Has the Wind Industry become a Hi-Tech Welfare Program?

As reported by:
http://www.windaction.org/opinions/35947

High-skilled, high-tech welfare

 We cannot evaluate the efficacy of federal spending programs by asking the recipients of federal largess whether they are happy with the money. Of course they are happy! The real issue is whether American taxpayers and electricity ratepayers should be happy.

September 4, 2012 by Bruce M. Everett in Cape Cod Times

In an Aug. 23 front-page column, Sean Gonsalves claims Cape Cod Community College's recent decision to install solar panels and wind turbines validates both the stimulus bill and the green energy jobs program. He is wrong on both counts.

Renewable energy is expensive. Onshore wind power costs at least three times as much as electricity produced from natural gas. Offshore wind costs six times more, and solar 10 times more. Renewables are forced into the marketplace by a complex web of federal and state subsidies that hide their true cost. The federal tax credits mentioned in the article are one subsidy; others include renewable energy standards, net metering, federal loans to manufacturers, production tax credits and local property tax relief, all of which disguise the true cost of renewable energy.

Cape Cod Community College has every right to seek federal and state support for its budget, but remember that the college is a public institution. The question is not whether the college saves money on solar energy but whether the public saves money. The renewable energy savings claimed by the college are an illusion. If we took $1 from every Cape Cod resident, we could buy the college a couple of S-class Mercedes cars. The college, the Mercedes factory in Alabama and the local car dealer might be thrilled with this arrangement, but the rest of us should object - and strongly.

We all understand that renewable energy subsidies provide jobs for people like Mr. Giles and his employees at Turning Mill Energy in Sandwich. We must remember, however, that the high costs of solar and wind energy are paid by someone else, and those lost dollars would have created jobs somewhere else in the economy.

We cannot evaluate the efficacy of federal spending programs by asking the recipients of federal largess whether they are happy with the money. Of course they are happy! The real issue is whether American taxpayers and electricity ratepayers should be happy. When the federal government is running deficits north of $1 trillion a year, Turning Mill Energy's federal tax credit has to be borrowed from China and paid back with interest by future generations.

I am happy for Mr. Giles and his colleagues, but they are enjoying a kind of high-skilled, high-tech welfare at our children's expense.

In its current form, renewable energy is simply too costly to make a meaningful contribution to our energy balance. After all the federal dollars and all the hype over the past four decades, wind energy accounts for 1 percent of U.S. energy use today, and the Department of Energy projects growth to only 2 percent by 2035. Solar accounts for 0.1 percent of our energy today and is expected to meet less than 0.5 percent in 2035. Research may yet produce technological breakthroughs, but subsidizing the current generation of technology impedes rather than facilitates progress. Why spend research dollars on improved technology, when you can sell the current inferior stuff at a profit?

The U.S. economy cannot grow by forcing high-cost energy into the marketplace. Those who produce this high-cost energy will gain, and the public will lose.

We have recently discovered in the U.S. vast new reserves of natural gas - a cheap, clean and efficient option. Massachusetts needs to tap into this low-cost, environmentally friendly option and forget about wind turbines, solar and - oh yeah - that monstrous dirty fuel oil power plant on the canal. If we do, we'll get lower taxes, lower electricity bills and more jobs.

Mr. Everett of Chatham teaches graduate-level energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

Web link: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...

The Windbagger's March along the Blue Ridge Plateau Reaches Carroll County

A Scale rendition of 36 Industrial Scale Wind Turbines along the ridges of Stoots Mountain and Poplar Camp Mountain.

On April 13, 2009, the Carroll County Board of Supervisors were introduced to the topic of Wind Energy by two representative of the Virginia Wind Energy Center based at James Madison University in Harrisonburg. As the Director and and employee of the University it is there responsibility to promote and encourage the utilization of all Virginia resources to support the development of electricity generation from the wind. The funding supporting the VWEC comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the federal Department of Education and the federal Department of Energy. It is there mandate to promote wind energy, not to evaluate the viability of its applications.

The following notes are from the meeting's minutes:

            Dr. Jon Miles told that the Wind Energy topic is getting more and more attention and told that wind has been underutilized in Virginia.  He told that siting is important for a steady smooth wind flow and the challenge is the capital cost.  He told that the cost of electricity from wind is cheaper than other means and told that wind turbines are reliable. He told that there is a modest wind resource in Carroll County. 

            Dr. Maria Papadakis told to think of it in 3 sizes - home, community which is 1-5 turbines and utility which is a wind farm.  She told that Carroll County has some interesting packets of wind and discussed that Carroll has a lot of Class 3.  She told that you have to look at the advantages verses the disadvantages which are site impact, noise and safety.

Dr. Miles appears to have made a number of erroneous assumptions in his broad statement "...the cost of electricity from wind is cheaper than other means...". Indeed, if that were true, then funding for 30% of the cost, 30% loan guarantees, and production tax credits 2000% greater than for any other fuel source from the federal government would be totally unnecessary.

In fact Dr. Papadakis neglected to reveal that while "...Carroll has a lot of Class 3 (wind areas)...", that is generally far below adequate to support significant electricity generation at an acceptable cost without "back door" subsidies.

On April 3, 2012 WSLS TV10 reported:

"Supervisors say Horizon Wind Energy wants to put between 30 and 40 wind turbines on Stoots Mountain."

An installation of that many turbines along the ridge of Stoots Mountain would have to include the ridge all the way to Poplar Camp.

On August 18, 2012, the Carroll News reported:

"The company, EDP Renewables/Horizon Wind Energy, LLC has plans to place wind turbines on Stoots Mountain in Carroll County."

Acoustical Impacts

The most difficult issue to understand relative to the installation of multiple turbines of this scale is that of acoustical impacts on neighboring property owners and communities.

Today, the Department of Environmental Quality is receiving final comments from a select group of industry representatives, lobbyists, and government employees on a draft of a "model" local wind ordinance for adoption of localities throughout Virginia. One member of this large group, Robert Meyers, of the Eastern Shore of Virginia responded as one of the very, very few private citizens who has dedicated over a year of personal time and resources to serve on the group responded to the latest draft of the model ordinance with the following email message:

Carol,
Considering that on 7Aug draft att.,Page 1 you have: [1][1] Public Health, Safety, and Welfare.    This model ordinance addresses localgovernments’ traditional areas of responsibility – public health, safety, and welfare – as they relate to wind energy projects.  and regardless of the earlier input from those supporting IWT's in Virginia who don't believe Infrasound needs to be addressed, don't you think it may be just a bit of a disservice at the least, or at the worst, negligent, to every county and citizen in the Commonwealth not to address, up front, Low Frequency Noise from IWT's considering the almost 30 pages of documentation I submitted at the March 29th Piedmont Office meeting and the information below?   There have been major changes in recognizing and studying Low frequency Noise since the LOG started working on the model ordinance.  I do not see any evidence of those changes being communicated to the Group nor any open acknowledgement or discussion as more information has become available.  The evidence of health degradation caused by Infrasound is no longer considered anecdotal by responsible people and has reached consideration by the courts in several countries.  The most recent is from the German Donau Courier paper on August 17th below.
The German text is available through the link.
Please note that THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA has held that the natural rights of individuals are not inferior to the rights of industry.In The Pittston Company, supra, a nuisance case involving a coal preparation plant in Russell County, this Court said:     “It is generally held that the location of an industry in an industrial area and its importance to the wealth and prosperity of the community do not give to it rights superior to the primary or natural rights of those who live nearby. Locality and surroundings are to be taken into consideration only in determining whether the business or industry is so conducted as to constitute a nuisance as a matter of fact. . . .It is of no consequence that an industry or a business is a useful or necessary one, or that it promotes the development of the community.   

Regarding land use and valuation around IWT's,  in  Akersv. Mathieson Alkali Works, the Virginia court said, “The law requires that every person so use his own property as not to injure the property of another.”

I would urge that the LOG as a group reconsider their position on this problem and address it forthrightly in the draft .
Sincerely,
Bob Meyers
ESVA

ENERCON E-82: Pulsed Noise

Dienstag,den 28. August 2012 um 15:14 Uhr

Administrator

Zugriffe:332

·         

·         

·        Enercon, Europe's largest wind turbine manufacturer, has a problem: The decision of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court in Munich about the wind turbine in Kienberg points out that in the E 82 turbine emits pulsed noise. Therefore to any actually measured sound level three decibels would have to be added.

This supplement seriously could question any wind turbine site close to dwellings. As previously reported, the 27th Civil Division of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court now affirmed the pulsed noise and granted a lawsuit by opponents of the wind turbine in Kienberg, Marktgemeinde Rennertshofen.

" To us this verdict is completely incomprehensible", says Felix Rehwald,spokesman for the largest European wind turbine manufacturer Enercon. The market leader, headquartered in Aurich, Lower Saxony, Germany, sells its wind turbines with the grade "no pulsed noise". Experts instructed by Enercon have not confirmed pulsed noise so far said company spokesman Rehwald. Now the sentence of the Bavarian court bothers the Enercon-lawyers. They will consider further steps. Unofficially its almost clear that the company will apply for appeal at the Federal Supreme Court. In that case the judgements of the Court of the District of Augsburg and the Bavarian Higher Regional Court in Munich would be checked for legal and procedural errors. The acceptance of the case at the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe shall be deemed as a not insignificant hurdle.

In 2011 in Germany 895 wind turbines were established of which Enercon has delivered 550.The new E 101 3 MW WT has a hub height up to 149 metres. The windmill (sorry,they always call these machines "windmill" - Marco) type E 82, as it stands in Kienberg, Enercon has sold over 3000 units - all without any status of pulsed noise. That means a strong increase and quick decrease of clear audible noise.

In the meantime the Kienberger "wind miller" Herbert Kugler has experienced his 14th trial in terms of the wind turbine (WT). His lawyers are very surprised that the wind turbine on the Kienberg is questioned by Civil Courts now after all proceedings going as far as to the Administrative Court had been confirmed the legality of the wind turbine and its operation.

From the District Office of Neuburg-Schrobenhausen you can hardly hear anything in that matter. The supervisory authority had approved the plant with a (turbine) hub height of 140 metres (in operation since October 2009) after a comprehensive emission protection legislation proceeding.

The complainants of the Community of Burgmannhofen in the district Donau-Riesagainhave complained in their letters to authorities, ministries and MPs about the intolerable situation caused by the sound (noise emission) of the Kienberger Rotor. Meanwhile operator Herbert Kugler too calls the continuous struggle against his authorized wind turbine "unbearable".

Original German article: http://www.donaukurier.de/lokales/neuburg/Neuburg-Jetzt-zum-Bundesgerichtshof;art1763,2644361

Germany’snew “renewable” energy policy

Posted on August 28,2012by Anthony Watts

Wind and solar power + soaring electricity prices = outsourcedjobs + more coal burning

Meanwhile, eco activists demand “sustainablelifestyles” – for other people

Guest post by Kelvin Kemm

It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.

In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.

In a deteriorating economic situation, Germany’s new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europe’s – and Germany’s – economy by increasing the cost of electricity.

He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.

Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany, because Germany is worried about the increasing cost of electricity, and because they can’t afford to be in the strategic position of importing too much electricity.

Just recently, German figures were released on the actualproductivity of the country’s wind power over the last ten years. The figure is 16.3 percent!

Due to the inherent intermittent nature of wind, their wind power system was designed for an assumed 30% load factor in the first place.That means that they hoped to get a mere 30% of the installed capacity –versus some 85-90% for coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric facilities.That means that, when they build 3,000MW of wind power, they expect to actually get merely 900MW, because the wind does not always blow at the required speeds.But in reality, after ten years, they have discovered that they are actually getting only half of what they had optimistically, and irrationally, hoped for:a measly 16.3 percent.

Even worse, after spending billions of Euros on subsidies,Germany’s total combined solar facilities have contributed a miserly,imperceptible 0.084% of Germany’s electricity over the last 22 years.That is not even one-tenth of one percent.

Moreover, the actual cost of Germany’s wind and solar electricity is far and away higher than its cost of coal and nuclear power. So much for “free” solar and wind. So much for all the German jobs that depend on reliable access to plentiful and affordable electricity.

As to natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing, that too is prohibited, even if it is required to back up undependable wind and solar facilities. No wonder Germany’s natural gas and electricity prices are practically unaffordable.

Meantime the extreme greens continue to preach about the wonders of life based on solar and wind power. They also talk constantly about“sustainable living,” a “sustainable future,” and an otherwise hydrocarbon-free and “decarbonized” tomorrow. Be warned!What these vacuous exhortations mean is that people must not enjoy the lifestyles and living standards of a modern world.

They mean the First World must cut back significantly on its living standards, and the developing world must give up its aspirations for achieving the lifestyle of the First World.

Believe me, African small-scale farmers all dream of becoming like the large commercial-scale farmers they see next door. They do not wish to plough their fields with oxen, when their neighbours have tractors and automated grain handling machines. The same is true of small-scale commercial and industrial operations in which an affordable and reliable supply of electricity is essential. It is likewise true of virtually every office, shop,hospital, school and family on the entire African continent.

On 08/07/12, Carol Wamplerwampler.renewable.energy@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Local Government Outreach Group:

(cc: Interested Parties)

Greetings from DEQ's Renewable Energy Program!  I hope you are enjoying a pleasant summer. 

The draft Community-Scale Model Wind Ordinance is now ready for your review (Attachment 1).  Please email me your comments by Friday, September 7.

FYI:  Residential and Utility Wind Ordinances are also attached.  The Residential (Attachment 2) reflects your email comments from June/July.  Thanks!

Solar Update:  Drafts of model solar ordinances are currently being reviewed by a Solar Technical Group, whose recommendations will be incorporated and passed on to the LOG.  The model solar ordinances should be ready for your review and email comments in September.

Thanks for your continued input and support.  A number of local governments have contacted us about using the model ordinances you've recommended, and your work is making a difference.  We hope you will be willing to get together sometime this fall to finalize your recommendations on the two solar model ordinances (residential/commercial & utility) and the two wind model ordinances (residential & community), so that they can be posted on DEQ's website with the current utility-scale wind ordinance.  More on this later.

Look forward to receiving your comments on the community-scale wind ordinance.  Let me know if you have questions.  Thanks!

Sincerely,

Carol
--
CAROL C. WAMPLER
Renewable Energy Policy Manager
Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-698-4579
carol.wampler@deq.virginia.gov
carol.wampler.renewable.energy@gmail.com

An Environmental Threat to Floyd County




A potential installation of 18 - 443' tall wind turbines on Wills Ridge

 

A view from Wills Ridge Road

Intelligent Living

It has been almost four months since the last blog post here.
After years of wading through political banter of "hyperbole, innuendo and generalization" regarding defining a plan for the future of our chidren, I've most recently been struct by ponderance over a simple phrase:

Intelligent Living

I propose that you ponder this thought and join with me in trying to define it's meaning.

Until the next post, I wish you happiness.

Let's Have a Serious Discussion

I'd like to share and open further discussion that began as a sarcastic response to Dan Smith's blog post yesterday about overpopulation. Fellow architect Steve Sunderman responded with a thought provoking comment that inspired me to further modify Dan Smith's graphic that describes the issue:

Eldon L Karr-Architect shared a link via Dan Smith.

23 hours ago
So what's the solution? Cool Cities Coalition might help. The answer to come.

fromtheeditr: What the World Needs Now ... Is More People
www.fromtheeditr.blogspot.com

Comments:
Steve Sunderman: People do what people do. I would hope that we not adopt a one child policy like China has. I believe that we need to do all we can to conserve resources and find new & better ways of accommodating inevitable population growth, affluence and climate change. That is why I promote conservation, recycling and renewable energy sources.

Eldon L Karr-Architect:
‎Steve Sunderman,
I agree a one child policy is rather extreme, but our country does not yet have a population exceeding 1 billion. As population growth continues to accelerate, it may be unwise to accept it as inevitable and infinite. Mos...t are not willing to accept the idea of curbing our insatiable appetite for affluence. (I'm glad you included that observation.)

We are on the same page regarding conservation and recycling.

As I understand, all of our energy comes from the sun (99.999999999%). Our sun is on the wane and climate change is inevitable. Since the late 1960's & early 70's I have advocated and promoted seeking alternative forms of usable energy and energy storage. This has included capturing energy from the wind to be used as a point of use based supplement, not distributed under the guise of an unending commodity over the corporate controlled convenience of the transmission/distribution grid thus encouraging ever greater consumption and inefficiency.

I believe that nature itself takes care of renewing and storing resources better than we as human beings can ever hope to. I believe it is our charge, particularly as professional architects, to communicate the correct understanding of these matters to the general population. And even more importantly, to promote and advocate efficiency and conservation through point of use based generation systems. while unrelentingly pursuing cost based evaluation of built-environment design.
It is far short of being enough to just advocate "green" and "renewable" (both terms being sorely misunderstood)

and the conversation continues:
Steve Sunderman: Eldon, I agree with many of your points. I understand that their is an inefficiency factor with the industrial wind application and I know that the Tea Party folks are strongly against any financial incentives for renewable energy R&D, but I believe that renewable energy sources are far better than fossil fuel sources in many ways, but renewables cannot compete yet mostly because of lack of demand (costs & availability). It is my premise that subsidizing research & development of wind, solar & water power will encourage innovation, efficiency and mass production, which will drive down costs. Then support can be withdrawn as it will be able to stand on its own merits. I am hearing that electrical storage systems are close to reality and when & if that happens, there is a new ball game. I think that our future power systems may not even be apparent to us today as we cannot even imagine what the future holds, provided we continue to want and encourage such innovation.

Steve Sunderman: Infinite population growth cannot be sustained. When such growth becomes overwhelming it will self-correct, probably in not very nice ways. Think what our population would be today if there had never been any wars. When there is not enough water or food, people will fight for their survival. My hope is that we voluntarily manage growth and earth's resources. Our resources are finite. Did you know that if everyone on earth used resources of a typical American, it would take 5 planets of resource production to supply the demand?

Eldon L Karr-Architect: Steve, First let's remove political references from the discussion as I don't believe the answer to the question of our energy consumption lies within any political encampment. Personally, although in my earlier years I strongly identified with the Democrats and a liberal ideology, I have found difficulty in committing allegiance to any political party since the mid 1980's. Albeit, McClain, Christopolus and many others have attempted to pigeon-hole me with the TEA Party.

Of course, I am strongly in support of government sponsorship of research & development. As a nation, I believe we are making a huge mistake pulling out of our manned space program. I think solar, geo-thermal, hydro(tidal) and fusion are currently where our research and development should be focused. I think we should provide incentives to consumers to install site-based electrical generation through vehicles like the PACE program, thereby encouraging conservation.

Industrial scale generation with wind turbines imposes far too much environmental damage to promote further development with the existing technology. Further, the development incentives are far beyond reasonable expectation of return ($23+/- per Mwh compared to $1.50 per Mwh and less for all other sources of generation).

I appreciate your interest in entering into this discussion. Recently, I have started a new blog:
http://thearchitectsstudio.blogspot.com/
I'd like nothing better than to either move this conversation there or to:
http://bentmountain.blogspot.com/
I believe that a lot more people would benefit in those venues.
Best regards

Eldon L Karr-Architect: Wow! I was preparing my response prior to receiving your next comment.
No, I wasn't aware that Americans were THAT gluttonous. Let's keep this discussion going. Maybe invite a few more intelligent, conscientious architect who would like to make a difference.
We must, however, leave enough time for doing.

Steve Sunderman: Good points. I must admit that I am not nearly as well versed on the details as you are. My support for wind & solar energy is a general principle based on a bias toward renewable energy sources as a means to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I know that new concepts or technology is always met with a great deal of resistance and I just want to leave this place a little better for my children & grandchildren if at all possible. "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Eldon L Karr-Architect I do believe we can make a positive difference for our children, let's just not have so many of them for a while ;)

Why we Love Bent Mountain

This Appalachian Mountain community of people, nestled along the Blue Ridge, in the most northern tip of the great Blue Ridge Plateau, has treasured a unique lifestyle for generations as a result of the unique topography of the region.

A Work still in progress. Send thoughts to tell the stories of Our treasured community.

Here is an example:

On Facebook, Carl F Bagby wrote, "special place ...special people... to bad the county supervisors don't agree."


March 5 at 1:27pm · Bent Mountain, Virginia wrote:
We'll keep it special, regardless.
I like to believe this plateau served communities of people long before the European migration, because the natural surface drainage to a central fertile basin, (and a defensible perimeter). For those reasons, the communities' love for this "place" seems to have coalesced into a strong sense of spiritual strength within the people.


March 5 at 2:00pm

DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER

Here's a book that nails it. I believe this book fairly describes why I am disturbed, as an environmentally sensitive architect, by the programs of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and the LEED certification program. Todd Myers perspective also reveals why we all will lose if this war continues to be waged as a socio-political battle between extremists on the battlefield of conservatism and liberalism.

I have not read this book, but have read the intro on Amazon.com and other sites, while eagerly awaiting a hard copy:

Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism Is Harming the Environment, by Todd Myers, will likely be the best psychology book you've ever read. For people with logical, analytical minds, green extremism can be quite exasperating. Myers helps those of us who value facts and reason understand what motivates environmental extremists.

Myers spent many years working as an environmentalist in state government. Along the way he kept his eyes and mind open to the conflicts between maintaining a healthy environment and how so many varied interests use the environment to further their own selfish interests. As a result, Myers understands these issues better than anyone I have encountered in a half-century of work on environmental battlefields.

Green Building Myths Exposed
In his introductory chapter, he takes on myths about green buildings. A prime goal of environmental activists is to force builders to incorporate green designs and maximize energy efficiency. The activists claim the upfront costs of building green more than pay for themselves in the long run. Myers, however, cuts through the fuzzy math to show how green buildings are almost always prohibitively costly and are often (and ironically) bad for the environment.

As an example, environmental activists claim green buildings provide more fresh air, which reduces the potential for "sick buildings" and cuts down on sick days and absenteeism. The reduction in lost worker time more than pays for the additional upfront construction costs, the activists say. Myers persuasively shows none of this is true.

Much Money, Few Benefits
Wasting money on efforts that produce no tangible environmental benefit should be condemned. Increasingly, however, the opposite is happening. Myers notes, "rather than judging policies based on their results, eco-fads grow in popularity based on their ability to confer a green image to those who embrace them."

True environmentalism, Myers says, should not be aimed at projecting a carefully crafted and appealing image that simply feels environmentally progressive. Yet green buildings, reusable grocery bags, bio fuels, and solar panels do little more than that. These eco-fads signal to our peers that we are not only thrifty and intelligent but also profoundly moral.

What adherence to these eco-fads really signals is that a great many people are ignorant of science and profoundly gullible.

Explaining the Lure of Eco-Fads

Eco-Fads explains why we fall for such schemes when we should know better. Who doesn't want to be green? That natural desire can cloud our better judgment.

It shouldn't be surprising that some companies see business opportunities in the growth of eco-fads. Products that claim to be greener not only offer differentiation from similar products made by competitors but also cater to consumers with greater disposable income.

The average person who wishes to be environmentally responsible is bombarded by conflicting messages encouraging him or her to embrace fads that offer solutions to environmental threats. Few people have the time, interest, or expertise to test the claims they hear. In the midst of a busy life there is little incentive to ask, "Do bio fuels really reduce carbon emissions? Are polar bears really threatened by global warming? Are hybrid poplars really a solution to intensive forestry and clear-cutting?"

This confusion is compounded by the natural desire of individuals to believe they are doing good without engaging in much sacrifice. Myers explains brilliantly how eco-fads are emotionally satisfying because they offer easy solutions that cut through confusion while allowing individuals to derive the emotional satisfaction of protecting the planet.

Power of Peer Pressure
Add the peer pressure to carry green shopping bags, install compact fluorescent bulbs, and drive hybrid vehicles, and we have what appears to be an almost irresistible force.

Environmental activists understand social pressure is a powerful force. They enlist movie actors to narrate ads, and fashion magazines make greenness a fashion statement.

The result of these influences is that eco-fads, once established, are difficult to dislodge. Who wants to admit their actions to save the planet do not actually promote the values they have publicly embraced?

Unintended Environmental Damage

This faddism is actually bad for the environment. Myers shows conclusively that with increasing frequency eco-fads are counterproductive, doing more damage to the environment than they prevent and drawing energy and resources away from real solutions. However, people mentally filter out information that may call into question the effectiveness of environmental policies or purchases; instead, they exaggerate the perceived benefits.

Recognizing these influences can help us be more alert to the potential flaws in green policies and causes. It also helps us understand the frustrating tendency of environmental discussions to become highly emotional and personal. Eco-fads endure because they appeal to some important human characteristics, such as the desire to feel good about the decisions we are making and our need for acceptance by our peers.

With what you will learn from this book, you will be better able to shake off the hypnotic spell of green mythology and return to sound environmental thinking. Buy this book for every reasonable person on your Christmas list. And if I have failed to convince you of this yet, I may try again in the next issue of Environment & Climate News.

Review by Jay Lehr, Ph.D
(jlehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute.