Wind Power Neg

Caiello/Schirmer Wind Power ~ Neg Arx Axiom Debate Society 1/29
Windpower ~ Neg
Strat Notes..................................................................................................................................................3
Weighing....................................................................................................................................................4
It's all about the birds...................................................................................................................4
The Negative Impacts Outweigh the benefits of towers – the plan is ineffective ......................4
Benefits are outstripped by the huge negative impacts................................................................4
Wind Fails: Cost.........................................................................................................................................5
Increasing Wind energy is expensive ..........................................................................................5
Wind energy is 2.5 times more expensive than other forms of energy........................................5
Turn: Wind power hurts poor people by massively increasing energy costs...............................5
Wind programs do not create jobs...............................................................................................5
Wind Fails: Can't Generate Enough...........................................................................................................6
Transmission problems outweigh the permanence of the production tax credit .........................6
Wind can’t provide enough energy..............................................................................................6
Fails: Breakdowns.....................................................................................................................................7
3. No solvency- wind speed.........................................................................................................7
No solvency, there’s a laundry list of problems that break wind turbines aff can't solve............7
Wind power doesn’t work, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia,
Japan, and Ireland all prove.........................................................................................................8
Wind Fails: Unpredictable.........................................................................................................................9
Wind power fails-it is unreliable .................................................................................................9
Wind unreliability leads to fossil fuel backup generators and doesn’t solve cost issues ............9
Wind Fails: Federal Legislation Blocks...................................................................................................10
Federal legislation will prevent wind projects ..........................................................................10
Federal Legislation Blocks Wind: Migratory Bird Treaty Act...................................................10
Federal Legislation Blocks Wind: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act................................11
Federal Legislation Blocks Wind: Endangered Species Act......................................................12
Citizen suits will block windfarm development .......................................................................12
Increases in wind power increase bird deaths: could styme wind altogether............................13
Wind Bad: Hurts Tourism........................................................................................................................14
TURN: WIND FARMS HURT LOCAL TOURISM AND WILL CRUSH LOCAL
ECONOMIES............................................................................................................................14
WIND POWER HURTS LOCAL TOURISM AND ECONOMIES.........................................14
Wind Bad: Noise Pollution......................................................................................................................15
Wind turbines negatively affect childrens’ health......................................................................15
Wind Bad: Erosion / Hurts Farmers / Hurts Environment.......................................................................16
Wind programs have to cut down trees and destroy the environment up to 60 acres per turbine
– this turns case..........................................................................................................................16
WIND POWER WILL CAUSE SOIL EROSION.....................................................................16
WIND POWER PROJECTS WILL BE SITED NEAR FARMS AND AGRICULTURAL
AREAS......................................................................................................................................17
WIND POWER WOULD ALTER SOIL DISTRIBUTION AND CRUSH FARMS................17
Wind Bad: Fish.........................................................................................................................................18
WIND FARMS CAUSE LANDSLIDES THAT KILL Fish......................................................18
1. Wind turbine facilities kill trout.............................................................................................18

Wind Bad: Global Warming.....................................................................................................................19
Wind doesn’t solve fossil fuel usage .........................................................................................19
Wind intermittance means backup electricity still emits CO2...................................................19
Wind turbines increase global warming....................................................................................19
Wind increases greenhouse gas emissions and can’t keep up with the increase in demand .....19
Wind Bad: Kills Birds / Bats....................................................................................................................20
Wind hurts the environment and kills birds ..............................................................................20
Avian deaths creates uncertainty and could subject wind to environmental protection laws . .20
Wind power in Pennsylvania and West Virginia could kill 50,000 bats a year..........................21
Wind Turbines kill bats which are key to crops and stopping disease spread...........................21
Bats are key to the environment and ecosystem........................................................................21
The more Turbines results in more bat deaths – the result is enormous ...................................21
Turbines kill Thousands of bats ................................................................................................22
Bats are ignored in new wind-energy projects...........................................................................22
Bats are key to environment, corn, cotton, and disease spread..................................................22
Bats are a keystone species .......................................................................................................23
Bat’s food is in open fields where turbines are .........................................................................23
WIND POWER MASSACRES HUGE NUMBERS OF PREDATORY BIRDS.....................24
WIND TURBINES KILL PREDATORY BIRDS ....................................................................24
DAMAGED PREDATORY BIRD POPULATIONS ALLOWS RODENT POPULATIONS TO
EXPLODE, THREATENING BUBONIC PLAGUE EPIDEMIC............................................25
Wind Farms harm birds, bats, and other wildlife, destroying habitats......................................25
Bats death by wind power will threaten the name of green technology ..................................26
Wind Bad: Property Values......................................................................................................................27
Wind power decreases property values .....................................................................................27
Residential and resource barriers prevent solvency ..................................................................27
Windpower degrades national property values..........................................................................27
WIND POWER DECREASES PROPERTY VALUES.............................................................28
WIND FARMS REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES – IT’S EMPIRICALLY PROVEN............28
Wind Bad: Radar......................................................................................................................................29
Wind turbines disturb radar stations and radio signals..............................................................29
Hurting radar stations and radio signals, Wind turbines destroy US readiness ........................29
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3961
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed111908b.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed051109c.cfm
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/18447/Wind_Turbines_Kill_Raptors_Lead_to_Rat_Infestati
ons.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba467/
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment
%20climate/article/15553/Windmills_Ruining_Scenic_Views_Producing_Killing_Fields.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9271353/Renewables-Core-Mdi-2008
Strat Notes
I think this brief should be pretty self explanatory: Wind power is bad. :~) Seriously though if you come
across anyone running wind power or extolling the virtues of wind there are several especially good
ways to refute it. Your best friend is Europe. Basically they're a good bit farther down the path of
socialism than the US on everything from the environment, to health care. Sooo, all that to say that
Europe has been experimenting with alternate energies like wind and solar waaay more than the US
has. There have been a significant amount of wind turbines built in Europe, and there's a reason that
the Europe hasn't been spreading the word across the globe that wind power is the answer to energy
needs. Wind has basically been an epic fail in the countries that have tired it and there's no reason to
believe it'd be different here. Here's the run down of the problems with wind.
 Unreliable: basically if the wind isn't blowing, no energy gets made

 Unreliable x2: if the wind is blowing too hard, the wind turbine has to be shut down or else it
will be destroyed
 Double Bind: Wind power fails when the wind is blowing and when it's not blowing
 Breakdowns: Europe has had huge headaches with their wind turbines breaking down
 Expensive: Quite simply, when we do the math $+$ = more $. (Wind is an expesive way to
generate power. Which hurts poor people, the economy, ect.
 Impractical: There's currently no effective way to get the electricity from rural wind farms to
the urban power grids where it's needed.
 Deadly: Wind turbines kill tooooons of birds and bats. This is bad because a bunch of the birds
it kills are endangered predatory birds like falcons and eagles. These are protected under the
Endangered Species Act, and many international treaties. Until wind finds a solution to bird
deaths, it's stuck. (I have a card in weighing that says the bird issue will make or break wind.)
 Loud: People just don't like living next to noisy wind turbines
 Ugly: There are lots of environmentalist kicking up a racket over the fact that hundred foot high
wind towers ruin scenic ridge lines and land
 Property Values Plummet: As a result of the noise and eyesore, property values drop when wind
turbines are built.
 Eco Damage: Building wind farms is very environmentally damaging and causes lots of
deforestation and harmful erosion
 Disrupt Radar: Basically the big wind turbines cause all sorts of problems for nearby radar
Basically all in all, wind doesn't have the potential to meet our power needs, and at the same time is a
harmful, ineffective way to generate electricity.
~ Tim ~
Weighing
It's all about the birds
McKinsey 2007 [John Arnold, attorney at Stoel Rives LLP, practices siting and development law for
the energy industry, former nuclear power plant operator on US Navy submarines, Energy Law
Journal, 28 Energy L. J. 71, REGULATING AVIAN IMPACTS UNDER THE MIGRATORY BIRD
TREATY ACT AND OTHER LAWS: THE WIND INDUSTRY COLLIDES WITH ONE OF ITS OWN,
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MOVEMENT, lexis]
One particularly interesting problem emerging in the wind industry, however, involves a long-time
friend of the industry and a long-known issue. Wind energy, like most forms of renewable energy, has
long been promoted as being environmentally friendly. To some extent, that is one reason for the push toward renewable energy
- the reduced environmental footprint of renewable energy. n4 Thus, many protectors of the environment, long concerned over the effects of excess
combustion of fossil fuels in generating electricity, promoted, if not championed, renewable energy in general and, in particular, wind energy. Wind energy
is valued in part for its "green" character. It has no direct emissions of air contaminants or green house gasses, and involves almost no recognizable
environmental harm in its installation and operation. That is, except for birds. Avian impacts, originally mostly ignored by many in the
development of wind energy, have become a significantly more visible issue for many wind projects. In part, this is due to wind energy's success. As wind
energy's role in the United States electricity industry has grown, so too has notice of avian impacts.
Birds and bats, of course, collide
with wind turbine blades as they rotate in the sky. Such impacts, often referred to as "avian mortality,"
would normally be evaluated and managed like many other undesired environmental side-effects. Avian impacts present an awkward issue for the
environmental protectors that promoted wind energy. The historical origins of the wind energy industry, combined with several complicating federal laws -
have created a growing issue with no resolution in sight. How well
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in particular -
the wind industry deals with avian impacts may determine the ability of the industry to continue
its amazing success.
The Negative Impacts Outweigh the benefits of towers – the plan is ineffective
Rosenbloom ’06 (Eric; Science editor and writer in Vermont; September 2006; A Probolem with
Wind Power; http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html ) (DS)
All of these negative aspects will only become worse if even a small part of the industry's plans for
hundreds of thousands of towers becomes reality. At every level, however, the negative impacts
must of course be weighed against the benefits. It is wise to diversify the sources of our energy. But
the money and legislative effort invested in large-scale wind generation could be spent much more
effectively to achieve the goal of reducing our use of fossil and nuclear fuels.
Benefits are outstripped by the huge negative impacts

On a small scale, where a turbine directly supplies the users and the fluctuating production can be
stored, wind can contribute to a home, school, factory, office building, or even small village's
electricity. But this simply does not work on a large scale to supply the grid. Even the small benefits
claimed by their promoters are far outstripped by the huge negative impacts.
Wind Fails: Cost
Increasing Wind energy is expensive

Buisness Week ’08 (Steve Hamm; WIND. THE POWER. THE PROMISE. THE BUSINESS.; A
partial answer to America's energy crisis is springing up. But the struggle to harness the winds of
Kansas shows the difficulty in building an industry that threatens the status quo; July 7, 2008;
Lexis) (DS)
Such a transformation won't come easily. While much of America's wind energy is in the Midwest,
demand for electricity is on the coasts. And the electrical grid, designed decades ago, can't move
large quantities of electricity thousands of miles. There's plenty of wind off the coasts, but it's both
expensive to harness and controversial; not-in-my-backyard sentiment has slowed some of the most
high-profile projects
Wind energy is 2.5 times more expensive than other forms of energy
Jamieson ’08 (Bill; The Scotsman; Don't insult us with call for a national debate on wind farms;
June 27, 2008; Lexis) (DS)
If the government is to meet its renewables target, then the amount of electricity to be generated by
wind farms will have to increase more than twenty-fold. The Royal Academy of Engineering has
calculated that wind energy is two and a half times more expensive than other forms of electricity
generation in the UK.
Turn: Wind power hurts poor people by massively increasing energy costs
Schleede in ‘03 (Glenn, Schleede is semi-retired after spending more than 30 years on energy matters
in the federal government and private sector. He now spends part of his time on self-financed analysis
and writing, “The Problem with Wind Farms in West Virginia,” pg. online @
http://www.friendsofthealleghenyfront.org/Wind%20Energy%20Economicsin%20West%20Virginia
%20020403.pdf // )
Particularly from an electric customer point of view, the RPS approach is the most insidious of the
alternatives for a number of reasons, including the fact that it protects high cost renewable electricity
producers from competition and forces electric customers to pay higher costs. Higher electricity costs
are a special problem for low-income people who must pay a larger share of their income for
electricity.
Wind programs do not create jobs

Despite the energy industry's claim that wind farms create jobs ("revitalize struggling rural
communities," says Enxco), the fact is that, after the few months of construction -- much of it
handled by imported labor from the turbine company -- a typical large wind facility requires
just one maintenance worker. Of the 200 workers involved in construction of the 89-turbine
Top of Iowa facility, only 20 were local; seven permanent jobs were created. The average
nationwide is 1-2 jobs per 20 MW installed capacity.
Wind Fails: Can't Generate Enough
Transmission problems outweigh the permanence of the production tax credit

Shoock 2007 [Corey Stephen, JD Candidate, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 12
Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 1011, WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL
RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,
lexis]
The news for the wind industry is not all good. Despite recent [*1037] gains, long-term growth is still
questionable. n207 For one, the current production tax credit is again scheduled to expire (this time on
December 31, 2008), n208 but a tougher obstacle remains - wind power's greatest potential lies in
relatively geographically remote regions. n209 Therefore, issues involving transmission costs
threaten to put the brakes on the industry's growth. n210 The national power grid, as it stands, is not
conducive to carrying massive amounts of current, for example, from the wind-rich prairies of the
Dakotas to larger population centers near the Great Lakes or the Pacific Northwest. n211 As wind
energy production reaches the maximum competitive utility transmission cost, supply-side policies will
drive consumption and investment potential upward into a veritable glass ceiling. n212
Wind can’t provide enough energy

Weronko 2008 [Bill Weronko is a retired Naval Officer and National Security Specialist. Since retiring
from the Navy he has worked as a turn around specialist in a variety of manufacturing and
management positions. April 15, Energy 2008: The Coming Economic Meltdown,
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/15/energy-2008-the-coming-economic-meltdown/]
Wind power has been much promoted by the Environmentalists. However, wind is not a constant,
requires large areas for construction and is only practical in certain locations. Other forms of electrical
generation are required to supplement wind power. It is doubtful that acceptance of wind generation will persist if sea and entire
landscapes are covered with wind generators. At best wind power will fill a small percentage of electrical needs.
Experience in countries such as the Denmark– where 16% of the country’s total electricity needs come
from wind — has shown that fluctuations of the wind put the electrical grid under enormous strain. In
certain periods there can be as much as 30% power available differences. High winds can provide excess
power, followed by insufficient generation capacity and a grid incapable of bringing new power online
fast enough to respond to wind speed shifts.
Fails: Breakdowns
3. No solvency- wind speed

Eric Rosenbloom is a science editor and writer living in Vermont. AWEO.org, last updates May 12
2008, “A problem with wind power”, http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html, AL
And a problem about sites with good steady strong winds is that they are too windy. The turbines
can't handle strong gusts and automatically shut down (typically around 55 mph). So "good" sites
turn out to be very little more productive than less windy ones.
No solvency, there’s a laundry list of problems that break wind turbines that the aff ca’nt solve
for, Wales, Spain, Germany, France, Denmark, Japan, New Zealand, Scotland and the US prove.
A 1995 study in Germany estimated that 80% of insurance claims paid for wind turbine damage
were caused by lightning. Lightning destroys many towers by causing the blade coatings to peel
off, rendering them useless. If the blades keep spinning, the imbalance can bring down the whole
tower. The towers are subject to metal fatigue, and the resin blades are easily damaged even by
wind. In Wales, Spain, Germany, France (Dec. 22, 2004; click here), Denmark (Jan. 20, 2005),
Japan (Feb. 24, 2005), New Zealand (Mar. 10, 2005), and Scotland (Apr. 7, 2005; click here),
parts and whole blades have torn off because of high winds, malfunction, and fire, flying as far
as 8 kilometers and through the window of a home in one case. Whole towers have collapsed in
Germany (as recently as 2002) and the U.S. (e.g., in Oklahoma, May 6, 2005)
No solvency, there’s a laundry list of problems that break wind turbines aff can't solve
In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of
dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the
average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly
has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%. Eon Netz, the grid manager for about
a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting large numbers of wind turbines
[click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly, requiring additional reserves of
"conventional" capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of cold and heat correspond to periods
of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind power; wind power needs a corresponding
expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind
power makes the grid more unstable.
Wind power doesn’t work, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia,
Japan, and Ireland all prove
Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the
Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has
scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in
Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however,
the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in
2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed
in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The
Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount
of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason,
Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005,
they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind
power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies
and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that
utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004,
Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced
German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.
Wind Fails: Unpredictable
Wind power fails-it is unreliable

Santiago Times 2008 [April 17, SOLAR THERMAL POWER: TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL SAVE
HUMANITY, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/2008041613456/news/feature-news/solar-
thermal-power.html]
This electricity must meet a number of important criteria. It must be affordable: New electricity generation should cost at most
about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, a price that would probably beat nuclear power and would certainly beat coal with carbon capture and storage, if the latter
even proves practical on a large scale. The
electricity cannot be intermittent and hard to store, as is energy from
wind power and solar photovoltaics. We need power that either stays constant day and night or, even
better, matches electricity demand, which typically rises in the morning, peaks in the late afternoon,
and lasts late into the evening.
Wind unreliability leads to fossil fuel backup generators and doesn’t solve cost issues
Hibshman 2007 [Jonathan, JD Candidate, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Fall, 12 Drake J.
Agric. L. 475, NOTE: UTILIZING WIND POWER TO OFFSET AGRIBUSINESS UTILITY COSTS,
lexis]
Another cost of wind energy, one that critics often cite, is reliability. n133 Admittedly, both wind and
solar power suffer from being reliant on nature to provide the inputs for energy output. Because it is
impossible to guarantee that wind will always be sufficient to produce electricity, utilities purchasing
wind power are compelled to maintain back-up generators which often utilize fossil-fuels, thus
diminishing some of the environmental benefits associated with renewable energy sources. n134 The
bottom line is that not only do these costs create a barrier to entry into energy markets by small energy
producers, they also create problems for utilities who must charge higher prices for the electricity they
sell their customers. n135
Wind Fails: Federal Legislation Blocks

Federal legislation will prevent wind projects
Dinnell and Russ 2007 [Adam, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts
Branch, Environmental Torts Section and Adam, Associate (Labor and Employment Litigation,
Construction Litigation, and General Litigation), Northwestern Journal of International Law &
Business, Spring, 27 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 535, SYMPOSIUM ON INTERNATIONAL ENERGY
LAW: ARTICLE: The Legal Hurdles to Developing Wind Power as an Alternative Energy Source in the
United States: Creative and Comparative Solutions]
As illustrated by the Cape Wind project, federal statutes provide a means to challenge proposed wind
power development projects. Several pieces of U.S. environmental legislation appear likely to affect the
emergence of wind power energy by providing restrictions on the location and manner of potential
wind farms. n147 A plaintiff may invoke one or more of these statutes in an effort to control how or where wind
power facilities will be built, maintained, and regulated. These statutes generally contain strict
procedural requirements; failure to follow any of their requirements may doom a potential wind power
development. n148 The key statutes include the following. 1.
Federal Legislation Blocks Wind: Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (the "MBTA") implements four [*556]
international treaties that the U.S. government has entered into with other countries to protect birds that
migrate across U.S. airspace. n149 The Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") of the Department of the Interior administers the provisions of
the MBTA. Invoking strict liability, the MBTA makes it unlawful: To pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for
sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver
for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any
migratory bird [protected under the four treaties]. n150 By its terms, the MBTA only applies to migratory bird species that are "native to the United States
Because strict liability attaches for any killing of a migratory bird under the MBTA,
or its territories." n151
wind power developers must carefully examine the presence of migratory birds near their chosen
project location. In fact, section 707 of the MBTA provides that: Any person, association,
partnership, or corporation who shall violate any provisions of said conventions or of this subchapter,
or who shall violate or fail to comply with any regulation made pursuant to this subchapter shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $ 15,000 or be imprisoned not more than six
months, or both. Thus, the MBTA creates a sizable economic disincentive to creating a wind power
project that leads to the death of migratory birds.
Federal Legislation Blocks Wind: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Like the MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
("BGEPA") may affect the location of wind power projects in the United States due to their potential
effect on certain birds. The BGEPA prohibits the taking of any bald eagle or any golden eagle, alive or
dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, and imposes both civil and criminal penalties. n154 A taking
includes any wounding or killing of the protected eagles. n155 In particular, a taking will result in a
civil fine of not more than $ 5,000. n156 Each taking constitutes a separate violation of the Act. n157 One must note, however, that
anyone accused of violating the BGEPA must be given notice of, and an opportunity for a hearing, with respect to each such violation before a fine may be
assessed. n158 The Secretary of the Fish & Wildlife Service may consider the "gravity of the violation, and the demonstrated good faith of the person
charged," in determining the amount of the [*558] penalty. n159 In fact, "for good cause shown, the Secretary may remit or mitigate any such penalty."
n160 Therefore, while there is no guarantee that a wind turbine project that takes protected eagles will result in a monetary penalty, the potentially steep
The BGEPA already has
civil fines may dissuade developers from choosing locations where bald or golden eagles may be affected.
resulted in at least one notable effect on U.S. wind power development. The Center for Biological
Diversity ("CBD") invoked the BGEPA in a 2004 complaint against a number of companies operating
wind turbines as part of California's Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. n161 The plaintiffs argued that the turbines
caused a taking of many birds, including bald and golden eagles, and that the taking amounted to a violation of the public trust doctrine and an unlawful
business practice under California law. n162 Although the Alameda Superior Court initially allowed the case to proceed based on this novel pleading, the
Court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 12, 2006. n163 CBD announced that it would consider appealing the
decision. n164 Despite the unfavorable ruling, Alameda County supervisors earlier that month had "approved a six-month, $ 600,000 plan to investigate
and monitor effects of the Altamont windmills on avian mortality." n165 While its complaint did not ultimately prevail, the CBD succeeded in calling
attention to how wind turbines affect birds - especially bald and golden eagles. Thus, one can expect a proliferation of scientific studies on the effects of
wind turbines on all birds and bats, including the fiercely protected bald and golden eagles, as wind power projects become more widespread.
Federal Legislation Blocks Wind: Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (the "ESA"), perhaps the most famous and influential environmental law in the
United States, affects wind power development in much the same manner as the MBTA. n167 The ESA
seeks to ensure that all federal departments and agencies utilize their authorities to conserve
endangered and threatened species, as well as their ecosystems. n168 The Fish & Wildlife Service of the Department of the
Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce administer the law. n169 In addition, the ESA
commands all other federal agencies to comply with its provisions, even where such protection
conflicts with the agency's primary responsibility. The ESA also requires that the Secretary cooperate to
the maximum extent practicable with the states, and affords financial incentives to the states for doing
so. n171 The ESA targets species designated as "endangered" or "threatened" due to one of five designated factors: "(1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence." n172 Importantly, the ESA allows the Secretary to concurrently designate any
habitat of an endangered or threatened species as a "critical habitat." n173 The statute affords the Secretary wide discretion in designating critical habitat, requiring that it be done
"to the maximum extent prudent." n174 "A designation of critical habitat is not prudent [whenever] ... [*560] (1) the species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species, or (2) such designation would not be beneficial to the species." n175
Particularly relevant to the development of wind power, section 9 of the ESA makes it illegal to "take
any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States." n176 Under the
ESA, "the term "take' includes to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." n177 Therefore, any activity related to the
construction or maintenance of wind turbines could expose an individual or entity to liability where it
results in the harming, wounding, or killing of a protected species. While liability would be expressly
limited to instances involving certain species expressly designated under the ESA, any wind turbines
located within the habitat of such species would be affected. Thus, the ESA would limit the number of
locations suitable for wind turbine projects.
Citizen suits will block windfarm development

The Cape Wind project illustrates how plaintiffs may utilize federal statutes in order to permanently
halt, or at least delay, the permitting and construction phases of a wind power development project. n137
Although unsuccessful in its quest to permanently stop the Cape Wind project thus far, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has successfully delayed
the project at every step of the way. The Alliance has been able to transform its aesthetic concerns over the potential loss of the Horseshoe Shoal's physical
beauty into a legal hurdle for Cape Wind.
They have done this by using environmental laws that include specific
procedural requirements to invoke judicial review before Cape Wind may be permitted to undertake its
proposed wind power development. n138 Viewed in this light, the struggles faced by the Alliance to date may provide property owners
potentially affected by future developments hope, albeit for a different outcome.
Increases in wind power increase bird deaths: could styme wind altogether
One particularly interesting problem emerging in the wind industry, however, involves a long-time
friend of the industry and a long-known issue. Wind energy, like most forms of renewable energy, has
long been promoted as being environmentally friendly. To some extent, that is one reason for the push toward renewable energy
- the reduced environmental footprint of renewable energy. n4 Thus, many protectors of the environment, long concerned over the effects of excess
combustion of fossil fuels in generating electricity, promoted, if not championed, renewable energy in general and, in particular, wind energy. Wind energy
is valued in part for its "green" character. It has no direct emissions of air contaminants or green house gasses, and involves almost no recognizable
That is, except for birds. Avian impacts, originally mostly ignored
environmental harm in its installation and operation.
by many in the development of wind energy, have become a significantly more visible issue for many
wind projects. In part, this is due to wind energy's success. As wind energy's role in the United States
electricity industry has grown, so too has notice of avian impacts. Birds and bats, of course, collide
with wind turbine blades as they rotate in the sky. Such impacts, often referred to as "avian mortality,"
would normally be evaluated and managed like many other undesired environmental side-effects. Avian
impacts present an awkward issue for the environmental protectors that promoted wind energy. The
historical origins of the wind energy industry, combined with several complicating federal laws - the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in particular - have created a growing issue with no resolution in
sight. How well the wind industry deals with avian impacts may determine the ability of the
industry to continue its amazing success.
Wind Bad: Hurts Tourism
TURN: WIND FARMS HURT LOCAL TOURISM AND WILL CRUSH LOCAL ECONOMIES
%20020403.pdf // )
Adverse impact on tourism, recreation, second home and retirement home opportunities. Concerns
about adverse impacts on tourism have also emerged as an important issue.37 Data presented by West
Virginia resident John Cooper38 indicates that the greatest contribution to increased economic growth in
Grant County’s next door neighbor, Tucker County, during the past few years has been due to tourism
and more than doubling of condominiums and second homes. The availability of land in the Grant and
Tucker County areas and the scenic attractiveness of the area are often advertised in the Washington,
DC, market. Increased jobs relating to tourism, residential construction, services for visitors and new
part and full-time residents – those working and those retiring to West Virginia -- would almost
certainly exceed the permanent jobs associated with “wind farms.” Data are not readily available to
make estimates of increased property tax revenues resulting from added residential and business
property to serve tourists and part and full-time residents. However, revenues from those sources may
exceed the minimal increases in tax revenues associated with the increased tax revenue associated with
the proposed 300 MW “wind farm.” Residential property and business property for serving tourists and
new residents do not receive the extremely generous property tax breaks provided for wind energy
facilities.
WIND POWER HURTS LOCAL TOURISM AND ECONOMIES
http://www.friendsofthealleghenyfront.org/SchleedeSummary.htm // )
The counties surrounding existing and planned wind farms represent some of West Virginia’s most
important tourism areas. Tourism in those communities has contributed significantly to economic
development and the creation of local jobs. West Virginia’s scenic beauty, which will be marred by the
intrusion of 300-ft turbines on tops of the mountains, has been central to successful tourism marketing
campaigns. In addition, tourism and recreational opportunities have led to the development of
numerous second homes in these communities for both weekend visitors and those who retire to the
area. The number of jobs provided by tourism, recreation, home construction and visitor services
outnumber those which could be provided by the wind farms. In addition, these industries do not strip
the local tax base and provide additional tax dollars to the local economy through visitors and new,
permanent residents.
Wind Bad: Noise Pollution
Wind turbines negatively affect childrens’ health

WHO NO Date World Health Organization, WHO Guidelines for Community Noise,
http://www.ruidos.org/Noise/WHO_Noise_guidelines_4.html
The World Health Organization has found that sound levels during nighttime and late evening hours
should be less than 30 dBA during sleeping periods to protect children's health. They noted that a
child's autonomous nervous system is 10 to 15 dB more sensitive to noise than adults. Even for adults,
health effects are first noted in some studies when the Lmax sound levels exceed 32 dBA, 10-20 dBA
lower than the levels needed to cause awakening. The WHO researchers found that sound levels of 50
dBA or more strongly disrupted hormone secretion cycles. For sounds that contain a strong low
frequency component, which is typical of wind turbines, WHO says that the limits may need to be even
lower than 30 dBA to not put people at risk.
Wind Bad: Erosion / Hurts Farmers / Hurts Environment

Wind programs have to cut down trees and destroy the environment up to 60 acres per turbine –
this turns case
The destructive impact that such construction would have, for example, on a wild mountain top,
is obvious. Erosion, disruption of water flow, and destruction of wild habitat and plant life
would continue with the presence of access roads, power lines, transformers, and the tower
sites themselves. For better wind efficiency, each tower requires trees to be cleared. Vegetation
would be kept down with herbicides, further poisoning the soil and water. Each tower should
be at least 5-10 times the rotor diameter from neighboring towers and trees for optimal
performance. For a tower with 35-meter rotors, that is 1,200-2,400 feet, a quarter to a half of a
mile. A site on a forested ridge would require clearing 45-90 acres per tower to operate
optimally (although only 4-6 acres of clearance per tower, the towers spaced every 500-1,000
feet, is typical, making them almost useless when the wind is not a perfect crosswind). The
Danish grid operator Eltra has found that a turbine can decrease the production of another
turbine 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) away. The proposed 45-square-mile facility on the Scottish island
of Lewis represents 50 acres for each megawatt of rated capacity. FPL Energy says it requires 40
acres per installed megawatt, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says 60 acres is
likely. Facilities worldwide generally use 30-70 acres per megawatt, i.e., about 120-280 acres for
every megawatt of likely average output (25% capacity factor)\
WIND POWER WILL CAUSE SOIL EROSION

NATIONAL WIND ENERGY COORDINATING COMMITTEE IN ‘97
(The Wind Energy Series is a product of the National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC). The
NWCC is a collaborative endeavor that includes representatives from electric utilities and support
organizations, state legislatures, state utility commissions, consumer advocacy offices, wind equipment
suppliers and developers, green power marketers, environmental organizations, and state and federal
agencies, “Wind Energy Environmental Issues,” January 1997 No. 2,
http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/wes/wes02.htm // )
Some wind power development has led to soil erosion. Observers at Tehachapi Pass in California, for
example, have noted deep gullies created by the force of rain sweeping off access roads and around
wind turbine foundations. This sort of problem can be avoided through appropriate attention to soil
conservation and erosion control measures early in the design of the project; the same degree of care, in
fact, that should be applied to any construction project in an area vulnerable to erosion. Measures to
prevent erosion include building only the minimum number of roads, following natural terrain contours
as much as possible, and restoring as quickly as possible any land that is disturbed by construction.
WIND POWER PROJECTS WILL BE SITED NEAR FARMS AND AGRICULTURAL AREAS
Whether the visual impact of wind turbines generates complaints depends partly on the setting in which
they are located. In agricultural areas of the Midwest, developers have encountered relatively few
problems in winning community acceptance of wind projects. This makes sense, considering that
windmills were a common sight on American farms until the mid-20th century. It helps, too, that
agricultural landowners often directly benefit from wind projects through land rents and fees paid by
plant owners.
WIND POWER WOULD ALTER SOIL DISTRIBUTION AND CRUSH FARMS

SOON AND BALLIUNAS IN ‘04 (Willie, Marshall Inst. & sr. scientist, Marshall Inst and Sallie,
Astrophysicist, George Marshall Institute Senior Scientist ,“Would Wind Farms Hurt Food Farms?,”
pg online @ http://www.techcentralstation.com/111104D.html // )
A new simulation finds serious and previously unrecognized environmental threats from massive wind
farms in the American Great Plains.
A recent study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research by scientists from Princeton and Duke
Universities indicates massive wind farms would significantly increase local surface drying and soil
heating, which in turn would impact agricultural or range use on or near the wind farm.
Wind Bad: Fish
WIND FARMS CAUSE LANDSLIDES THAT KILL Fish

Scottish Government “Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments: Best Practice Guide for
Proposed Electricity Generation Developments,” Scottish Government Publications, December
2006, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/12/21162303/1 (DS)
Peat landslides are a characteristic landscape response in peat uplands to intense rainfall events. Failures initiate by
sliding and may degenerate into peaty flows of debris before becoming incorporated in stream channels as peaty debris
floods. The importance of understanding peat landslide mechanisms and the potential for their
occurrence has increased as pressure for renewable energy technologies and development sites
in peatlands has increased. Wind farms, applications for which are often concentrated in
upland and peat covered areas, are seen by many as the means by which carbon emissions and the
UK's reliance on fossil and nuclear fuels might be reduced. However, the high environmental
value afforded to peat uplands requires that the benefits of wind farm developments are
evaluated against their potential negative consequences for local peat areas and their often
diverse and unique habitats. Just as wind farms and their associated infrastructure may be affected by or cause peat landslides, other
infrastructure such as road networks, flood defences, drainage, power lines, residential areas and farmland may also be affected. Terrestrial habitats in
the path of a peat landslide may be damaged by ground displacement and by burial by debris, and
aquatic habitats damaged by
impingement of landslide debris on watercourses. In addition, the displacement and break-up
of peaty debris after a landslide event will ultimately result in small scale depletion of the
terrestrial carbon store.
1. Wind turbine facilities kill trout

Dodds and Dodds Jr. No Date Given (Pamela C, Ph.D and Arthur W.; HUGE WINDMILL
"PLANTS" FAIL AS "GREEN ENERGY" AND FAIL TO PROVIDE ANY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT
OF ELECTRICITY,;http://www.laurelmountainpreservationassociation.org/laurel_mountain_ (DS)
In the Appalachian mountains extending through West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, and
Pennsylvania, extensive areas are cleared for wind turbine placement. As more mountain ridges are
cleared, the negative impacts become cumulative. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
determined in its report, "WIND POWER: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for
Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife", at the request of Representative Mollohan and
Representative Rahall, that "no one is considering the impacts of wind power on a regional or
'ecosystem' scale" and that state and local officials have no guidelines for considering the negative
environmental impacts caused by wind turbine facilities" (www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf).
This equates to cumulative impacts on a watershed, such as the Potomac River watershed which extends from headwaters in
the mountains of Virginia and West Virginia to the Chesapeake Bay. The watershed headwaters are so important because
they create habitats where the food chain begins. The overhead trees intercept rainfall so that it
gently penetrates the ground as groundwater rather than flowing overland as runoff or being
captured as storm drainage directed into streams. Increased storm drainage results in habitat
destruction within streams and the consequent death of aquatic organisms, including trout.
Additional threats to trout occur because of decreased groundwater recharge: groundwater accumulates calcium
ions where it flows through limestone or shale. Trout require the calcium ion in water to flow over their gills for proper digestion. Where the calcium
the pH is too low, the trout die. It is essential for the calcium ions
ion is not present in adequate quantities, or where
and the correct pH to be present in streams where there are naturally reproducing trout.
Wind Bad: Global Warming

Wind doesn’t solve fossil fuel usage
Cotter 2007 [Christopher, J.D. Candidate, University of Dayton Law Review, Spring, COMMENT:
WIND POWER AND THE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD: AN OHIO ANALYSIS, lexis]
Studies of European wind farms indicate that an increase in the capacity of wind power to the
electricity grid does not reduce the same amount of capacity of other CO2-emitting energy sources.
n192 For instance, the United Kingdom maintains 59,000 MW of conventional energy capacity along
with 500 MW of wind power capacity. n193 However, if 7,000 MW of wind energy capacity is added
to the grid, 55,000 MW of conventional capacity is still needed. n194 Thus, the assertion that "every
kilowatt- hour generated by wind is a kilowatt-hour not generated by a dirty fuel" is "overly simplistic"
for large wind turbines designed to supply energy to the electricity grid. n195
Wind intermittance means backup electricity still emits CO2

Although a full explanation of electricity generation and the electricity grid is beyond the scope of this
article, a brief description of this problem is provided here. n196 When wind power is added to the
grid, conventional energy resources must remain in operation. n197 While wind energy is in generation
(providing electricity to the grid because the wind is blowing), conventional energy sources must
remain on spinning standby to be ready to switch back to generation when the wind suddenly stops
blowing. n198 . n199 Thus, even though wind energy itself is CO2-free, conventional energy sources
do not stop emitting CO2 while wind power is in operation. n200 Therefore, the actual fossil fuel
savings from wind energy are not proportional to the amount of wind energy being produced. N201
Wind turbines increase global warming

AWEO.org, last updates May 12 2008, “A problem with wind power”,
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html, AL
Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country
used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power
Most cannot simply be turned on and off
plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity.
as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would
actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas).
So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus
and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.
Wind increases greenhouse gas emissions and can’t keep up with the increase in demand
AWEO.org, last updates May 12 2008, “A problem with wind power”,
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html, AL
Installation of wind towers cannot hope to keep up with the continuing increase of energy use.
Denmark's annual production from wind turbines increased 28 petajoules (PJ, 1 PJ ≈ 278,000
MW-h) from 1990 to 1998, but total energy consumption increased 115 PJ. The International Energy
Agency reports that from 1990 to 2002, Denmark's annual production from wind turbines rose 3,689 GW-h, but total electricity production rose 12,730
Danish government's National Environmental Research Institute reported that in 2003
GW-h. The
greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.3% over 2002 levels.
Wind Bad: Kills Birds / Bats

Wind hurts the environment and kills birds
Carleyolsen 2006 [Sanya, researches energy policy and economic development. She is working toward
a Ph.D. in Public Policy from UNC in the Center for Sustainable Energy, Environment, and Economic
Development, holds an M.S. in Urban and Regional Planning and a Graduate Certificate in Energy
Analysis and Policy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Natural Resources Journal, Summer,
46 Nat. Resources J. 759, Tangled in the Wires: An Assessment of the Existing U.S. Renewable Energy
Legal Framework, lexis]
There is no single energy source that does not inflict some kind of harm on the environment; both solar
and wind energy equipment pollute in some ways. Solar energy panels are made of a series of photovoltaic (PV) cells that are
grouped together and connected in arrays. n146 The PV cells themselves are made of copper sulfide, cadmium sulfide, or polycrystallen silicon; n147 other
materials that are used to make [*789] solar panels include silicon, gallium arsenide, and cadmium sulfide. n148 While silicon is not toxic, gallium
arsenide is possibly carcinogenic and cadmium sulfide is highly toxic. n149 While the mining and refining of these materials create small amounts of
emissions, current technology and federal regulations effectively control these emission levels. n150 A number of environmental land use issues also
accompany centralized RE systems. For instance, PV panels are often installed in desert regions where the sun shines brightly for long hours each day. In
such regions, solar panel installation may damage fragile ecosystems, clear vegetation, compact soil, or affect water runoff patterns. n151 According to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, all major federal projects that strongly affect "the quality of the human environment" must provide an
Environmental Impact Statement. n152 Both
centralized wind energy systems and centralized solar energy systems
could be classified as "major" projects with notable effects on the environment. n153 Wind energy
systems may also affect natural environments by disturbing wildlife and vegetation. For instance, some
opponents contend that wind turbines kill an extraordinary number of birds. While wind energy
engineers and developers make concerted efforts to track migratory flight patterns of birds in order to dispel these
notions, this issue remains controversial in many cases around the country.
Avian deaths creates uncertainty and could subject wind to environmental protection laws
The uncertainty brought on by unknown avian impacts, unknown possible consequences to the ability
of the project to operate, and unknown mitigation costs can reach all these categories of uncertainty in a
wind energy project and can be an unbearable burden on project financing. Avian impacts thus present
several distinct challenges to wind energy developers, all related to assessing and [*89] managing
avian and bat impacts: for instance pre-project permitting uncertainty and post-operation risk of
reduced operation, shutdown, or fines for avian impacts. The uncertainty brought on by reliance on
selective enforcement of the MBTA is perhaps the most difficult risk to precisely assess. For the time being,
resolution of MBTA issues is a fine balancing act, capable of being upset by perhaps just one catastrophic case where a wind energy facility is forced to
grapple with take under the MBTA. n84 One can look towards a sister industry, the general electrical utility industry and its history of impact issue and
The lack of clear standards
enforcement regarding power line interaction, for an example of the vulnerability of an industry to MBTA attacks.
in the assessment of avian impacts not only has created some of the wind energy opposition or concern
but is also a source of uncertainty. Unclear standards for assessing impacts make it more questionable
that a project will receive a permit and also raise questions regarding how well that permit will sustain
a legal challenge. That uncertainty must also be overcome. Fortunately, the passage of time frequently alleviates these sources of uncertainty.
Once a statute of limitations on a legal challenge has passed, uncertainty regarding the legitimacy of the studies and impact assessment can become moot.
Delays, however, can be devastating to projects. Other permits might expire while the lead permit is
undergoing legal challenge. Funding can be made available for only a period of time. Further, some
permits have no statute of limitations, leaving the uncertainty in place for all time.
Wind power in Pennsylvania and West Virginia could kill 50,000 bats a year
Ed Arnett, Journalist for Bat Conservation Times, Last updates August 4 2008, “Wind Energy: A
Lethal Crisis”, http://www.batcon.org/news2/scripts/article.asp?articleID=142 AL
If the approximately 900 turbines currently proposed for wooded ridge tops within a 70-mile radius
of our study sites in Pennsylvania and West Virginia are built, those turbines alone could kill more
than 50,000 bats a year. Given bats’ low reproductive rates, kills of such magnitude could put entire
species at risk.
Wind Turbines kill bats which are key to crops and stopping disease spread
Washington Post January 1 2005, “Researchers Alarmed by Bat Deaths From Wind Turbines”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39941-2004Dec31.html, AL
Bats serve an important role in nature, and their populations are believed to be in decline, scientists
said. The bats getting killed in Appalachia devour insects that pose grave threats to crops such as
corn and cotton. They also feast on pests that can spread disease, such as mosquitoes. On Backbone
Mountain, at a facility called Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, the first dead bats were found in
2003, soon after the project's 44 turbines came online.
Bats are key to the environment and ecosystem

Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, 2005, “Large Bat Kills Found at Wind Generating
Facilities on Forested Ridges”, http://www.wvmcre.org/neg_imapcts/turbineskillbats.htm, AL
Bats are an essential element in the environment. As predators of disease-carrying insects like
mosquitoes they safeguard human life. They also consume large quantities of moths that damage
plant life and transmit tree diseases. A bat can consume an impressive quantity of insects, as many as
3000 mosquitoes in a night.
The more Turbines results in more bat deaths – the result is enormous
Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy ’05
http://www.wvmcre.org/neg_imapcts/turbineskillbats.htm (DS)
As reported by the recent GAO report the Department of Energy is aggressively promoting wind
power. They are proposing that 15 times the current installed capacity be in place by the year 2020.
This increase would be equivalent to 62,000 additional turbines added to the existing 16,000
turbines in operation making a total of 78,000 wind turbines. It is difficult to predict due to the lack
of research on the subject what the national average kill rate per tower is for either bats or birds.
However even if you use a fairly low projected estimate the total mortality to bats and birds is
enormous.
Turbines kill Thousands of bats

Arnett (Edward B. Arnett, Bat Conservation International Wallace P. Erickson, Western Ecosystems
Technology Jason Horn, Boston University Jessica Kerns, University of Maryland; Relationships
between Bats and Wind Turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia 2004 : An Assessment of
Fatality Search Protocols, Patterns of Fatality, and Behavioral Interactions with Wind Turbines;
http://www.batcon.org/wind/BWEC2004Reportsummary.pdf ) (DS)
Daily searches at Mountaineer yielded an estimated 38 bats killed per turbine for the 6- week
study period (90% confidence interval = 31–45) and a daily kill rate of 0.90 bats per turbine. The
total number of bats estimated to have been killed by the 44 turbines during this 6-week
period was 1,364–1,980. • At Meyersdale, an estimated 25 bats were killed per turbine based on
daily searches during the 6-week study (90% confidence interval = 20–33), yielding a daily kill rate
of 0.6 and a total of 400–660 bats killed by the 20 turbines during the 6-week study. Because of low
scavenging rates, weekly searches at Meyersdale yielded similar results; an estimated 30 bats killed
per turbine during the 6-week study (90% confidence interval = 20–46) and a daily kill rate of 0.71
for a total estimated 400–920 bats killed during the 6-week study.
Bats are ignored in new wind-energy projects

Bat Conservation Times ’05 (Volume 3, number 3 – March 2005; Wind Energy: A Lethal Crisis;
http://64.92.116.27/news2/scripts/article.asp?articleID=142&newsletterID=7 ) (DS)
To prevent an environmental crisis, it is essential that local authorities require wind-energy
companies to resolve wildlife concerns during the permitting process. We believe that wind energy
can be compatible with bat conservation, but only if clear, well-researched safeguards are enacted.
We strongly encourage research and development of efficient, wildlife-safe wind technology. But we
cannot support the current rush to development without first finding solutions to prevent bat
kills that could have devastating cumulative impacts across North America. It is imperative
that those of us committed to maintaining healthy ecosystems make our voices heard. Some of
America’s largest, most ecologically and economically important bat populations could be
reduced to endangered status, or even eliminated, if we do not act now. And, as always, we urge
that greater energy conservation – by far our most powerful tool available for dealing with
worldwide energy shortages – be encouraged and implemented much more aggressively throughout
society. You can make a difference by sharing your concerns in your community and with
conservation organizations you support. Contact local companies, permitting officials and state and
federal legislators to insist that wildlife problems are not ignored in new wind-energy projects.
Bats are key to environment, corn, cotton, and disease spread

Blum ’05 (Justin; Washington Post Staff Writer; January 1, 2005; Researchers Alarmed by Bat
Deaths from Wind Turbines; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39941-
2004Dec31.html ) (DS)
Bats serve an important role in nature, and their populations are believed to be in decline,
scientists said. The bats getting killed in Appalachia devour insects that pose grave threats to
crops such as corn and cotton. They also feast on pests that can spread disease, such as
mosquitoes. On Backbone Mountain, at a facility called Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, the
first dead bats were found in 2003, soon after the project's 44 turbines came online.
Conservationists and the wind industry hoped the deaths were a fluke.
Bats are a keystone species

Smith ’02 (Susan Ray; Research for Penn State; January 2002; Volume 23 issue 1 Online Research
Penn State; http://www.rps.psu.edu/0201/bats.html ) (DS)
"Whoa," a student says. He'd felt the breeze in his hair from the bat that flew just inches above it.
Gannon continues, noting that the bats can hear him speak, but are not afraid because people are
watching this church all the time. Bats are a keystone species, he says. A keystone is the stone at
the top of an arch that holds the structure together. Remove just that one stone, and the arch
will collapse. "In ecology, a keystone species supports a lot of other things in the environment," he
says. "If you remove the keystone species, the ecosystem changes dramatically. "From talking to
local farmers we know that they use less pesticides than other farmers growing the same
amount and type of crop in other areas of the state," he says. "The bats eat millions and billions
of insects over the summer. Now, think what happens when you tear this building down. Then
those insects can multiply and damage crops. Think of the economic impact." Loss of habitat
is the major threat to bats. If they had lost the church, they might have moved to human
homes, where they would most likely have been exterminated.
Bat’s food is in open fields where turbines are

Blum ’05 (Justin; Washington Post Staff Writer; January 1, 2005; Researchers Alarmed by Bat
Deaths from Wind Turbines; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39941-
2004Dec31.html ) (DS)
In West Virginia and Pennsylvania, the turbines are positioned on wide paths cleared amid maple,
oak and other hardwood trees. And that may have something to do with the bat deaths. Bats
appear to be attracted to the open areas cleared by the wind developers because they can more
easily find insects there, researchers said. But they are unsure why the bats hit the blades of the
turbines -- whether they're attracted or accidentally fly into them. Some of the bats are migrating
south and others live near the wind farms, researchers said. Most of the deaths occurred between
July and September, which includes the months of peak migration. The two sites where
researchers have found a large number of bat deaths are operated by FPL Energy of Juno
Beach, Fla., the largest U.S. generator of wind power.
WIND POWER MASSACRES HUGE NUMBERS OF PREDATORY BIRDS

Taylor & Vandoren 2000
[Jerry, Dir. Of Nat. Resource Studies at the Cato Institute, Adjunct scholar for the Institute for Energy
Research in Houston & Peter, Taught at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affiars & Postdoctoral fellow in political economy at Carnegie Mellon, “The progress
Explosion: Permanently Escaping the Malthusian Trap,” Earth Report, ed. Ronald Bailey, New York:
McGraw Hill, 2000, 138// ]
The most serious noneconomic issue that threatens wind power is the fact that wind turbines are
responsible fro the death of approximately 10,000 predatory birds over the past 20 years. Red-tailed
hawks, turkey vultures, American kestrels, and even bald and golden eagles are killed annually because
the “wind farms have been documented to act as both bait and executioner – rodents taking shelter at
the base of the turbines multiply with the protection from raptors, while in turn their greater numbers
attract more raptors ot the farm.” According to Dick Anderson of the California Energy Commission –
a supporter of wind power – birds are more than five times as likely to die near wind turbines than they
are farther away. Given the nature of the problem (towers attract bird prey, which in turn attract
predatory birds), it’s hard to envision a solution to the avian mortality matter save for abandonment of
land-based wind generation. It’s begun to dawn on environmentalists that wind power might well prove
to be an encore to hydroelectric power; a renewable energy that had the unforeseen problem of
decimating speices. Accordingly, green opposition to wind turbines is mounting. The National Audubon
Society has called for a moratorium on new wind facilities. The Sierra Club is wavering on the issue,
having termed wind towers “the Cuisinarts of the air.” The US Fish and Wildlife Service is considering
prosecuting wind farm operators for killing birds proteced under the federal Migratory Birt Treaty Act
and the Bald Eagle Protection Act.
WIND TURBINES KILL PREDATORY BIRDS

The potential effects of wind energy development on wildlife and wilderness areas have attracted
attention in recent years. The issue first rose to prominence in the late 1980s when it was found that
birds especially federally protected golden eagles and red-tailed hawks -- were being killed by wind
turbines and high-voltage transmission lines-at California's Altamont Pass. The discovery sparked
opposition to the Altamont Pass project among some environmental activists and aroused the concern
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for enforcing federal species-protection
laws. Since then, problems have been noted in other locations. Birds have been reported killed at wind
power plants in Tarifa, Spain (one of two major points of bird migration across the Mediterranean Sea),
and at various wind plants in northern Europe. These incidents have resulted in a heightened awareness
of wind power's potential environmental impacts among both U.S. and European conservation groups.
DAMAGED PREDATORY BIRD POPULATIONS ALLOWS RODENT POPULATIONS TO

EXPLODE, THREATENING BUBONIC PLAGUE EPIDEMIC
Buekert 2003 [Dennis, staff, “West Nile virus could cause surge in disease-carrying rodents, expert
warns,” Canadian Press Newswire, February 23, LN]
West Nile virus could spark an explosion in the number of disease-carrying rats and mice with
significant risks for human health, says a leading expert on the virus. The concern is that West Nile
disease could wipe out predatory birds that keep rodent populations in check, said Paul Epstein,
associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
''There are 233 species infected with this (West Nile virus),'' Epstein said. ''One concern is the raptors _
the owls and the hawks and the kestrels and so on. ''They are predators, and they're one of the chief
predators of rodents. When you remove raptors their prey can get loose.'' Rats and mice can carry the
infectious agents for human diseases such as Hanta virus pulmonary syndrome, Lyme disease and
leptospirosis bacterial disease.
Wind Farms harm birds, bats, and other wildlife, destroying habitats
Rosenbloom 06 Eric Rosenbloom, “A Problem with Wind Power,” AWEO. September 6, 2006.
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.pdf
The spinning blades kill and maim birds and bats. The Danish Wind Industry Association, for example,
admits as much by pointing out that so do power lines and automobiles. (The argument follows the aesthetic one that the landscape is already blighted
in many ways, so why not blight it some more?) The industry
claims that moving from lattice-work towers, which
provided roosting and nesting platforms, to solid towers, as well as larger lower-rpm blades, solved
the problem, and that studies find very few dead birds around wind turbines. They ignore the facts
that the larger blades are in fact slicing the air faster (over 100 mph at their tips, that scavengers will
have removed most injured and dead birds before researchers arrive for their periodic surveys, and
that many areas where dead and injured birds (and bats -- see below) might fall are inaccessible.
Especially vulnerable are large birds of prey that like to fly in the same sorts of places that
developers like to construct wind towers. Fog -- a common situation on mountain ridges --
aggravates the problem for all birds. Guidelines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) state that wind towers should not be
near wetlands or other known bird or bat concentration areas or in areas with a high incidence of fog or low cloud ceilings, especially during spring
and fall migrations. It is illegal in the U.S. to kill migratory birds. The FWS has prevented any expansion of the several Altamont Pass wind plants in
California, rejecting as well the claim that new solid towers would mitigate the problem. [Click here to read the Fish and Wildlife Service
recommendations.] A 2002 study in Spain estimated that 11,200 birds of prey (many of them already
endangered), 350,000 bats, and 3,000,000 small birds are killed each year by wind turbines and their
power lines. Another analysis found that it is officially recognized (and obscured, generally by
implying monthly figures as annual) that on average a single turbine tower kills 20-40 birds each
year. The U.S. FWS noted that European wind power may kill up to 37 birds per turbine each year. The wind industry, in contrast, cites the absurdly
low results of a single very spotty study at one site as gospel. Windpower Monthly reported in October 2003 that the
shocking number of bats being killed by wind towers in the U.K. is causing trouble for developers.
The president of Bat Conservation International, Merlin Tuttle, has said, "We're finding kills even in
the most remote turbines out in the middle of prairies, where bats don't feed." At least 2,000 bats
were killed on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia in just 2 months during their 2003 fall
migration. Continuing research has found that rate to be typical all year, or even low, for wind turbines on forested ridges [click here].
Wildlife on the ground is displaced as well. Prairie birds are especially affected by disturbance of
their habitat, and construction on mountain ridges diminishes important forest interior far beyond
the extent of the clearing itself.
Bats death by wind power will threaten the name of green technology
Jim Balow, Staff writer, citizens for responsible wind power inc., 2004
The wind energy industry is highly dependent on its clean, green image because wind-generated
electricity costs more than other sources. People are willing to pay extra for wind power with the
knowledge that it is a renewable, non-polluting form of energy. Some environmentalists argue that
wind turbines are ugly, especially when built in sensitive areas. Others worry about hazards to birds,
although the industry argues far more birds are killed in other ways. Wildlife and industry people
have learned only recently about the problems wind turbines pose to bats. "It was definitely a
surprise to us," said Tom Gray, deputy director of the American Wind Energy Association, the
industry's main trade group. "It was upsetting." The AWEA helped fund the research this summer
and has gathered pledges from its members for three more years of research, Gray said. "We're
going to do a lot more research next year and try to determine how to minimize the impacts."
Wind Bad: Property Values
Wind power decreases property values

However, some studies do show a decrease in property values. Appraiser Kevin Zarem, who testified
before the Wisconsin Public Services Commission in June 2005, concluded that the value of residential
property near a wind farm would probably decrease 17-20%. n154 The National Association of
Neighbors of Wind Turbines in Denmark claims that most real estate agents estimate a 25-30% fall in
property values when turbines are erected nearby. n155 Jon Boone asked his audience in Wyoming
County, New York this question-Could anyone believe that "spinning sky-scraper sized structures
creating a cascade of noise are not going to negatively affect property values for those in the
neighborhood?" n156
Residential and resource barriers prevent solvency

Casey 5/4 [2008, Tech driving wind power, http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /
20080504/ENVIRONMENT/805040418/1048/ENVIRONMENT]
Ecological concerns, more than cost savings may drive many new residential turbine installations. "People want to reduce their carbon footprints," Tonko
said. "They're concerned about climate change and they want to reduce our reliance of foreign sources of fuels." Schwartz, the editor, said that even with
the economic benefits, it could take 20 years to pay back the installation cost. "This isn't about people putting turbines in to lower their electric bills as
Despite growing interest, some
much as it is about people voting with their dollars to help the environment in some small way," he said.
hurdles will not change. Whether a residential turbine saves money or just eases ecological guilt
depends largely on the wind. The wind energy available in any given location is called the "wind
resource." Even if the wind is strong, zoning and aesthetics can pose problems. "Turbines work in
rural areas with strong wind," Schwartz said. "But in urban and suburban areas, neighbors are never
happy to see a 60- to 120-foot tower going up across the street."
Windpower degrades national property values

Schleede 2004 [Glenn R., “Facing Up to the True Costs and Benefits of Wind Energy,” Associated
Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2004 Meeting, June 24, www.globalwarming.org/aecifa.pdf, acc 12-22-04//
-ajl ]
“Wind farms” have significant adverse impacts on environmental, ecological, scenic and property
values and create potential hazards to health and safety. Citizens in various states (and other countries)
where “wind farms” have been constructed have become painfully aware that – in addition to the high
true cost of the electricity -- “wind farms” impair environmental, ecological, scenic and property
values. Among the adverse impacts are noise, bird kills, interference with bird migration paths and
animal habitat, destruction of scenic vistas and ecological rarities (such as the Flint Hills and Tallgrass
Prairie in Kansas), aircraft warning lights, blade “flicker,” spoiling the lives of neighbors and lowering
the value of properties located near the huge structures.Costs
WIND POWER DECREASES PROPERTY VALUES
Schleede in ‘03
(Glenn, Schleede is semi-retired after spending more than 30 years on energy matters in the
federal government and private sector. He now spends part of his time on self-financed analysis and
writing, “The Problem with Wind Farms in West Virginia,” pg. online @
http://www.friendsofthealleghenyfront.org/SchleedeSummary.htm // )
Although the extent to which wind farm development devalues neighboring property values cannot be
determined up front, the government and residents need to be aware of potential losses. A study of
residents around one Wisconsin wind farm found than more than half did not want to live within two
miles of the facility because of noise and those who lived closest were significantly concerned about
health and safety issues. An analysis of wind farms in Denmark showed declining property values for
home and land owners who were near turbines, with value decreasing in proportion to larger numbers
of turbines (http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/windfarm/appendix_f.pdf). It should also be noted
that the declining quality of the local school system—which will be affected by the substantial loss of
property tax revenue from the wind farm facilities—will further decrease the value of local property.
WIND FARMS REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES – IT’S EMPIRICALLY PROVEN
Schleede in ‘03
(Glenn, Schleede is semi-retired after spending more than 30 years on energy matters in the
federal government and private sector. He now spends part of his time on self-financed analysis and
writing, “The Problem with Wind Farms in West Virginia,” pg. online @
%20020403.pdf // )
Citizens and government officials should recognize that the potential impairment of property
values is inherently difficult to evaluate in advance. Generally, the impact of a large
development such as a “wind farm” on property values does not become clear until after the
project is in place and the market value of property in the area becomes known through
actual sales of land and homes.36
One of the very few actual surveys of residents’ views taken after a “wind farm” was in
place was undertaken after neighbors complained about noise and other adverse effects of a
14-turbine “wind farm” in the Town of Lincoln, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. Among the
findings from the survey were that 52% of the residents would not want to live within 2
miles of the turbines and a majority of those living closest to the turbines reported that they
felt that the turbines had adversely impacted their health and safety.
Wind Bad: Radar
Wind turbines disturb radar stations and radio signals

Nation Master Online Encyclopedia ’05 (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Wind-energy )
(DS)
Wind turbines can cause disturbance on radar images. That is why wind turbines shouldn’t be
placed in the neighbourhood of radar stations. There is an investigation going on about the
possibility to provide the rotor of wind turbines with a radar-radiation-absorbing layer (like stealth
airplanes) and to the possibility to equip the radar stations with software which doesn’t show the
wind turbines.
Hurting radar stations and radio signals, Wind turbines destroy US readiness
Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering ’06 (Report to the Congressional
Defense Committees; The effect of windmill farms on military readiness 2006;
http://www.windaction.org/documents/5439 ) (DS)
Although wind turbines located in radar line of sight of air defense radars can adversely
impact the ability of those units to detect and track, by primary radar return, any aircraft or other
aerial object, the magnitude of the impact will depend upon the number and locations of the wind
turbines. Should the impact prove sufficient to degrade the ability of the radar to
unambiguously detect and track objects of interest by primary radar alone this will negatively
impact the readiness of U.S. forces to perform the air defense mission. The mitigations that
exist at present to completely preclude any adverse impacts on air defense radars are limited
to those methods that avoid locating the wind turbines in radar line of sight of such radars.
These mitigations may be achieved by distance, terrain masking, or terrain relief and requires case-
by-case analysis. • The Department has initiated efforts to develop additional mitigation
approaches. These require further development and validation before they can be employed. • The
analysis that had been performed for the early warning radar at Cape Cod Air Force Station was
overly simplified and technically flawed. A more comprehensive analysis followed by development
of appropriate offset criteria for fixed-site missile early warning radars should be performed on an
expedited basis. Wind turbines in close proximity to military training, testing, and
development sites and ranges can adversely impact the “train and equip” mission of the
Department. Existing processes to include engagement with local and regional planning
boards and development approval authorities should be employed to mitigate such potential
impacts.

Wind Power Neg

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Wind Power Neg

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Caiello/Schirmer Wind Power ~ Neg Arx Axiom Debate Society 1/29

1. Wind turbine facilities kill trout.............................................................................................18

 Unreliable: basically if the wind isn't blowing, no energy gets made

Benefits are outstripped by the huge negative impacts

Wind Fails: Cost

Increasing Wind energy is expensive

Wind programs do not create jobs

Wind Fails: Can't Generate Enough

Transmission problems outweigh the permanence of the production tax credit

Wind can’t provide enough energy

3. No solvency- wind speed

Wind Fails: Unpredictable

Wind power fails-it is unreliable

Wind Fails: Federal Legislation Blocks

Federal Legislation Blocks Wind: Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Federal Legislation Blocks Wind: Endangered Species Act

Citizen suits will block windfarm development

Wind Bad: Hurts Tourism

WIND POWER HURTS LOCAL TOURISM AND ECONOMIES

Wind Bad: Noise Pollution

Wind turbines negatively affect childrens’ health

Wind Bad: Erosion / Hurts Farmers / Hurts Environment

WIND POWER WILL CAUSE SOIL EROSION

WIND POWER WOULD ALTER SOIL DISTRIBUTION AND CRUSH FARMS

Wind Bad: Fish

WIND FARMS CAUSE LANDSLIDES THAT KILL Fish

1. Wind turbine facilities kill trout

Wind Bad: Global Warming

Wind intermittance means backup electricity still emits CO2

Wind turbines increase global warming

Wind Bad: Kills Birds / Bats

Bats are key to the environment and ecosystem

Turbines kill Thousands of bats

Bats are ignored in new wind-energy projects

Bats are key to environment, corn, cotton, and disease spread

Bats are a keystone species

Bat’s food is in open fields where turbines are

WIND POWER MASSACRES HUGE NUMBERS OF PREDATORY BIRDS

WIND TURBINES KILL PREDATORY BIRDS

DAMAGED PREDATORY BIRD POPULATIONS ALLOWS RODENT POPULATIONS TO

Wind Bad: Property Values

Wind power decreases property values

Residential and resource barriers prevent solvency

Windpower degrades national property values

WIND POWER DECREASES PROPERTY VALUES

WIND FARMS REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES – IT’S EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

Wind Bad: Radar

Wind turbines disturb radar stations and radio signals

Você também pode gostar