Regular readers of the Politics blog know that my Politics colleague, Henry Payne, is skeptical of green energy. And while there are plenty of good arguments against green energy, Henry’s most recent post entitled “Windmill eyesores” is an example of one of the worst.
The two key points of this argument are that windmills ruin otherwise serene landscapes and that birds are “shredded” by windmill farms. But if we’re being honest, even Henry would have to admit that this talking point only resonates with those who are already against green energy.
If the preservation of natural beauty were the primary argument for how we operate in America one would expect a lot more push back to things like:
I’m not sure anyone would suggest that these items enhance the natural beauty of the areas where they are located.
As for the argument that windmills kill birds, data shows that some 40,000 birds die every year from windmills while as many as 174 million die each year from power lines. And if we can save some of the 13,000 people who die prematurely each year from poor air quality that would probably be advantageous as well.
The reality is that Henry’s arguments only prove how little green energy critics understand the motives of green energy advocates.
Previously published on the Detroit News.