Hacker News Reader

Comment by renewiltord | Hacker News Reader

One of the best things to come out of destroying environmentalism is that we can finally get working on renewable energy instead of being blocked by suicidal environmentalists who find wind farms too ugly.

View on HN

I think you're confusing environmentalists with NIMBYs who use (among others) environmental arguments to argue against projects they don't like.

Scratch an environmentalist and a NIMBY bleeds. I think we’ve seen the effect in America in general and California in particular. The Sierra Club is against infill housing to protect views.

Environmentalists have been pushing wind, solar, etc. for the last half century. There are a few shortsighted people who oppose wind farms but they represent a large, complex multinational movement in the same way that any one of us represents the tech industry, which is to say not at all.

In many cases, if you look at the complainants it’s also reasonable to question whether they’re fully honest about their motivations. For example, the big Martha’s Vineyard project was backed by the biggest environmental group in the area but by the opposition were people like commercial fishermen and various rich cranks like RFK Jr. and the Kochs who thought the change in view would affect their property values but do not otherwise live lives full of obvious strong environmentalist views.

Environmentalists push renewables the way homelessness activists push housing: It’s a great idea if it is near no one, hurts no one’s views, impacts zero birds, affects zero animals, and is not built for profit by the rich.

I suppose I could use their terminology, though: responsibly sited, balancing conservation priorities, and protecting local communities.

I recall, in my college years, being told how Real Communism hadn’t been tried yet. It seems that Real Communism never did get tried and no matter who tries Communism they never try the good Real variety. After years of watching top environmental organizations repeatedly oppose nuclear power as a whole and renewables often, I think I have to say: Real Environmentalism Hasn’t Been Tried Yet. No True Environmentalist Would Do What These Guys Do.

I am an „environmentalist“ and I’m in full and public Sport of the hundreds of windmills in clear view of my town and the solar on every new residential development, including my own house. As are all other „environmentalists“ I know.

I’m comfortable restricting my position to the US. Things may be different elsewhere, even in Canada.

If you’re going to make that kind of sweeping claim representing many different people and groups, I’m going to need to see some data. What you’re describing sounds more like the mechanism I described, where rich people use the language of environmentalism to make their NIMBY activities sound less venal but that’s saying that those specific people are hypocrites rather than a general commentary on the entire field.

What evidence would convince you? If I know the bar, I can see if it can be met.

Anything specific? You started with this claim that environmentalists are blocking wind farms for aesthetic reasons, where are some example projects and who’s blocking them? I gave one (Martha’s vineyard) but in that case the major environmental groups backed it while the opposition was either not in the field (e.g. commercial fishermen) or rich people using environmental language but pretty transparently arguing based on real estate values or politics, so my first question would be how large the overall environmental movement is and how representative these people are within it. If, say, you have Greenpeace pro and RFK Jr. and the Kochs con, it’s hard to say that environmentalists as a whole oppose it.

Have you ever lived near wind turbines?

They take quite a toll on both wild life and people living in the area.

And are often abandoned as soon as they don't generate enough profits/are too expensive to maintain, with no one wanting to pay for cleaning up the area.

    > They take quite a toll on ... people living in the area.

How?

Honestly, it's the sound. If you live close enough, it will drive you insane.

A buddy of mine has two on his property, one within a stones’ throw of his house and barns. Not only does the sound not drive him insane, I couldn’t hear it (at all), nor any of the other ~600 in the area.

It depends a lot on geography and (obviously) winds in the area.

I can assure you that it's very real, and very harmful on a daily basis.

How close were you? I’ve been on a campus with a wind turbine, don’t recall any sound. But I didn’t get directly under the thing.

I used to live down the hill from 1, and 99% of the time could hear nothing. But on a lucky day when the wind was in the right direction and right strength, you could just hear a faint woosh woosh woosh.

Personally I liked the sound. But we only had 1, so maybe different with many more. Though never heard the wind farms I've stopped by.

Wind, and moving shadows when the sun is behind them.

I find both annoying to live with daily.

And it's not like its a problem that couldn't be solved; I like the idea of wind turbines, just not at any cost.

No, it won’t. This myth was started in the 2000s by Nina Pierpont who was looking for reasons to oppose wind farms near her property but it’s been studied repeatedly and there’s no credible evidence of any significant impact. Roads are at least as noisy, and have other forms of pollution, but I’ve never seen the same people call for banning cars.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04645-x

Right, so people who claim to have this experience are lying, for no good reason.

While people who have a lot to gain from hiding problems with wind turbines are telling the truth.

Isn't that always how it works?

All of the people advancing those claims also think they have a lot to gain, too. Those claims are hard to evaluate because humans are famously subjective and prone to misattribution, which is why we invented the scientific method. Every high-quality investigation has been unable to find support for them.

This is why many people don't trust "The Science". It's the positivist materialist institutionalist gaslighting. If the conflicted institution hasn't published the opinion or the measurements then it doesn't exist. Don't believe your lying eyes or ears. If you notice somethingnot published, you are automatically wrong. All whistleblowers must be discredited.

Isn't this a tactic of con artists & cult members who have much to gain from public perception & policy?

So what are the sources for people driven insane by it?

(I have no opinion, but find it mildly suspicious given that I happen to sometimes drive through Germany, and the country seems to be currently less insane than, say, US)

> If the conflicted institution hasn't published the opinion or the measurements then it doesn't exist. Don't believe your lying eyes or ears. If you notice somethingnot published, you are automatically wrong. All whistleblowers must be discredited.

It’s striking how many wrong things are packed into that paragraph. Science isn’t trustworthy because of the institution, but because it challenges its theories and anyone can review and repeat it. In contrast, the claims being made here started from someone’s belief that they have a financial benefit to not having windmills nearby and work backwards to construct a supporting narrative.

> If the conflicted institution hasn't published the opinion or the measurements then it doesn't exist.

More accurately, we’re asking for those measurements so anyone else can review them. We’re asking for the methodology so anyone else can review or replicate it. Emotional reactions like yours tend to be a great sign that someone has a strong interest in a particular outcome and humans are notoriously bad at critically evaluating things they want to be true. Scientists are no different, which is why they put so much effort into looking for ways to test their work.

A great similar example are the “electromagnetic hypersensitive” people who claim to have all kinds of health problems caused by wifi or cellular signals. They’ll claim that they’re not being taken seriously because they’re starting backwards from the position that their health issues are caused by EMF and anyone who disagrees is “suppressing” them. The problem isn’t “lying eyes and ears” — their headaches or sleep problems are real - but that they have made a wrong explanation part of their self-identity and are unwilling to reconsider that. Repeated double-blind studies have shown that these people can’t identify EMF at better than chance, and that they’ll report health issues caused by EMF which never existed, and that’s a tragedy because there is a real cause they’d likely be able to find if they were willing to give up on that theory. Many of the wind power opponents are arguing in bad faith trying to make their aesthetic tastes sound scientific but I’m certain that some of these people have real, non-psychosomatic medical issues which are not caused by turbines but could be localized if they put their effort into broader investigations.

>Don't believe your lying eyes or ears.

This as a sarcastic rallying cry of conspiracy theorists has always amused me.

You ARE aware of visual and auditory illusions right? Or the various ways your brain outright lies to you in order to save a few calories worth of thinking?

How much of your vision is real? Do you know? Can you prove it?

I moved to a house that has the main road on my side. I do not wish it to anyone. I cannot stand noise, and I hear cars 24/7, ambulance at least 10 times a day if not more, and they turn on the siren even at 3 am when there is no traffic because of some specific laws.

I also got a cat (against my will, but gotta take care of her) who wakes me up around 4:30-06:00. :|

I cannot stand the noise pollution. It makes me want to live by the countryside even more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com