Category Archives: NH Politics

Mar 27 2013
2 Comments
NH Politics, Protecting our Environment

New Hampshire Senators Must Hear From You Now!

people on the mountainsThe New Hampshire senate will be voting on an important moratorium bill, SB 99 tomorrow in full session.  This bill will put a temporary halt to the approval of any industrial wind turbine approvals in the New Hampshire western highlands region and also, as the original bill proposed, any new transmission line projects.

The original SB 99 as proposed by Senator Jeannie Forrester (R) and Senator Jeff Woodburn (R) would have contained language referencing not only the wind industry projects but also the Northern Pass transmission line project.  As noted on our post of the 25th, Senator Jeb Bradley bowed to the wishes of PSNH and the near wholly PSNH owned Manchester Chamber of Commerce and removed language pertinent to Northern Pass from SB 99.

Action Needed:

Tomorrow the Senate will convene and voting will commence on Senate Bill 99  [note this version online does not represent the version with the Jeb Bradley amendment as passed by the Senate Energy Committee which will be what will go before the whole Senate]  as amended by Jeb Bradley, both Senator Jeannie Forrester and Senator Jeff Woodburn have amendments to return language to the bill regarding Northern Pass.  It is imperative that everyone, particularly those in the southern and eastern regions of the state call their senators and make them aware of this issue.  Please tell our Senators to support the amendments proposed by either Sen. Woodburn or Sen. Forrester.

NH Wind Watch is asking that people focus on their local Senator to educate them on the importance of this bill for the future of New Hampshire.  We will be posting testimony that was submitted from different stakeholders for your further information.  Please make yourself familiar with the wind power issue as the industry has told many myths and half-truths that are easily debunked with the facts.  We have a summary for your reference here: Top Ten Myths of Wind Power Generation. For more information on Northern Pass, refer here to our heavily linked article of June 12, 2012, Northern Pass – Not the Option for New Hampshire.

Here’s a list of some claims the industry and their supporters are making against a moratorium and our answers to that:

1.  A moratorium bill will chill business.

Answer: This claim falls down in the face of the truth that where there’s a buck to be made, there is a group ready to exploit it.  Its cynical and almost silly to propose that there won’t be an industry ready at some point to exploit a potential dollar to be made.  The moratorium will allow the state and the stakeholders on all ends of the spectrum time to develop better policy renewable energy development that balances community needs with concerning economic balance, the responsibility of encouraging conservation and how to develop green energy and most importantly, what defines green energy and how to meet the ultimate goal of reducing green house gas emissions.

2.  The Site Evaluation Committee does not need to stop operations in order to improve them.

Answer: While Mr. Burack, the chairman of the SEC did testify that although he had made statements in the past that reflected concern for the number of applications now coming, he carefully back-walked on these statements and said that while the committee is overhwelmed, it can still function.

Many believe that this statement alone reflects the troubling conflict of interest inherent in the structure today of the SEC.  The undo influence and pressure that the industry is able to put upon the SEC is relfected in Mr. Burack’s waffly testimony.  The SEC currently is an all volunteer group, their membership is made up mostly if former or current bureaucrats from various energy agencies in the state.  These people have a tendency by virtue of the nature of their jobs which entail continue communication with the energy industry, to have very comfortable and familiar relationships with energy industry professionals.

It is especially troubling to many that like many review agencies, stakeholders in the community do not have a place at the table, but instead are relegated to a reactionary role in the process and not empowered as equal partners.  How this process has taken place is demonstrated by the very quick slide-through of the Jericho Wind Project in Berlin New Hampshire, wherein few if any members of the public participated, only a notice in the public notices section of the paper informed on the one public hearing.  Jericho Wind was approved and the wind industry succeeded in evading the larger approval process because of the lax rules that exist today.

SEC meeting Minutes on Jericho Wind Power

What is the motivation to continue on with a process that doesn’t work? What is the motivation to continue to put New Hampshire’s fragile economy at risk? What is the motivation to pass projects that will change the New Hampshire landscape forever? Possibly we’d want to take a lesson from our country’s past when it comes to listening to or allowing industry to decide what’s best for the planet and for a region?

mountain top removal

Remnants of Virginia mountain after coal industry blasts for coal veins.

3.  The only people against wind are ignorant NIMBY’s and tools of the Koch Brothers/coal industry.

The Sierra Club, 350.org and other national environmental organizations have worked hard to support wind energy as the easy alternative to coal.  Unfortunately  wind presents its own myriad problems including serious environmental threats to delicate mountaintop ecosystems.  Land based wind has only an average 10% – 17% efficiency and thus can’t replace dependence on coal, oil or gas or even make a serious dent in use.

In addition, true conservation includes community empowerment.  What is the difference between the global coal industry that grew up with the tacit support of governments ignorant of its effects in the beginning and now dependent on its income today?  Do we want to develop a dependance on another form of destructive, poorly performing energy that will change our natural landscape forever?  Have we not learned from our past mistakes?

The mere fact that the wind industry has support from major energy producers who currently rely on coal should send a strong hint that just possibly even they don’t see wind as a threat. Instead its another area to exploit for quick profits — communities and the environment be damned: business as usual.

Please call your Senator today and tell them to support SB 99 — particularly the amended versions that will put all new transmission line construction back into the bill.

We have word that the following Senators need particular attention:

Senator David Boutin – Concerned about renewable energy and following the RPS, asked the question, “So if you’re not for wind and solar hasn’t worked in forty years, what are you for?”  This question needs your answer.

Senator Nancy Stiles – position not known at this time

Senator Martha Fuller Clark – Senator Martha Clark has a strong history of environmental concern and has been sitting on the fence on this issue.  Please call Senator Fuller-Clark and let her know that wind does not represent viable green energy and that disempowering communities is not the way to move forward on renewable energy development.

Senator Bob Odell – Mr. Odell claims confidence in the SEC process and also claims that his community has “learned to live with” the turbines in Lempster on Lempster Mountain.  We’d dispute Mr. Odell’s assessment of wind as being something people must get used to, also there’s no doubt that a difference exists between 12 wind turbines on a hill top and residents being surrounded with as many as 75 wind turbines in all directions.

Tell Mr. ODell that industry will come after the moratorium and that the democratic process for the approval of wind and energy projects is broken and needs serious fixing.  In addition, let Mr. ODell know that tourists don’t have to “live with” wind turbines — they can just choose to go somewhere else on vacation and those considering home purchases will consider other areas.

Call your senators now!  If the Senator cannot be reached, talk to their secretary as also, see if you can get their cell number.   Ask their aid where they stand on the issue.

Also, for further information you can talk directly to the sponsors of the original SB 99:

Senator Jeannie Forrester : Her office aid Liz in Senator Forrester’s Concord office is very knowledgeable and helpful as well.  Senator Forrester comes from the Newfound Lake region and represents land owners and businesses that thrive and prosper on the pristine environment of the western highlands and Newfound Lake region.

Senator Jeff Woodburn: A man represents the largest district in New Hampshire encompassing Coos County and more communities than any other senator, Sen. Woodburn has been out in front in the battle against Northern Pass and joins the effort against the onslaught of the wind industry as well.

Tagged , , , , , ,
Mar 25 2013
1 Comment
Economics, Labor and Worker Justice, legal, NH Politics, Protecting our Environment

Corporate Prison Leaders Tell the Truth About Themselves

prison factory

From our friend Arnie over at Inzane Times, weighing in on the ugly truth about the corporate prison system and their efforts to get our Congress and state legislators to sell off justice:

Corporate Prison Leaders Tell the Truth about Themselves

March 17, 2013 by aalpert

FORM 10-K IS A TREASURE TROVE OF INFORMATION

Maggie Hassan made it pretty clear during her successful campaign for governor that she has no interest in turning over control of New Hampshire’s prisons to for-profit corporations.  The majority of Executive Councilors elected in November feel the same.  While the State is still formally reviewing proposals from four private companies to build and operate its prisons, the chance that a contract for prison operation would be drawn up in the next two years is about as close to zero as it can get.  So why have at least two of the companies (CCA and MTC) bothered to invest in lobbying services to defeat HB 443, a bill which would ban private prisons in New Hampshire?

Read more on: Corporate Prison Leaders Tell the Truth About Themselves directly from the source.

For more on the privatization of public services: check this excellent article at truthout.org : Five Poisons of Privatization

thanks to the folks over at the Privatization Blog

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 25 2013
2 Comments
NH Politics, Protecting our Environment

Jeb Bradley Hikes With Eyes Closed

jeb bradley stampAn email we received from the kind folks at Bury Northern Pass reference the moratorium bill, SB-99.   Apparently the well known, avid hiker of the White Mountains, Jeb Bradley has decided that as long as he doesn’t have to live with giant high tension power lines in his backyard and he closes his eyes while hiking, he won’t have to see the results of his handiwork.  Hey as long as you can notch off another peak and claim yourself a member of the 4,000 footer club, who cares if transmission lines spoil the mountain experience?

Because of course, getting the support of PSNH, NSTAR and Hydro-Quebec, three of the large corporate utility companies frothing at their mouths at the potential profit for Northern Pass, is more important than representing the poor little people of your state, amirite?  According to the folks at DownWithTyranny, rubber stamping corporate agendas at the behest of the people’s interests and just generally being a corporate whore is nothing new to ‘ole Jeb.

SOMETHING’S ROTTEN IN CONCORD – A TRILOGY
 
POLITICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SINKS TO A NEW LOW! – PART ONE
 
by 
 
The Alliance against Northern Pass

CRONYISM REARS ITS UGLY HEAD –This past Wednesday, March 20th at the State House in Concord, honest, transparent  governance, what New Hampshire used to be famous for, took a back seat to cronyism.  Jeb Bradley, a member of the Senate Energy Committee considering Senate Bill 99 slipped a decidedly underhanded maneuver past the public and his fellow senators on the Committee using questionable, disrespectful parliamentary procedures.   In doing so, Bradley ignored the wishes of tens of thousands of Granite State citizens who wanted SB 99 passed in order to implement a one year moratorium to slow down the current breakneck pace of approving huge elective energy projects like Northern Pass and the proliferation of gigantic wind turbine fields.  The moratorium, if passed, was designed to give our state’s regulators the time and resources needed to properly vet these projects.  Our state needs to be sure that ALL optional energy projects, not needed to keep the lights on, truly provide a net benefit to New Hampshire’s businesses and residents, not just the energy companies’ stockholders, before they are given a green light by the state’s regulators.

WHAT’S AT STAKE? –It’s our state government’s obligation to make sure that the unblemished character of our state, especially north of Concord, so critical to our tourism based economy, is protected from an unsightly proliferation of wind turbines, power towers and cables that, once erected, will wreak havoc with the reasons why tens of millions of people come to visit our lakes, hills, rivers, mountains, and forests every year.  Tourism and its many components make up our state’s largest single industry.  Why mess up the beds we sleep in by destroying the magical nature of our surroundings that stimulate people to come here year after year after year?  The notion of messing up our landscapes with projects like Northern Pass for no net benefit to our state is tantamount to sheer, utter lunacy.
THE “FIX” WAS IN –One purpose of this news release is to make as many people in New Hampshire as possible, aware of how certain politicians in Concord are doing business, but this article is also meant to reach the Committee that heard Senate Bill 99 this past Wednesday.  Another objective is to call attention to the actions of one individual on that Committee, Senator Jeb Bradley, who was the person primarily responsible for the shameful performance that went on in Room 103 under the guise of being a so-called Committee Hearing.  Apologies in advance to the rest of the SB 99 Committee members who were hopefully not complicit in the pre-planned deceit and subterfuge that was inflicted on those members of the public who drove many miles, perhaps hundreds of miles in some cases, to attend a hearing where there was no intention by Bradley from the outset to pay any attention to what the voters had to say because “the FIX” was in before the meeting ever started.

(Part Two of the Three Part Trilogy Coming Soon)

FOOTNOTE – The title to this trilogy, SOMETHING’S ROTTEN IN CONCORD, is a phrase lifted from Shakespeare’s, “Hamlet” in which Marcellus says, “Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark.” In modern days, the phrase has come to mean “things are unsatisfactory; there is something fundamentally wrong.”

ALLIANCE AGAINST NORTHERN PASS
C/O POST OFFICE BOX 1732
CAMPTON, NH 03223
603-759-2510, Phone; 603-726-4897, Fax
CONTACT: Thomas N.T. Mullen, tntmullen@owlsnestgolf.com

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 24 2013
1 Comment
NH Politics, Protecting our Environment

Top Ten Myths of Wind Power Generation

Iberdrola turbines on Tenney Mountain, NH

Iberdrola turbines on Tenney Mountain, NH

From the very interesting and informative site, Stop Ill Wind, we put up here for your perusal the well researched and thorough answer to the wind industry’s claims about their wind power plants.  In order to ensure that people will take the time to look through these, we have copied them here and linked each myth.  This took a lot of time, but we feel it was worth the effort; the wind industry, like all industrial giants with making a buck in mind, have lobbyists and marketing professionals working for them full time, for good pay.  A few hours assembling this for public information seems the least one should do.

It should be noted that although the writing focuses on wind turbine development efforts on the Northern eastern region from Maryland to Virginia and out to the mid-Atlantic regions, the similarities to the attack in New Hampshire cannot be ignored such as:

1. That the wind industry targets in-land areas with high ridge tops that are primarily low income and poorly developed economically.

2.  That the wind industry depends on such government incentives as double depreciation allowances, tax credits and lopsided lease contracts with private land owners which shelter them from liability and also guarantee an immediate profit even if actual output is marginal long term.

3.  That communities are promised income benefits, increased tourism and other glowing incentives which rarely materalize or are greatly exaggerated.

4.  That the number of jobs created, like long transmission line projects produce over the long-term only a couple low-wage, subsistence level maintenance jobs, that almost all skilled labor is imported to meet machinery warranties and that all jobs (besides the one or two maintenance personnel) last only on average about six months.

5.  That estimates and results of attitudes of potential buyers in areas affected to threatened with wind turbines decreases, causing damage to areas that all too often depend on their mountain top or ocean viewsheds for tourism and real estate dollars for local income.

6.  That the environmental destruction wrought by the construction and placement of wind turbines, with their attendant easements and buildings interrupts natural habitats, causing serious damage if not death to delicate ecosystems and wildlife.

7.  That wind turbines have a history of interrupting the flow of bird migration, especially pronounced when placed on ridgelines.  That bat populations are decimated by wind turbines — so much that among ornithologists and others, serious concern about resulting species destruction exists.

8.  That wind turbines have a history of creating noise, light and other nuisances, to the point where most turbine companies will put waivers in place in contracts with owners to avoid possible lawsuits regarding disruption to persons living near wind plants, within a number of miles.

There is more, please read on.  The claims are similar if not exactly what residents and especially legislators have been told about wind power.  It is important that people in all parts of New Hampshire become aware.  Wind power is not green, will not reduce CO2 emissions nor can the wind industry provide support for its insinuated claim (they don’t even make the claim directly because they know its false) that wind energy does something to save us from the threat of climate change.

So without further ado:

Myth #1: Industrial Wind Developers are Interested Only in Providing a Public Service

Myth #2: Wind Plants are Harmless to Wildlife

Myth #3: Windplants Will Reduce the Mining/Burning of Fossil Fuels and Lessen Dependence of Foreign Oil

Myth #4: Windplants are Highly Efficient and Provide Power for Significant Numbers of Homes

Myth #5: Locals Who Oppose the Wind Industry are NIMBY’s

Myth #6: Windplants Will Generate Significant Tax Revenue and Increase Property Values

Myth #7: The Wind Industry Will Create Many Local Jobs

Myth #8: Wind Technology is Noiseless and Creates Few Disturbances

Myth #9: Wind Technology Consists of “Wind Mills” on “Wind Farms”

Myth #10: Those Who Are Concerned About Wind Power are Not True Environmentalists

Tagged , , ,
Mar 24 2013
Leave a comment
Economics, NH Politics, Protecting our Environment

Worthy of a Repeat

Although from March 15, this editorial by Nancy Martland deserves repeating in the “My Turn” section of the Concord Monitor deserves repeating in light of the controversy surrounding wind energy proposals in the western highlands of New Hampshire.

“My Turn: Let’s make state energy policy fair”

By NANCY MARTLAND
For the Monitor
Friday, March 15, 2013

A March 11 Monitor editorial, “Planning New Hampshire’s energy future,” stated:
“Above all, lawmakers would be foolhardy to grant cities and towns veto power
over state approval of wind farms and transmission lines.”

Really? Most people I talk to at first refuse to believe me and then are shocked
and outraged to learn that towns have no decision-making role in the state
energy regulatory process. Or that a Site Evaluation Committee permit preempts
all local ordinances and regulations.

The very idea that a state agency can permit a project over towns’ objections
while excluding them from participation in the decision goes outside what most
people understand as democracy.

It would be one thing if the process were perceived to be fair, but many argue
that the rules and process currently in place are stacked in favor of big
corporations and that the present system is fundamentally unjust. Why? Because
towns have no decision-making role and opposition therefore involves legal
action. Who is best suited to wage legal warfare, small towns with limited
budgets or big corporations who have fleets of lawyers at their command? The
term “railroaded” is especially apt, since the doctrine of preemption originated
with 19th-century railroad barons who did not want to deal with localities while
acquiring land.

Surely the Monitor is not in favor of big corporations riding roughshod over
local communities that seek to protect themselves from damaging energy projects.
Surely some formula which allows affected towns a role in the decision-making
process is only fair. Surely the Monitor does not suggest that simply because a
project is proposed, it should be allowed to proceed even if the process is
unfair and a remedy is available.

Which is more important: a streamlined regulatory process or a fair shake for
everyone?

Incidentally, the state of New York “changed the rules with the game under way”
by removing eminent domain when New York Regional Interconnect, a proposed HVDC
line similar to Northern Pass, was on the table. The project was withdrawn,
since it could not complete its route with taking land forcibly. Guess what?
Champlain Hudson Power Express was proposed soon thereafter. Anybody who thinks
Hydro Quebec will let a little thing like a rules change stop it from selling
the United States its power needs to pay more attention. It’s amazing how
adaptable businesses can be when there’s a lucrative product to bring to market.

(Nancy Martland lives in Sugar Hill.)

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 14 2013
7 Comments
NH Politics

Grafton Voters Speak – No Wind Farms and No to Free Staters

angus signThe Free Staters no doubt are running for the proverbial Tylenol as they suffer their after-party hangover. Voters in Grafton sent a clear message to the Free Staters that their anti-government anarchism is not welcome or wanted.  As reported on Wednesday, March 13th (yesterday) in the Valley News, voters in the town of Grafton roundly rejected the Free Stater attempt to take over their town by slashing their budget by 13%.

At the town deliberative session the spending cuts passed by only one vote (33-32).  Those who watch the Free Staters and their antics may recall how the Free State Project adherents did everything short of dance in the streets and declare their colonization of New Hampshire near complete over this vote.  Of course the natives took note and took up their ballot pens in defense of the town and culture they have built.

In other votes the town voted down the Wild Meadow Wind Farm proposed by Iberdrola, a wind turbine company out of Spain.  Although this won’t stop the process of wind turbine approval, which is far more complex (involving the SEC), the town’s voters used the ballot box to express their lack of support for turbines on their highly prized ridgelines. The vote tallied 160 for the wind turbines against 366 opposed.  This vote also sent a message that the town of Grafton questions the SEC approval process as it stands at this time.

Please see the full article in the Valley News for complete story.  Grafton: Free Stater Bid to Slash Budget Rejected; Wind Farm Fails.

For more information on the Wild Meadow Wind Farm proposal and its argument against the value of wind power generation in New Hampshire.  We encourage all people to study wind energy generation, its return for energy consumed, the negligible to zero effect on reducing greenhouse gas production and most importantly and the environmental costs that result from the infrastructure development required for wind turbine placement.

Iberdrola Wild Meadow Wind Farm Industry Summary as presented to the town of Danbury, 10/2012

Tagged , , , , ,
Mar 06 2013
Leave a comment
NH Politics, Protecting our Environment, Public Health

Western New Hampshire Mountain and Lakes Region Still Under Threat

In voting that wasn’t a surprise to most people involved closely in the issue of encroaching wind power and transmission line projects, the NH House Science, Energy and Technology Committee voted to retain most of the bills related to those projects.

Garnering the most controversy and attention lately was House Bill 580 that would have stopped all power infrastructure construction in the state immediately upon passage.  Representative Rappaport requested an “ought to pass” on the bill with vocal support from Representative Khan, Representative Bradley and Representative Vadney.  While Representative Babar spoke of reservations about the wording of the bill, but the most vocal resistance to the moratorium idea came from Representative Nicholas Levasseur.  Levasseur seemed to speak a straight industry line, saying that the moratorium will “send a bad message” to businesses that New Hampshire is “fickle” in their support of business decisions.

Representatives Bradley, Khan and Vadney spoke in favor of the bill.  While some said that they felt that retaining the bill for study over the summer will give the legislators time to consider the issue of wind power more carefully, many reps disagreed.  Rep. Vadney said that  prime New Hampshire areas, such as the Newfound Lake region are currently threatened with pending turbine construction that without a moratorium, could in fact come online very soon.  He said that he has his doubts that without the moratorium there would be any way to stop such activity, “I worry it will be too late before we come up with an energy policy if we retain, important sites are under threat now.”

Rep. Bradley also weighed in on the issue, speaking from his military background saying that one thing he learned was the value of deadlines and also the value of delay, that when in doubt oftentimes a delay is the best option to avoid mistakes.

Representative Nicholas Levasseur made the final weigh-in, responding that the RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) mandate may not be met, that business will lose interest in investing in the state and that the SEC process will assure that delicate regions will not suffer damage or destruction.

All bills relating to the electrical power infrastructure in the state were referred to retention which means that the bills will remain within the committee for study.  There was discussion of setting up a sub-committee to take on the task of doing more research on the issues that the bills bring up and formulating more substantial bills or one bill to handle these contentious issues.

The following is a summary of the bills and some of the discussion that went before related to electrical infrastructure development, specifically wind power and transmission lines.  The respective votes up or down are listed as well.  Each bill is linked for further information:

HB 166 – “An act requiring the public utilities commission to make specific findings as to the public need for proposed transmission lines.”   Motion to retain – passed unanimous

HB 449 – “…requires the site evaluation committee to consider economic impact and findings and recommendations from local planning boards or governing bodies prior to issuing a certificate for an energy facility.”   Motion to retain – passed with Rep. Bradley voting no

HB 484 – “requiring public approval prior to issuance of certain site evaluation certificates…” Motion to retain – passed with Rep. Bradley and Rep. Calli-Pitts voting no

HB 568 – “requiring new elective transmission lines in New Hampshire to be buried.“  Rep. Rappaport moved for “ought to pass”, Reps Khan, Murotake and Bradley voted yes.  Rep. Nicholas Levasseur, Rep. Vadney and Rep. Pasteur urged a no-pass saying the issue needed more study.  Motion for passage defeated.

Rep. Townsend made motion to retain the bill – passed with no votes from Rep Khan and Bradley

HB 569 – “requires that all electric transmission lines in the state of New Hampshire be placed within state transportation rights-of-way to the extent possible.” Motion to retain – passed, Reps Bradley, Khan, Murotake and Reilly voted against.

HB 580 – “establishes moratoriums on the construction of wind turbine plants and on electric transmission line projects until the state issues a comprehensive energy plan.”

Motion to retain by Backus who said, “I believe that issues that underlie this bill merit consideration and retention.”  Reilly, the author of the bill said he supports retention to avoid a possible loss on the whole floor.  Vote was taken, motion to retain passed with the following voting against retention: Rep. Khan, Rep. Rappaport, Rep. Vadney, Rep. Bradley.  Rep. Babar made the general statement, “citizen input is important” possibly in reference to wanting to hear more from his constituents on the issue.  Rep. Richard Levasseur wanted to know if the reference to power lines in the moratorium included Northern Pass or if it just referred to power lines related to the wind turbines.

HB 586 – “establishes a one-year moratorium on new and pending applications for certificates for electric transmission facilities.”   Motion to retain – Rep. Khan, Bradley, Borden and Vadney voted against, motion passed.

At this point the committee will be in session tomorrow to discuss options such as setting up a sub-committee to work the bills.  This is the time to call your representative in your area, to discuss the importance of preserving the western highlands of New Hampshire and the White Mountain region.  The link below will get you to your representative.  Also important is to talk to members of the committee that are on the fence on this issue and let them know how that you cannot destroy the environment in order to save it.

NH General Court – Who Is My Representative?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Jan 20 2013
Leave a comment
NH Politics, Protecting our Environment

“Say No to Wind Turbines” — and Yes to Global Warming I suppose?

Although this as published in June, it still is prescient.  Currently there exists a small contingency of folks in the Western part of New Hampshire protesting wind farm proposals.  Already some windmills can be seen from far and wide in that area, perched as they are on the tops of mountains in the area, such as ones on Tenney Mountain.But, as unsavory and violating that the wind-farms may be on the mountain tops, the protests must provide alternative areas/locations for the development of alternative and renewable energy.  Otherwise, the campaign simply amounts to a gimme for the oil, gas, hydro and nuclear industries that wish to stall any development or support for any renewable energy projects.

In that vein and while doing research on this topic, we stumbled across this very cogently written opinion by Bradley Dibble, MD from his blog Comprehending the Climate Crisis.

Enjoy.

Posted on June 18, 2012

If I were to propose a new product for the marketplace to be used for human consumption, it would need to be rigourously assessed to confirm its safety first. If I described my new product as having the following properties, what do you think would be its chances of getting approved?

—it’s addictive, not just habit-forming
—it’s known to cause or aggravate the following health conditions: heart disease, oral cancer, lung cancer, esophageal cancer, bladder cancer, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, asthma, and low birth weights in children
—all of these occur when the product is used exactly as intended, not just when abused in excess. In addition, non-users who are exposed to it secondarily are also at increased risk for these same diseases

It’s no secret I’m describing cigarettes. Simply put, cigarettes have no redeeming features. My patients who smoke describe that it relaxes them, but that’s misleading. What they’re truly experiencing is going through nicotine withdrawal when they feel that relaxing effect, essentially getting their next “fix.” Nicotine is a stimulant, not a sedative. Anyone who’s addicted to a substance suffers when they go without it too long.

It’s fair to say that if cigarettes were introduced today, they’d never stand a chance of being approved for public use. But since they’ve been around for centuries, we’re stuck with them for now. There’s a certain degree of regulation (e.g. kids aren’t supposed to smoke them), but despite the jobs associated with the tobacco industry and the taxes generated from the sale of cigarettes, none of that will ever compensate for the costs to society in health care alone with so much death and disease that they cause. New products introduced into society are forced to prove their safety before they’re approved, even though other products out there are clearly unhealthy for us.

We face something similar with wind turbines. This weekend my family and I drove to Priceville, Ontario to get our new puppy. (You don’t know where Priceville is, you say? Well, it’s just on the other side of Flesherton!) On the way driving through Grey County, I was amazed at the number of signs protesting wind turbines. Most farms we drove by had signs on their properties urging people to “Say No to Wind Turbines.” They often had other comments too like “Foul Wind” and “Say Yes to Turbines, Say No to Visitors.” They all listed a website at the bottom of the signs for Wind Concerns Ontario.

I checked out the website when I got home. It’s amazing to see how many references they have listing how bad wind turbines are for society. I wanted to check some of the information out and given that I have some expertise in health care as a physician, I clicked on the health tab on the website’s home page to see what was listed there.

There were a number of categories for health concerns listed including noise, mental health, stress, and sleep disturbance. I checked out the first six links I could click on that were meant to elaborate on these topics and was surprised to see that none of them worked. They all had “Error 404 – page not found” errors. The next two links worked but both went to the same slide show and without the words of the speaker to go along with the slides, it didn’t provide much useful information.

The next ten references were to articles in a peer-reviewed journal, the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society (August 2011 31 issue). In fact, every one of them referenced this particular issue. As someone well-versed in science, I can tell you that having some variety in scientific references is a much more robust way to support an argument rather than having everything coming from one particular issue of one particular publication. But I guess they have to get their sources where they can and this particular journal does it for them. (According to the webpage, it seems the current issue is from December 2011. I don’t know if that means they’re on hiatus or only publish intermittently. I’d never heard of this journal before so I’m not sure.)

There may well be some health concerns with wind turbines, and I appreciate that further study will be helpful to elaborate those further. But can they really argue that the health concerns from using fossil fuels aren’t a problem? (Later this week I’ll have a blog post dedicated to this very topic, so stay tuned.)

Even if we ignored global warming and the future climate crisis we’re destined to experience if we continue with business-as-usual, do they not realize that smog, pollution, acid rain, and ozone depletion create havoc with our environment and our health? Many of the diseases caused or aggravated by these problems are cardiovascular so as a cardiologist, perhaps I’m more sensitive to the issue than other physicians might be.

The health concerns about wind turbines are on par with the health concerns about any new product being introduced into the market today. They’re like a new pharmaceutical agent that could prevent heart attacks and strokes. But if that new agent leads to an increase in liver cancer, for example—even a small one—it might not make it to market. It’s often a forest-for-the-trees situation.

I started out this post by describing how cigarettes would never be approved for use if introduced into society today, but because they’ve been around for centuries, they’ve gotten away with it. Fossil fuels are like cigarettes in our society. Long-entrenched, they’ve been in use for hundreds of years. So despite the known health concerns with fossil fuels, they’re too much a part of our civilization to do away with very easily.

I guarantee you if both wind energy and fossil fuels were being introduced today, wind energy would win out over fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have the advantage of having been introduced long before regulations would ever explore their risks, or anyone ever expressed safety concerns associated with them. And now it’s too late to do so, and yet safer options like wind turbines will have a lot of people protesting against them.

These protestors simply can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s a fact those who argue against wind energy conveniently forget.

Tagged , ,
Dec 28 2012
2 Comments
NH Politics

Happiness is a Warm Gun

John Burt - Happiness is a Warm Gun.docx

Rep. Burt demonstrating why its important to carry guns at the state house.

In a gallant show of concern for over-run PC-style sympathies at the state capital, House Representative John Burt (R, Goffstown) states that flying the state house flag  at half-mast in respect of the children lost in the Newtown CT tragedy is another example of the politically correct (otherwise known as sensitive, caring and considerate) folks have gone too far this time.

As Susan the Bruce points out quite clearly, Burt knows how and when to show sympathy and concern for children by voting against extending mental health care services for children and voting against the anti-bullying law as well.

Good show Burt!  Burt explains that he’s concerned  too and thinks its time to arm teachers with guns. Total genius we say, because killing kids has shown to be such a good solution in the past, why not turn schools into an all-out war zone?  Teachers have got a bad rap in our society that’s for sure and as recent history tells us there’s no better solution for frustration than a warm gun.

In fact, as William Tucker of Miscellany Blue tells us Burt also recently announced that he believes laws are made for breakin’ and that’s just what he’ll do, as in carrying his weaponry where ever he pleases, whether forbid by law or not.  Because well, nothing should ever get between Burt’s itchy trigger finger and a short shaft, not even public safety or common sense.

We encourage everyone to let Burt know what they think of a legislator empowered with making laws , disrespecting the laws already written.  Here’s his contact information as posted on the NH state representative’s roster:

Representative John Burt,
7 Bay Street, Goffstown NH 03045-2634
Phone: (603)-624-5084
Email: john.burt@leg.state.nh.us

Mr. Burt apparently has a website of his own, but you’ll have to look that up yourself, we aren’t into promoting stupid up here in these parts.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Dec 13 2012
Leave a comment
NH Politics, Protecting our Environment, Public Health

Clueless Chambers of Commerce in Nashua and Manchester Don’t Support Their Communities or People

powerlines in hondurass reported below by a writer to of a letter to the editor, the Chambers of Commerce of the two largest cities in New Hampshire have come out in support of Northern Pass.  Even though its commonly known that not one town or city in New Hampshire will benefit from the raping of the White Mountains, clueless lackeys to the power companies vote their own interests above those of the community.

Manchester and Nashua CofC endorsements: Wave as the power goes by your cities
December 5, 2012
Nashua Telegraph
Chambers criticized over Northern Pass
 Letter to the Editor
Two southern New Hampshire chambers of commerce have endorsed the proposed Northern Pass project, disregarding the protests of their fellow residents to the north, where the project would be most visible and have enormous environmental and economic consequences.
The Manchester and Nashua chambers have endorsed Northern Pass because they are enthusiastic about lower electricity rates for businesses, and green and renewable electricity. They, unfortunately, listened to Public Service of New Hampshire’s marketing claims, which are pure fantasy.
Any cost benefit from Northern Pass only would go to ratepayers outside New Hampshire that get their power from the regional electric markets. In New Hampshire, PSNH customers would see little benefit because their energy rates are tied to propping up PSNH’s inefficient coal- and oil-fired power plants.
Is Northern Pass green, renewable energy? Northern Pass electricity would be provided primarily from industrial hydro-electricity in northern Quebec. No environmental agency inside or outside of New Hampshire endorses large hydro as green or renewable.
The purported 1,200 jobs PSNH promised? That claim was debunked in a report by the New England Power Generators Association.
So why have these two chambers been so willing to throw the residents and businesses of the North Country under the bus by endorsing a project that disproportionately would harm the north so that those in the southern tier would reap these bogus benefits?
Could it have anything to do with how many PSNH top executives sit on their boards?
Julie Moran

 

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →