Maui wind farm -- you should see it from the water. Spectacular!
by James A. Bacon
The Floyd County board of supervisors is considering a ban on structures taller than 40 feet on mountain ridges, an action that would kill any chance of building a wind farm in the Southwest Virginia county. The proposal is bound to be controversial in the sparsely populated jurisdiction — and it raises prickly questions on how to reconcile multiple environmental and property-rights goals.
Two companies have discussed building wind farms on Willis Ridge. Wayne Booth, a cattle farmer whose land provides breathtaking views of the mountain line, has collected more than 600 signatures from local residents opposing the placement of turbines on the ridge, reports the Roanoke Times.
Floyd County is a solid part of “red state” America, voting 59% for John McCain and 39% for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Conservative political values rule — yet those values provide no clear guidance regarding the ban. Red State America believes in economic development, and building the wind farm would represent a potential economic boon. Moreover, many farmers, timber owners and small property owners also tend to think that what a man does with his property is his own business. On the other hand, one could advance the argument that wind farms are driven by tax breaks and other federal subsidies, making them illegitimate in the minds of small-government fiscal conservatives.
Conventional blue state values offer little guidance either. The justification for subsidizing wind power is to decrease the use of fossil fuels in electrical generation that create pollution and contribute to global warming. But conservationists tend to favor preserving the natural beauty of mountain ridge lines from real estate development on the grounds of aesthetics — and windmills are as visually intrusive than vacation houses. Even more worrisome, windmills, dubbed the “cuisinarts of the air,” kill hundreds of thousands of bats and birds each year, including many threatened species. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field report stated that nearly 500 bird carcasses were discovered in a mere two-week span at the Laurel Mountain wind farm in West Virginia, writes Kenneth Artz for the Heartland Institute.
How do you trade off potential gains for global warming versus unsightly aesthetics and the slaughter of birds? Which is more compelling — job creation or opposition to the government picking winners and losers through subsidies and tax breaks?
Personally, I don’t find the “aesthetics” argument very persuasive. I remember a seeing a view of wind turbines on a mountain crest of the island of Maui that was simply breathtaking. Windmills are no more intrinsically ugly than any other man-made structure. Moreover, my “right” to a pleasant view is hardly a bedrock constitutional one. Where does that right stop? If I have a right not to view wind turbines on a ridge line, do I have a right not to see a subdivision built upon farmland in my view shed? Do I have a right to veto, on aesthetic grounds, your decision to paint your house in Hokie blue and orange? Can I compel you to take down the hideous pink flamingos in your yard? No! If you want to protect your “view shed,” I suggest that you persuade the land owner to put the land into a property easement or, failing that, raise the money to buy the property yourself.
That’s an argument in favor of allowing the wind turbines. Now let me provide an argument against them. Our national energy policy is a disaster. We are spending tens of billions of dollars trying to promote wind, solar and other alternate energy sources, most of which are grotesquely uneconomical. It is foolhardy to subsidize the current generation of alternate energy sources, which will lock in expensive electric rates that both harm energy-intensive industries, thus costing jobs, and punish lower-income families whose incomes aren’t keeping up with rising costs as it is. Instead of subsidizing projects with inadequate technology, the U.S. government should invest in research on the next generation of energy technology. Subsidizing projects destroys wealth. Underwriting research creates wealth.
Taking all factors into consideration, I would oppose the wind turbines at the present time. Given the evolution of technology, it could take a decade or more before wind turbines can compete on a level playing field. Then I would tell the people of Floyd County, if you want to protect your views, raise money to buy the view-shed rights to your neighbor’s property. You’d be wise to start fund raising right away.
By Peter Galuszka
