The courage & necessity of “We, the People” (Denmark)

Jul 24, 2011

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusmail

·

·
Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

I have long argued that Big Wind must be stopped by civil disobedience.  Not lawsuits (they don’t work), not public hearings (they’re a farce), not invoking empirical scientific, clinical, or economic evidence (it’s routinely ignored and trivialized).

By civil disobedience I don’t mean violence.  Violence is never acceptable.  Violence is absurd (I speak as a professional historian).

·
The two keys to success are civil disobedience and voting—voting the bums out who vote for Big Wind projects.  And when one can’t go to the polls—then civil disobedience, alone.

·
This past month, the Danes have resorted to civil disobedience.  Very effectively.  In an effort to stop Vestas from building a test center for large turbines—building it in a protected, wildlife area.

That outrage transgressed a line which many Danes refused to allow.

They turned out by the hundreds to say “no!”

They camped out, round the clock.

And when the police (cops) tried to remove them (gently, I am pleased to report), “We, the People” (I am calling them) simply lined up to be arrested.

A never-ending line of people willing to be arrested.

The same thing needs to happen on Cape Cod (Mass.), Ontario (Canada), Quebec (Canada), New York Wisconsin Michigan Illinois Indiana Minnesota Oregon California (USA), New Zealand, and throughout rural Australia.

These photos are provided, courtesy of Aleksaner Sønder.

 

  1. Comment by Mark Cool (Falmouth, Massachusetts) on 07/25/2011 at 6:59 am

    I await a meeting with the town consultant who is charged with evaluating the likelihood of consensus building on the topic of FALMOUTH’S WIND TURBINE(S) with affected residents. The Selectmen await their consultant’s determination of the cost associated with the scope of mitigation strategies. While waiting, we all should reflect on what has brought us to this point.

    Town wind energy and cost saving were shaped by “visionaries” on the Energy Committee and from the Acting Town Manager’s office. They, with the aid of the town building inspector, were somehow able to divine the correct wind energy path that Falmouth citizens should follow (notwithstanding the ‘wind turbine by-law regulation’).

    Their idea and implementation contained no recognition that the concept of industrial turbines operating 1600’ from my residence may render my condition “unlivable”.

    In other words, they adopted the idea that wind turbine(s) energy cost savings were going to aid the sustainability of the community. In doing so, they replaced the fundamental primary objective of how our way of government is supposed to operate.

    Without political correctness or wind proponent mumbo-jumbo, the town process clearly is summed up best by exposing a citizen (or a neighborhood of citizens) to town manipulated harm without due process. Had due process been exercised, it may have been recognized that industrial-sized turbines do not belong in neighborhoods.

    I will be asked to consensus-build, the Selectmen will be asked to weigh the costs of what is meant to accommodate the town’s vision of how people SHOULD LIVE with wind turbines, rather than a system based on how a citizen WANTS TO LIVE safely, with good health and well-being.

    Will it ever be considerd that town hall goals and means are thoroughly inconsistent with a free society, a society built upon the foundation of the individual citizen?

    Will it ever be considered that the role of our town government is to accommodate a citizen’s expectation of health and well-being rather than manipulate these wishes?

    Nevertheless, these are the fundamental questions that need to be debated. It is not about the environment or wind energy; it is about the role of government in a free society. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that our advocates and representatives will ever engage in debate on the crucial issue of principle.

    I wait for a call from the consensus-builder agent, thinking the role of government is to protect constituents, not manage and control the harm that besets them.

  2. Comment by Amma on 08/02/2011 at 4:39 pm

    God bless the wisdom and courage of the people of Denmark. I truly hope that MidWales UK will follow this excellent example of sanity.

  3. Comment by Maria Clark on 06/27/2012 at 5:22 am

    I own my own carpet shop in a small rural village in Peterborough. Three years ago a wind turbine was erected 65 metres away from my shop. Since it has been there, it has thrown ice at us damaging our shop and van, and we have had a brake failure, and we suffer in the summer with what I can only call a strobe light flicker.

    In the last year I have been suffering from anxiety, headaches, sleepless nights and bad ears, which I put down to the stress of working 10 hours a day under the turbine. I have been doing some research online, as in the last year I have got tinnitus and it’s looking like all my symptoms are to do with the turbine. Can anyone help or am I just going mad !!!!

    Editor’s reply: My dear Maria, you have classic Wind Turbine Syndrome. I am sorry.

The comments are closed.