! Don't bother me with details!
 
I can hear it now, we need energy, and climate change is real. Yes, on both counts, but we need to be intelligent about it. First off, what these large utilities are doing is recreating a 20th century energy distribution model. Remember the great San Diego power outage? Single points of failure come to mind.
 
Second, we are taking the word at face value from companies that have been known to fudge the data. Third, they really do not want photovoltaic. It would really affect the present business model. What do you mean you might be independent from the grid, or greatly reduce your consumption with solar on your roof? We can't have that. It cuts into the big corporations’ centralized business model.
 
But hey as long as you turn on the light switch...so how about that wind project on Mission Bay Park? Yup, it's real windy down there. Trust me, it is. I used to go fly kites there.
 
Oh wait, it's ok if it's in the East County, out of sight and out of mind... What were the words of Governor Brown? "We will crush the opposition."
 
So it’s okay to blow up mountains and bulldoze deserts, kill wildlife and endanger people’s lives as long as it’s not in your backyard, do I have that right?
 
What activists and partisans forget is that the opposition is real people, who are having their sacred ancestral lands and the homes they love destroyed. It is a way of life that I guess is worth destroying for the sake of my morning coffee. 
 
What they forget is that sooner or later we will have a fire tracked back to any of these facilities. What then? Does the light still come on? Do I still have AC? I guess that is A-ok. Maybe it will even threaten your backyards—take a look at this photo of downtown in the 2007 wildfires, if you need a reminder of why should really should care.
 
Meanwhile for the sake of fairness, Pattern and Iberdrola should look into Rosecrans National Military Cemetery, La Jolla Shores, Torrey Pines and yes, my personal back yard, Mission Bay Park. It's all about going green right?
 
Suffice it to say the kind of green these corporations really want has Presidents printed on it. It’s all about the money they are getting in our taxpayer subsidies.
 
I guarantee this though, these coastal projects won't happen. The opposition would be far larger and vocal. It gets worst, those people vote, and they do so in large numbers. So as usual, take the path of least political resistance. We’ve got lights, all is well with the world. Don't bother us with the details.
 
The opinions in this editorial reflect the views of the author.  To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.

 

Comments

Greenwashing and Reality

We seem to have lost the propaganda king, Mr. Barnard, but for those that do not buy into the wind industry "Greenwashing" I will give you a few facts about the rapidly declining Whooping Crane population. In 2011 272 of these birds were counted in the Aransas wildlife refuge before they left on their migration north to Canada. The birds went on to nest and produced 35 fledged young. At that time there were approximately 300 plus whooping cranes in the flock. This year after they migrated to Aransas wildlife refuge only 192 were counted. More than 100 of these birds disappeared in a year's time. To help cover up this catastrophic loss the USFWS adopted a new methodology for "estimating" Whooping Crane numbers. This new USFWS methodology was put in place so the declining Whopping Crane population could now be exaggerated. With this bogus survey method the whooping crane population is now estimated 27% higher at 245.  This all is part of the wind industry mortality cover -up that has been going on for over 28 years between the industry and the USFWS. If anyone cares to do a little research they will see that there has been a dramatic increase in the mortality of the whooping cranes since 2006 and their population today is less than it was in 2006. Prior to 2006 the population had been slowly increasing each year and since the decline began, thousands of huge wind turbines have been stuffed along their migration route. In a few years there will be so many turbines with so much rotor sweep in their habitat, it will be impossible for them to survive. It is my belief that the free flying whooping cranes population will be lost within 5 years.

 

Make no mistake about this, we will be losing the Whooping Crane population to the propeller style wind turbine and when it happens I want everyone to remember the corruption that allowed this to happen. Remember the USFWS with their "Voluntary Regulations" for the wind industry, remember the bogus mortality searches done by the industry around their turbines with search areas 8-10 times too small, remember the wind industry gag orders written into contracts with lease holders and employees, remember the high security at all wind farms and the wind industry personnel picking up bodies, remember the bogus impact and population surveys, remember that eagles are not just killed at Altamont Pass and that thousands have also been killed in Texas,  but most of all remember "the silence" coming  from the USFWS and the wind industry about any of this.

 

Long-winded Mike Barnard

Hey Mike, why don't you tell everybody your financial/business connection to the wind industry. Let people in this part of the country know who you are. But just to let readers know little more about him, I have been kicking his annoying butt all over the country. As you can see below, he like the entire wind industry, always dodges or deflects the tough questions.

No ties to wind industry

Wiegand and other anti-wind lobbyists have created some sort of myth about me getting money from or being part of the wind industry. They keep telling this lie despite being corrected time and again.

I work for a major international technology consultancy. The company I work for does work for every sector of business including governments worldwide. We have about 400,000 employees, and I'm one of them. The company has done a few engagements for the wind industry, but I haven't. In the past few years I've worked with land registry firms, banks, freight rail organizations, oil companies and public health organizations in North and South America. I worked on a couple of proposals for smart metering, smart grid and weather-risk grid management solutions; that was maybe 5 weeks out of the past 10 years of my career. I worked on getting IBM engaged in carbon-capture technologies without success.

I don't own stock in wind energy companies. I do own some stock in GE, which happens to make wind turbines, but they also make nuclear plants, hydro plants, coal plants and natural gas plants, as well as major manufactured objects of hundreds of other kinds. I do own stock in Enbridge, which happens to have some wind turbines, but mostly --98% -- has a major oil pipeline network.

Claiming that I'm biased due to financial interest is, politely, BS.

I am a volunteer advocate for the cleanest, safest form of electrical generation going. I've read deeply and broadly for 20+ years in energy systems and environmental issues. I've read all of the health literature related to wind energy. I've done the math on CO2e and noise-related setbacks. I've read the grid management studies. I've read the anti-wind material. I observed the vitriolic attacks on wind energy that a small number of anti-wind lobbyists -- some funded through astroturfing campaigns by mid-sized, undiversified fossil fuel companies, some apparently voluntary -- and realized that I could play a part in the discussion, countering the massive disinformation campaign against wind on a case-by-case basis and provide readers of comments threads who haven't made up their minds with clear and real information to counter the anti-wind myths. This is my volunteer effort, just as others work with United Way or their local food bank.

I maintain most of the resulting documentation and references on www.quora.com in the Wind Power topic. Feel free to join Quora, comment on my answers and add answers of your own. I do warn anti-wind lobbyists however that Quora is very unfriendly to BS and unreferenced material of poor quality, so most of your arguments will be down voted.

As for kicking my butt all over the internet, if by that Wiegand means that he posts unreferenced diatribes that are embarrassing to read in the same places I happen to post well-referenced, accurate statements, sure, he's kicking my butt. Oh, and in addition to unreferenced, Weigand's diatribes are usually long-winded as well.

Your turn, Wiegand. Why the hate that takes you into comment boards all over North America? Do you have financial interests or a background that makes you biased and unreliable?

Lets talk about fraud

Come on Mike. let's talk about  fraud. For example the bogus USFWS regulations. How about the rigged mortality searches resulting is less than 10% of fatalities being reported? Maybe you can tell readers where all the hundreds of missing whooping cranes are. The California Condors? Or maybe even why the golden eagle populations are plummeting. Come on Mike.

Missing whooping cranes

Going back to 2006 maybe you can tell readers where all the hundreds of missing whooping cranes are.

Reference? Just one?

Any data? Any credible numbers not from an anti-wind lobbyist site? Anything?

You tell us what happened to the missing whooping cranes

Quit dodging. The fact is hundreds of these whooping cranes have gone missing and it has been covered up. You tell us where they are and why a population that had been growing for decades, started to decline in 2006. Coal production, natural gas production and windows didn't get them. If you need to, get some help from your circle of well read friends. You might also contact those highly professional, deeply knowledgeable people from very respected organizations that you speak so highly of. You might even contact AWEA or President Obama. When we get done with this question, I have at least a hundred more for you.

It doesn't even matter WHO you work for at this point -

Recent studies show that wind actually produces only a mere 4% positive energy generation, and under certain circumstances actually results in a NEGATIVE NUMBER in energy production.

In other words, it costs more to run the turbines than they generate - Consuming massive amounts of oil, land and animal life in the process. So, that, on top of all the other hugely costly negative side-effects of the Wind Industry, make who you work for a moot point. http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=backup14

Obviously you are not defending the Wind Industry for its integrity, wholesomeness, efficiency or 'green'-ness.

Trust me, if this industry, in its current incarnation and with the current propeller-style turbines, was truly what it CLAIMS to be, we would all be embracing it wholeheartedly.

But we're not.

So, Mike Barnard, just why ARE you defending it??

Oh, by the way, sorry you weren't able to build up any kind of decent audience at Allvoices. It can be tough to build up a following.

Sorry, what?

Re C. (Kees) le Pair: he's a retired, anti-wind crank who publishes unpeer-reviewed analyses which disagree with every grid management study by energy professionals. He's been debunked time and again. Not a credible resource.

If you depend on sources like that, your opinions are unfounded in facts.

Re Allvoices: what are you talking about? Never heard of it.

It is very simple.

It is very simple. I happen to care about the wildlife in this world. Because of this, I have zero tolerance for the ongoing wind industry fraud, bogus studies, robbing the taxpayer, and the extermination of rare species. These are things that obviously do not bother you. If it did you would not plaster your nonsense all over the internet. It also does not matter how you spin it, all the other sources of energy production you like to point the finger at are not slaughtering rare species and then lying about it. The wind industry is. This has been going on for over 28 years. Sorry to burst your bubble Mike, but there is not a damn thing good about the wind industry.

If any of it were true, I'd be bothered

But none of it is true.

- The wind industry is just like any other industry. The vast majority of businesses and business transactions are honest, contractually valid and above board. A tiny subset aren't.

- Studies on wind energy showing positive benefits and no health impacts aren't bogus. Asserting that highly professional, deeply knowledgeable people from very respected organizations such as Ontarios Medical Officers of Health or the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are engaging in bogus studies is actually pretty libellous. It certainly isn't true. Bogus studies abound in the anti-wind lobbyist space however, from Dr. Nina Pierpont's massively flawed study to the fossil-fuel lobbyists' Bentek report.

- Robbing the taxpayer? By diversifying the energy grid, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, cleaning up the air and reducing health issues due to coal emissions? By doing intelligent analyses and power generation strategies then following through on them? By reducing investment in very expensive nuclear, which most taxpayers don't want to pay for? Where's the theft?

- No species has become extinct due to wind farms or even been threatened. Recent studies have shown low habitat impacts to positive impacts from wind turbines. Wind farms are subject to environmental assessments and aren't built in places with species nearing extinction that would be threatened by them, at least in North America. And overall, they are much better for habitat than fossil fuels.

That you live in a world disconnected from reality doesn't mean that what you type on the internet is true, or that people believe you just because you rant.

The only real proof

The only real proof I have on this guy is that he is a smug and  highly educated fool.

The Barnard Connection- selling propaganda for profit

The quote below is from an article that ran 2 months ago. I advise everyone to ignore this annoying bore. I think of him as being like Dave on the show Storage Wars. Remember that no matter what is said or facts presented, he will never agree. He has a financial agenda and he is here only to antagonized people. I've tried, in other articles but he will never respond to anything to do with wind industry fraud, bogus studies, robbing the taxpayer, or the extermination of rare avian species.  Instead his game is deflection. Give him facts and he always runs off into his imaginary world fortified with propaganda.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Dispelling the cats, buildings vs. wind farm bird death myth                                                                                 Oh, by the way, I see you work for IBM which is heavily invested in wind farms - Interesting!                                           http://www-148.ibm.com/tela/webmail/NlDynamicPage/9727/33353/cosmetic?we... http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-cats-buildings-vs-wind-fa...

Hyperbole and disinformation

Ms. Abbot throws up several straw men arguments and alarmist statements, none of which are supportable by any evidence.

Wind turbines just don't catch fire that often. There are about 165,000 wind turbines operating worldwide with perhaps another 40,000 having been replaced and less than 200 fire incidents at wind farms in the Caithness anti-wind database, a database zealously updated with whatever information they can find. The incidents include completely unrelated fires, but even taking the numbers at face value, this represents a less than 0.001% chance that a wind turbine will catch fire during it's 20 year lifespan.

And as for wind turbines then causing forest fires, there have been three (3) scrub fires caused by wind turbine fires in the operating history of modern wind energy over the past decades. This gives us a 1.81818E-05 to 1 chance of a wind turbine causing a fire.

9% of forest fires are caused by children playing with matches. By the same hyperbolic standard Ms. Abbot uses, it's obvious we should ban children and do so long before we get down the list to the very bottom where wind turbine fire risk sits.

http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/How-likely-is-it-that-a-wind-turbine-wil...

The fire she references actually destroyed wind turbines, which sat there inertly and didn't cause any problems. In fact, the well maintained roads and clearings gave fire fighters and other emergency personnel better access and enabled them to control the blaze -- which once again had nothing do to with the wind farm -- better than otherwise.

Ms. Abbot apparently has never looked at a hydro dam and paid any attention to the enormous acreage of land that no longer exists behind it. And Ms. Abbot has never thought about where coal comes from. Otherwise she wouldn't be talking about blowing up mountains. She appears to be all for forms of energy she can't see and mountain tops nowhere near her. She also appears to be all for forms of energy that kill 13,000 Americans annually and harms millions of others through asthma and emphysema.

http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/Do-wind-turbines-have-an-impact-on-aquif...
http://www.quora.com/Clean-Energy/Renewable-Energy-What-are-the-ways-bey...

As for distributed generation, Ms. Abbot really doesn't know what she's talking about. Wind farms dominantly plug into the distribution grid and energy from them is first used in local areas. That's distributed generation. Only when energy from outside of the grid is required does energy come from large central generation plants. And only when the energy exceeds the needs of the local generation does it get transmitted to cities.

Ms. Abbot is guilty of the worst form of NIMBYism and anti-factual arguments.

Wind farms create clean, safe, CO2e-neutral electricity and have the lowest impact on wildlife and the environment of any form of generation. Yet Ms. Abbot opposes them in her backyard.

snake oil salesman

Why do you wind salesmen ‪lie everytime you open your mouth? An example: you say "this represents a less than 0.001% chance that a wind turbine will catch fire during it's (sic) 20 year lifespan." Sorry, but 200 divided by 200,000 is 0,1% not 0,001% (0,001 is one per mil, ie 0,01%).

If one out of 1,000 Chevy Volt were catching fire, the model would be promptly retired from market. But hot air salesmen don't mind if California burns to the ground while they walk to the bank.

Wildfires caused by wind turbines: http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/29/opinion/forest-fires-and-wind-turb...

In 2006, an article was sent to me by a friend who lives near Altamont Pass: 36 fires occured there in one year. I´ll send you the clipping if you want.

Another wildfire caused by a wind turbine: http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=7075108&nav=9qrxUH7K

Another: http://www.qcsunonline.com/engine.pl?station=quay&template=storyfull.htm...
=1775

Another: http://www.laverdad.es/albacete/pg060813/prensa/noticias/Albacete/200608...

Another: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/kahuku-wind-farm-fire-update/1d0j...

And of course we all remember this one: http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/08/cal-fire-wind-turbine-generator-cau...

There are more, undoubtedly, as there is much opacity in the mainstream media when it comes to the dark side of windfarms.
It is obvious that, with time, Southern California will look like scortch earth anywhere you go. And this thanks to the idiocy of corrupt "green" policies.

Altamont fire clip

Here is the article Mark referenced above on Altamont having many fires.

1 in 1,000 or whatever the number is should be considered against the fact that the average wind farm has a hundred turbines or more.  So 1 in 1,000 turbines on fire would really mean that 1 in 10 wind farms has a fire, on average, though some have multiples and others none.

All it takes is one bad fire to destroy hundreds of thousands of homes, damage many more, and worse cost lives, as our region has seen time and time again.

Mr. Barnard, are you intentionally distorting facts?

One of the fires Nadin was referencing is the View Fire which charred 367 acres in Riverside County in June. I personally interviewed the fire official who led the investigation. He told me it was CAUSED by a wind turbine, the turbines were not innocent victims.  I have photos of the charred turbine too, and a witness who reported the fire said he saw it burst into flames.

So now who isn't being truthful, Mr. Barnett? 

It is an incredible stretch to try to call a wind farm in Imperial County"distributed generation" for San Diego, with a desert and mountains in between that power lines must be stretched across.

Rooftop solar would be a great example of distributed generation.

It is an absolute lie to say that wind has the lowest impact on wildlife and environment of any form of generation.  I suggest you clean up the insulting tone, Mr. Barnett, and stick to facts, or we will be banning you from the discussion forum particularly if we find out that you are a hired shill for the industry posting disinformation on other sites. 

 

Wind slaughters animals, it doesn't protect wildlife.

Thousands of eagles were killed at Altamont alone; turbines make bats' lungs explode. Birds injured fly off to die a horribly painful death, wings hacked apart, some are decapitated by the blades.  Habitat is destroyed in massive tracts.  Our government is issueing take permits to kill endangered bighorn sheep and even eagles for these project developers. Burrowing owls, foxes and other animals have their homes crushed beneath the bulldozers destroying thousands and thousands of acres for these projects that are not at all green.

There are more fires than you're apparently aware of.  Plus besides those started by exploding turbines and lightning strikes, fires that start elsewhere can spread faster if they hit a wind farm full of flammable oil - hundreds of gallons in each turbine nacelle.

Solar on roofs is much, much safer for people and wildife.  It's cheaper, cleaner and greener.  Vertical axis turbines that don't kill birds are also fine.

You are selfish to want to put hazards in other people's backyards.  The term NIMBY is one I really hate, it is very elitist.  If something is dangerous it shouldn't be in anybody's backyard.

 

 

Good for wildlife, birds and the land

Miriamg would have us believe that wind farms are the worst environmental desecration since thermonuclear war, or perhaps coal mining.

In reality, if you wanted to save 70 MILLION BIRDS' LIVES A YEAR, you would do so by replacing all fossil fuel generation with wind farms.

http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/How-significant-is-bird-and-bat-mortalit...

As a working wind farm takes up less than 1% of the land on which it is operating, the concept that massive tracts of habitat are being destroyed is an interesting and clearly wrong-headed one. And as wind farms are better for aquifers and less damaging for the environment than other forms of utility-scale generation, it's hard to see where she gets her perspective from. (Reference in earlier comment.)

As for fires, the source I use is an anti-wind site that maintains every incident it can, the only source keeping track of world-wide statistics like this. Asserting that there are wind farm fires I'm unaware of when I'm using the source that anti-wind lobbyists maintain is downright droll.

1%? Another fib.

The wind farm in Ocotillo promised minimal land disturbance on 12,500 acres of public land. Aerial photos and our team of dedicated citizen journalists out there taking photos daily at the project site prove that it's much, much more than that.  The industry doesn't count the ground disruption apparently.

Each turbine base out there requires a foundation 238 feet wide. There are 42 miles of roads and they built some roads 110 feet wide, 3 times wider than the EIR allows!  They flooded most of the desert with a flammable chemical, what does that do for wildlife? 

The term "multi-use" is a myth, too.  Who would want to go hiking, walking, stargazing or off-roading betwee whirling turbine blades that each weigh several tons and have wingspans the size of a football field? 

And what about the destroyed property values, and the lost views from Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and our public BLM federal land?  Wildlife vanishes around many wind farms and that was a big attraction of this area.  The lost tourism dollars could be huge. People used to come here to look at the desert wildfires, but Pattern is destroying the desert.

Below is a single turbine foundation hole.  It's on sacred Indian land. Behind are the mountains several tribes believe are the origin of creation. Would you do this to the Garden of Eden?

I would like to point out that Not In My Back Yard

means not in my back yard. Mission Bay Park IS my back yard. In fact, Mission Bay Park, a playground for many San Diegans, is about a ten minute bike ride from where I type at the moment, or two minute car ride from my house. So asking that Pattern and Ibedrola place a wind facility in Mission Bay would hardly qualify as NIMBY. I think a two minute car drive would qualify as my back yard... but maybe I am wrong on that and the McCain valley, two hours away is my back yard, I really need a clarification on what NIMBY means then.

For political reasons, the East County is expedient and people do not vote in the same numbers, placing a wind facility on Mission Bay, or La Jolla Shores will never happen. Never mind that La Jolla Shores not only has the winds necessary, but the tides, if we decide to go for tidal... oh never mind... those people vote in large numbers.

As to the rest... fire officials and two Members of Congress who rarely agree on anything, even if the sky is cloudy or not, agree that these facilities do increase the risk of fire in the back country. What were the words used by both Members of Congress? Oh yes, "catastrophic fire." I guess both Mr. Filner and Mr. Hunter, who did send a letter to Secretary Salazar in 2010, were also engaging in NIMBYism. I would like to add Dianne Jacobs to the list of fans of NIMBY. She represents that back country and voted against the Tule Wind project for fire public safety reasons.

I might add, I must have hit a nerve.

I stand corrected on NIMBYism

Nothing else however.

Ms. Abbot ignores the substantial debunking of her primary concerns, understandably. She doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

I notice you conveniently avoided

the fact that ELECTED members of Congress and a sitting member of the Board of Supervisors agree on the fire threat. I wonder why? Perhaps you have no leg to stand on?

Moreover, I agree with you, let's develop a wind project at the National Cemetery... or are you telling me that Native American dead and ancestors are less than our dead? Because I notice you have also deftly avoided that issue.

Look, I wrote let's do this intelligently, which at this point, and this is my view, we are not doing. At this point I have to conclude you do not want an honest discussion... but have engaged in personal attack after personal attack. So at this point, continue talking with yourself.

We are done Sir.

Have an excellent day.

(I could, for the record, fall to your level and question your motives, but I shan't. Suffice it to say, we are done)

I ignored politicians' opinions because they aren't fact-based

I've done the research. I've done the math. I've looked at actual fire risks.

Wind farms don't rate as fire risks. Anti-wind lobbyists can blow all the smoke they want on this subject, but it's BS.

Intelligent discussion relies on facts, logic and analysis. You started with hyperbole and counterfactual statements. If you'd like to have an intelligent conversation, retract your editorial, re-write it and repost it.

As for cemeteries and dead native Americans, I ignored that rhetorical straw man, which is all it deserves. Emotive, but ultimately just silly, and not worth discussing. It certainly doesn't lead to any intelligent conversations.

You "ignore" Native American issues?

Then you are a bigoted racist as well.

They were the first Americans.  Why on earth shouldn't we respect their religious beliefs and sacred sites?  Public lands have also allowed the Indians access for ceremonial purposes and have respected their dead.  

I will warn you, Mr. Barnett, such racist remarks are deeply offensive. I am banning your posts for the future because you've failed to provide facts, just divisive and now racist garbage.

Moreover I find it astounding that you think people who live in an area and all of the top elected officials representing them don't count either.  No matter how legit their concerns, no matter how much evidence you are shown, you just keep insisting there is no danger here and citing old statistics. 

When a region's Congressional members on both sides of the aisle agree that something imperils public safety, we should all pay attention.  These are members who actually care about public safety, as does our Supervisor.