"Green New Deal" - needs it's own thread

[Muda69]

Trying to pull stories and discussion concerning the "Green New Deal" away from primarily the AOC thread into it's own discussion thread.

That said, here we go:  

The Green New Deal Continues the War on Meat: https://mises.org/wire/green-new-deal-continues-war-meat

Quote

he War on Meat is back in action.

One year ago, I wrote about the “War on Meat” taking place around the West, where government agencies in tandem, with several plant-based activist groups, have made a concerted push to demonize meat. Some plans that they have put forward consist of taxing meat as a means of reducing meat consumption.

With the recently unveiled “Green New Deal”, the war drums pounding against beef have only gotten louder. Just like its 20th-century predecessor, the Green New Deal is an economically illiterate legislative package. Robert Murphy wrote two fantastic articles debunking many of the flawed policies included in the Green New Deal such as profligate spending and regulation.

However, this article will focus on the more social engineering aspects of the Green New Deal. Specifically, its anti-meat vision.

In the Green New Deal’s FAQ sheet , there was a section highlighting the differences between achieving “100% clean and renewable” energy and “100% renewable” energy. In the Green New Deal advocates’ view, emissions from “farting cows” are what’s hindering the achievement of a purely clean and renewable energy source.

This assertion has been met with ridicule throughout the Internet. However, the idea of a government program that would compel ranchers and farmers to slaughter farm animals for the sake of complying with a political agenda is not so far-fetched. In fact, it’s not even unprecedented.

In the original New Deal introduced in the 1930s, the federal government took extraordinary measures to fight the Great Depression. One of them was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which saw the federal government carry out “emergency livestock reductions.” New Dealers reasoned that there was a glut of pigs which was responsible for keeping livestock prices low. In its zeal to “save” the country, the government started buying and mass slaughtering livestock. Tom Woods details how the AAA led to the slaughter of “some six million pigs”, all in the name of trying to keep prices high during a time of crisis.

When we fast forward to the present, we now have to talk about reducing methane emissions coming from cows. How will this be achieved? The Green New Deal has had very little in specifics, but given the ideological orientation of its proponents, it’s safe to say it will consist of top-down mandates from the government. Who knows, mandatory animal slaughter could be making a comeback.

Regardless of the Green New Deal’s exact details, it is indeed a spiritual successor to the original New Deal.

....

When discussing far-reaching policies that could affect the lives of millions, we must always ask questions.

It’s time we start invoking the “Deist Rule”. This concept is based on a tweet Mises President Jeff Deist posted in response to an article condemning ideology. The same line of questioning can be applied to any policy issue:

• Who decides?
• What are the incentives for cooperation?
• What can politically vanquished people do?

These inquiries are generally lost upon the political class who are blinded by their desire to always “do something.” This impulse is dangerous because it doesn’t take into account the host of unintended consequences that inevitably come with government intervention. From debates on regulating meat consumption to nation building, we should always ask these questions.

Good questions by Mr. Niño.  Should the state dictate or regulate meat consumption?

[foxbat]

22 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Trying to pull stories and discussion concerning the "Green New Deal" away from primarily the AOC thread into it's own discussion thread.

That said, here we go:  

The Green New Deal Continues the War on Meat: https://mises.org/wire/green-new-deal-continues-war-meat

Good questions by Mr. Niño.  Should the state dictate or regulate meat consumption?

[Muda69]

9 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Soylent Green is People!

 

[Muda69]

The Green New Deal Plus Modern Monetary Theory = Socialism: https://mises.org/wire/green-new-deal-plus-modern-monetary-theory-socialism

Quote

Thank you, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The Green New Deal (GND) she has unveiled is most illuminating. It is now unmistakably clear that AOC, Bernie Sanders, and other democratic socialists in the Democratic Party don’t want “socialism lite” but rather they want the federal government to take control of the “commanding heights” of the economy. Although they may settle for the variant of socialism in which businesses remain nominally private, even as the government dictates what they must do, they plainly want central economic planning, albeit with a 10-year rather than five-year plan.

This is no exaggeration. The GND essentially calls for conscripting the American workforce and putting us to work in accordance with what the elite government planners want instead of what “we, the people” want. They propose to replace our market economy, in which privately owned businesses compete to see who can best supply the needs and wants of the people, with a command economy in which government is the master and citizens build what the planners say must be built.

Here are some planks in AOC’s GND:

• The elimination of fossil fuels in 10 years, which would entail the closing of all gas stations, replacing them with electric-charging stations; replacing or retooling tens of millions of vehicles that travel by land, sea, or air (with the alarming acknowledgment “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to get rid of … airplanes [in 10 years]”); replacing all power plants that use fossil fuels with wind and solar, and eliminating all jobs involved in the exploration, extraction, refining, and transportation of fossil fuels.
• “Retrofit every building in America.”
• “Overhaul … agriculture.”
• “Provide job training and education to all.”
• “Guarantee a job with family-sustaining wages”
• “Provide high-quality health care [and] housing.”
• “Ensure universal access to healthy food …” and much, much more.

What the GND proposes — essentially, rebuilding America’s physical plant and infrastructure from top to bottom — is physically impossible to do in 10 years. In fact, it couldn’t be done in 100 years. The economy would collapse long before then in the chaos that socialist economies always experience as the inevitable consequence of replacing market prices with government edicts.

The GND is economically impossible, too, although its proponents seem to think that they can bypass economic reality by implementing what is called MMT—Modern Monetary Theory, a new label for the old, failed practice of printing more money.

In everyday economic life, money acts like a claim on goods and services; if you have enough of it, you can obtain what you want. Under MMT, the government has access to as many fiat dollars as it wants — a virtually unlimited supply. (Fiat currencies are not backed by anything material but are created out of thin air and rely on legal tender laws to compel people to accept them as payment for goods and services.) Using its monopoly power over money, MMT in practice would give the federal government unlimited purchasing power. That would enable the government to outbid all private interests for labor, materials, equipment, etc. In short, what the government wants, the government gets, and private individuals and businesses are correspondingly deprived.

What about inflation — wouldn’t printing all those additional fiat dollars cause prices to rise? According to MMT, the government can prevent inflation by draining purchasing power away from the private sector through higher taxes. Thus, while printing more money increases the government’s purchasing power, inflationary pressures would be offset as government removes purchasing power from the private sector. MMT is a game rigged so that the government always wins and the private sector always loses. No wonder socialists love MMT!

There is a well-known word that describes overwhelming power that government wields over people: tyranny. MMT boils down to government using its monopoly over money to dictate and control production, obliterate free markets, suppress private enterprise, and impoverish the people — i.e., socialism. A more apt name for MMT is Money Monopoly Tyranny. Indeed, MMT is a destructive tool tailor-made to assist the implementation of the socialistic Green New Deal.

Agreed.  

[Muda69]

Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21: https://canadafreepress.com/article/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21

Quote

...

Agenda 21: Comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals.  They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

...

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

....

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over night. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority.  Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it—Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

....

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it.  Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch it die.

 

[gonzoron]

19 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21: https://canadafreepress.com/article/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21

 

From a "foundation" that doesn't pay taxes.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, gonzoron said:

From a "foundation" that doesn't pay taxes.

Gonzo-

I never *pictured* you as an "Angry White Man".  😂

[Guest]

On 3/6/2019 at 7:26 AM, Muda69 said:

The Green New Deal Plus Modern Monetary Theory = Socialism: https://mises.org/wire/green-new-deal-plus-modern-monetary-theory-socialism

Agreed.  

MMM-

We were just discussing TGND today in History class.

The students researched it.....asked questions......and some asked, "How does the US Government pay for this?"  Of course they already knew the answer.

We discussed pros/cons list.

Good stuff.

[swordfish]

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Yet, SF has been told (many times on the GID that SCIENCE backs "man-made" climate change.  Natural Climate change is real, but SF is not convinced mankind is the problem.  Nature is.  (If we can call nature a problem)  Again - until I can be convinced that mankind's effect on the Earth can melt the glaciers that once formed the Great Lakes, and that was a bad thing -- I will remain a "climate change denier"

[Muda69]

https://thegreenrawdeal.com/

 

[gonzoron]

5 hours ago, DannEllenwood said:

Gonzo-

I never *pictured* you as an "Angry White Man".  😂

It's a tribute to the Mudabomber

[Muda69]

15 hours ago, gonzoron said:

It's a tribute to the Mudabomber

Mudabomber?  I hope that isn't a reference to what I think it is.

 

[Muda69]

68% of Americans Wouldn’t Pay $10 a Month in Higher Electric Bills to Combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change

Quote

Public opinion polls have long found that Americans say they are concerned about climate change. But does that mean people are willing to reduce their own standard of living and make personal sacrifices in efforts to do something about it? New survey data suggests not. An AP-NORC survey finds that 68% of Americans wouldn’t be willing to pay even $10 more a month in higher electric bills even if the money were used to combat climate change.

...

But what people say they are concerned about and what they are actually willing to do about it are not the same thing.  An AP-NORC survey found that 68% of Americans wouldn’t be willing to pay $10 a month in high electric bills to combat climate change. The survey asked people if they would be willing to pay a fee in their electric bill every month that would be used to combat climate change. Then the survey asked about different potential fee amounts. The survey found overwhelming majorities of Americans opposed paying the fee to combat climate change if it cost:

• $10 a month, 68% opposed
• $20 a month, 69% opposed
• $40 a month, 76% opposed
• $75 a month, 83% opposed
• $100 a month, 82% opposed

Was there any amount Americans were willing to pay to combat climate change? Yes, $1 dollar. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans would be willing to pay a $1 a month fee in their electric bills to combat climate change.

Although Americans say they are worried about climate change, most clearly aren’t worried enough to spend their own money on it, or make personal sacrifices for the cause. Perhaps it might be that people know they are supposed to be concerned about climate change because this is a salient message they receive from trusted sources and thus say so on surveys. However, receiving these messages and cues hasn’t been enough to convince them to give up their own money, let alone lower their own standard of living, for the cause of combating global warming. However, significant personal sacrifices are what proposals like the Green New Deal will require. These data provide some indication that purported support for government interventions in the economy to deal with climate change may be inflated. Instead, Americans may be more supportive of public policies that foster an economic environment that allows for technological innovation and invention among rising entrepreneurs and private sector businesses competing to come up with the next big idea that makes our world cleaner, healthier, happier, and more productive. 

 

[gonzoron]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

68% of Americans Wouldn’t Pay $10 a Month in Higher Electric Bills to Combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change

 

That’s because 68% of Americans are too stupid to know they are already paying $10/month or more for it for several years now.

[Muda69]

3 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

That’s because 68% of Americans are too stupid to know they are already paying $10/month or more for it for several years now.

Links?

 

[swordfish]

8 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

That’s because 68% of Americans are too stupid to know they are already paying $10/month or more for it for several years now.

And the problem still keeps getting worse?  I want a refund......

[foxbat]

11 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

That’s because 68% of Americans are too stupid to know they are already paying $10/month or more for it for several years now.

Interesting articles talking about the recent PG&E bankruptcy claim is going to end up costing some $30 billion in resultant costs and talking about how the issues of climate change are likely to hit consumers as remaining utility companies pivot to address it.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pge-questions-coming-bankruptcy#gs.03gei5

https://psmag.com/environment/when-the-climate-changes-the-public-pays-the-price

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2019/01/24/pge-is-just-the-first-of-many-climate-change-bankruptcies/#55ca22297e5f

From the Forbes article about PG&E:

3. Customers, who already pay the second-highest rates in the country, are facing annual increases of 12 – 24% over the next three years. The rate increases will likely go on for decades.

...

5. Taxpayers nationally will pay, due to FEMA and other federal agencies’ disaster relief costs.

 

 

 

[gonzoron]

38 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Links?

 

Did you think these Electrical Utility companies were building these new plants without passing the cost along? Maybe the percentage is higher than 68%

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/uncategorized/the-escalating-cost-of-electricity/

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/electricity-rate-increases-begin-new-england/

https://www.citact.org/energy-policy-fossil-fuels-and-nuclear-energy-utility-rates-and-regulation-duke-energy/2018-duke-edwardsport

http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost

[Muda69]

On 3/8/2019 at 4:45 PM, gonzoron said:

Did you think these Electrical Utility companies were building these new plants without passing the cost along? Maybe the percentage is higher than 68%

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/uncategorized/the-escalating-cost-of-electricity/

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/electricity-rate-increases-begin-new-england/

https://www.citact.org/energy-policy-fossil-fuels-and-nuclear-energy-utility-rates-and-regulation-duke-energy/2018-duke-edwardsport

http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost

FTA:

Quote

Over the past 10 years, electricity prices have been going up, while over most of that time, the costs of coal and natural gas—the two major fuel inputs to electric generation—have declined or stayed relatively flat. This anomaly is caused by the growth of more expensive renewable energy (wind and solar power) and the onerous regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forcing on electric utilities that require capital investments to be made to existing generators.

...

Regulations imposed by state and federal agencies (e.g. renewable mandates and the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards) have inflicted increased costs on ratepayers and taxpayers without much concern as to their energy affordability or reliability. These policies hurt those most vulnerable—the elderly, minorities, and the poor—since these communities are the most sensitive to increases in energy costs. Further, business owners faced with these escalating prices will either have to pass these cost onto consumers, who are already hit with increased electricity rates, or relocate to where energy prices are lower, forcing layoffs and harming the state’s economy.

...

As part of President Obama’s war on coal and commitment to carbon dioxide reductions, EPA finalized its so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP) in August 2015—a regulatory morass that many think is illegal. Twenty-seven of the 47 states affected by the CPP have legal challenges to the agency’s authority and recently the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay to the policy until the courts could hear the arguments and rule on the legality of the regulation.

....

Thus, EPA wants U.S. consumers of electricity to pay escalating prices as the above graphs indicate just so countries like China and India can emit more carbon dioxide, in hopes they will start reducing carbon dioxide sometime down the road. 

...

These increases are caused by onerous regulations that result in shuttering existing coal and nuclear plants prematurely and replacing them with new plants that are higher in cost. Electric rates will continue to escalate as EPA imposes more regulations, such as its regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Consumers need to be aware that their electric rates will increase for very little gain as other countries will surely increase their carbon dioxide emissions as they provide electricity to their citizens to improve their quality of life.

Overbearing government regulations are the primary reason for these price increases, mostly from the unconstitutional entity called the EPA.  And this "carbon trading/carbon credits" scam is just that, a scam.

 

[gonzoron]

55 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

FTA:

Overbearing government regulations are the primary reason for these price increases, mostly from the unconstitutional entity called the EPA.  And this "carbon trading/carbon credits" scam is just that, a scam.

 

I understand that you want your children and grandchildren to have a debt free government, even if it means they’ll be poisoned by pollution.

[Muda69]

1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

I understand that you want your children and grandchildren to have a debt free government, even if it means they’ll be poisoned by pollution.

*yawn* Nice hyperbole on a Monday morning.

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/improve-the-environment-look-the-free-market

https://www.cato.org/blog/free-markets-combat-climate-change

https://fee.org/articles/in-the-fight-against-climate-change-free-markets-are-our-biggest-ally/

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/405898-how-the-free-market-could-fix-the-emissions-crisis

 

BTW, how are the winds farms faring in Hamilton county?

 

[gonzoron]

38 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

*yawn* Nice hyperbole on a Monday morning.

More "free market" hyperbole. They had their chance, they're the ones who began poisoning us to start with.

 

39 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

BTW, how are the winds farms faring in Hamilton county?

There aren't any. 

[Muda69]

36 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

More "free market" hyperbole. They had their chance, they're the ones who began poisoning us to start with.

 

There aren't any. 

So now now an oppressive system of government socialism is the only answer?

Why aren't there any wind farms in Hamilton county?  

[gonzoron]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Why aren't there any wind farms in Hamilton county?

Not enough wind. Why isn't there one in Clinton County?

 

 

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

Not enough wind. Why isn't there one in Clinton County?

 

 

Hmm, Tipton county seems to have a lot of windmills.  I can't believe Hamilton county is that different geographically from Tipton county.

In Clinton County the NIMBY's have the ear of the County Commissioners,  so while not yet outright passing a ban on wind farms they are dragging out the process long enough that they hope the wind energy companies effectively lose interest and back out of the leases agreements they have already signed with some sovereign landowners.