“Environmentalism” vs. Conservationism

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Before there was “environmentalism” there was conservationism. The latter being about not wasting stuff. That it was better to save than to spend – for the “environment” as well as your wallet.

Conservationism lost out to “environmentalism” chiefly because there’s no money in the former as opposed to the latter. Or rather, less. That goes for carbon dioxide, too.

An example will suffice to make the point.

There is not much money – for the the car manufacturers, the insurance mafia and the government – in you keeping an older, paid-for car going. You are not making payments on the car. You are making smaller payments – in “premiums” and taxes – the insurance mafia and government.

This is why they want you out of your old car – and into a new EeeeeeeeeVeeeee.

The car companies are all-in because they see EeeeeeeeVeeeees as a way to end the problem (for them) of selling people a new car once every ten (or even 15 or twenty) years and there being an abundance of sound used vehicles available that enable many people to avoid ever having to buy a new car – rather than renting all of them a new EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee, with payments made on it every month without end.

EeeeeeeeVeeeeees facilitate that goal because they are fundamentally disposable, like a smartphone. You get a new one every so often. Most people never own one. They pay the fee and they get to use one.

It is not very  . . . environmental.

Think of the landfills filled with throw-away smartphones – most of them not more than five years old. Contrast that with the hard-line wall phones that people used to have in their homes. These regularly lasted generations. If you were a kid in the ’60s or ’70s, it is probable the phone on the wall in the house you grew up in was still on the wall when you came back home to visit your parents in the ’90s. It is probably still on the wall, today.

Which is better for the “environment”?

How about EeeeeeeeeVeeeeees vs. old cars?

I’ve got an old truck, as readers of this column already know. It is twenty years old and probably has at least another ten years of reliable life left to go. But it is already better for “the environment” than any EeeeeeeeeeVeeeee.

Yes, it burns gas – and the burning of gas results in the production of the dread gas – carbon dioxide – that “environmentalists” say threatens to “catastrophically” “change” the “climate.” Let’s accept this risible assertion (risible, because C02 is a fractional background gas – just 0.04 percent of the total of all the gasses that comprise the atmosphere of the Earth – and the idea that a fractional uptick in that fractional amount is going to “change” the “climate” in a “catastrophic” way is akin to insisting that a kid peeing in Lake Michigan is going to turn the water yellow) for the sake of discussion.

If so, then reducing the amount of that gas produced ought to be – Star Trek reference – the Prime Directive. Yes?

But how do you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by throwing away a sound, usable vehicle sooner? By digging out of the Earth all the raw materials necessary to manufacture a new vehicle and then manufacturing it, using all the heavy machinery necessary to do that? By replacing it with a vehicle that is much heavier (more materials) than the car it replaces? That uses more power, which result in the production of substantially more of the dread gas that is supposedly “changing” the “climate” “catastrophically”?

Well, that’s what EeeeeeeeVeeeees do – and are.

My old truck produces no more of the dread gas than results from burning the modest amount of gas it converts from chemical to mechanical energy. The truck itself is “net zero” in every other respect. Every part of it (beyond such things as air and fuel filters, brake pads and so on) was made . . . 20 years ago. No factory is drawing power from a utility to smelt the metal to make its panels. Not a watt of power is being sucked by it from a utility that runs on coal or oil or natural gas.

The longer I hold onto it, the better it is for “the environment.”

It is certainly better for the “environment” than throwing it away and buying an EeeeeeeeVeeeeee to replace it. How much C02 would be produced in the process of making one? And – having been made – how much gas will be produced to keep it going?

EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeees do not burn any gas internally – and it is from that truth that the lie about “zero emissions” emanates. For an EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee is only a “zero emissions” vehicle if it either never moves or if the power needed to make it move does not come from a utility plant that burns coal or oil or natural gas. And this is very hard to avoid – unless the EeeeeeeeeVeeeeee owner is willing to forego “fast” charging – which requires very high voltages that are not produced by “clean” home solar panels.

But the EeeeeeeeeVeeeee owner wants to show that he is an “environmentalist,” notwithstanding his wastefulness, which isn’t very good for the environment.

And the car companies definitely want to make sure you pay for it.

It’s too bad about conservationism. About using as little as possible. About making things last as long as possible. About being a good steward of the environment.

But then, there’s not much money in that.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!


  1. This is an old battle, going back to the 70s at least. Conservation (wise use) against environmentalism (preservation). A microbe can’t survive without consumption. We are no different. We are (supposedly) smart enough to consume wisely. Preservation is suicidal. No creature or plant even, can survive without disturbing the “natural” world. Never mind that we are creatures of this world, and so are a part of that precious “nature”. Some how, if a beaver builds a damn, or ants build an ant hill, or a wolf kills a rabbit, they are pristine and pure. But if a man builds a house and kills his food, he’s a plague on the planet.

  2. If environmentalism restricted itself to truly caring for our natural resources, I would have no problem with it. However, with the secret science and questionable funding that these environmental groups possess taints the whole barrel. It turns out that many claims that environmentalists make have no basis in fact and are not based on good, honest, scientific investigation. This is why environmental scientists have to hide their data, as it does not fit their agenda. A good example of this is the so-called global warming crap, now renamed climate change. For one, the climate is always changing. The East Anglia emails in which data was purposely falsified by climate scientists comes to mind. Not only that, the climate scientists purposely installed temperature monitoring sensors in cities, contrary to manufacturers recommendations and good scientific practices, in asphalt-covered parking lots, and other heat sink areas in order to prove their (faulty) hypothesis. This is scientific dishonesty at its worst.
    It turns out that the solar system is in a cooling cycle due to decreased solar activity. There are two long-term solar cycles that reinforce themselves when in phase and cancel themselves out when out-of-phase. Look up the Maunder minimum. There are no SUVs on Mars or other planets, yet they are also experiencing the same solar variability.
    Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society, especially in the USA.
    Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these anointed types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population by any means necessary.
    Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced land use controls on private property owners without compensation, clearly an unconstitutional taking of private property. If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves, not by government force. Today the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is shoot, shovel, and shut up.
    If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation. The use of automobiles and access to pristine wilderness (rural) areas would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these anointed environmentalists.
    The endangered species act is another abuse of environmentalism. Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments-survival if the fittest. In fact, the hoopla over the spotted owl (that placed much northwest timber land off-limits to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.
    More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to plant lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas off-limits for logging or development. Fortunately, these scientists were caught, however, no punishment was imposed.
    In order to promote the false religion of “global warming” aka “climate change”, NASA “scientists” purposely installed temperature sensors in city parking lots and roads contrary to good scientific principles and practices in order to “skew” the “global warming” results.
    In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism like watermelon-green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside.
    It is interesting to note that communist and third-world countries have the WORST environmental conditions on the planet. Instead of the USA and other developed countries spending billions to get rid of that last half-percent of pollution, it would behoove the communist and third-world countries to improve their conditions first. Here is a question for you environmentalists: Why is there a push for restrictive environmental regulations, but only on the developed first-world countries, and not the gross polluters such as India and China?

  3. #1. Hydrocarbons are NOT “fossil fuels”. Oil is abiotic and is constantly being produced deep within the earth, well below the levels of “fossils”. In fact, old oil wells are “filling back up” as hydrocarbons migrate upward from the depths. Hydrocarbons are a “renewable resource”, not unlike plants and animals.
    #2. Hydrocarbons are NOT pollutants in the traditional sense as the products come out of the ground. In fact, there are “vents” on the ocean floor that are spewing out many more “pollutants” than mankind could ever produce. Ever hear of the La Brea tar pits? In fact, one active volcano spews out more pollutants than that of mankind’s entire history. Utilization of energy has made the average person equal to those “elites” and others who resent that fact.
    #3. Environmentalists are mentally ill. They consider human beings to be a pestilence (except for themselves) and will do ANYTHING to reduce the human population, including genocide. Environmentalists are “red” (communist) on the inside and “green” on the outside. Environmentalists use government power to effect “takings” of private property without compensation to the owners. They have no problem subjecting humans to discomfort, disease, and even death to save a fish or a squirrel (endangered species, yeah right).
    #4 The “elites” are a tiny group with more money than brains. From Bill Gates to (((Klaus Schwab))) they think that they have all the answers. This also goes for the Harvard and Yale “elites” who lack common sense and HATE the average person–the common man who is able to make a decent life for himself and his family.
    #5. These “elites” manufacture “crises” in order to “get their way”, the covid plandemic being the latest
    crisis”. Of course, “globull warming” (aka “climate change”) is their latest scam. Shutting down hydrocarbon energy production is part of their plan.
    These elites had better realize that there are many more of “us” than there are of “them”.
    There is a way…shut down the country for a month. Europeans have always done this on a smaller scale with railroad and other transportation strikes. Shut down the USA for a month and see the elites “squirm”.

    • Anarchyst, where you get #1? Oil may certainly be abiotic in origin, the hydrocarbons on other solar system bodies would be proof of that, but we have enormous oil reserves which are provably biological in origin; being chock full of dinoflagellates and other fossils. The presence of one, doesn’t mean the absence of the other.

      • Opposite,
        Russia has pioneered drilling for oil beneath the fossil layer, successfully. So a significantly large amount of oil on the market is likely NOT “fossil fuel”. While this does not “prove” the absence of fossil fuel, presence of biological contaminants does not disprove the absence either, since such abiotic oil could simply be infiltrating biological layers.

      • “Fossil fuel” is a political term, not a scientific term. It was coined in the 1950s when not much was known about processes deep within the earth. It was “assumed” that oil was the result of biological material “converted” under extreme pressures. It is possible that “on it’s way up”, abiotic oil picks up biological debris.
        Vents on the ocean floor are constantly spewing out hydrocarbons and other substances on a much greater scale than anything mankind can achieve.
        Oil is politicized because the “powers-that-be” HATE the concept of ordinary human beings living a decent comfortable life beyond their control.
        Henry Ford himself stated that the “common man should be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor”, something that today’s one-world elites, business types, environmentalists, communists and control freaks HATE.
        Henry Ford believed in the monetization of labor, giving labor “value”, paying people enough, not only to live on, but to prosper. It seems that a certain pre-WW2 European leader had the same idea and was attacked and destroyed by (((you know who))) with a world war that (((they))) started as it would upset their talmudic banksters gnome’s piles of gold. Both Ford and the European leader were attacked for monetizing labor by (((you know who))). It’s too bad that the labor monetizers lost…we all lost.

    • RE: “one active volcano spews out more pollutants than that of mankind’s entire history.”

      Those kinds of facts are too hard to understand. Or, so it seems.

      It’s kind of amazing when you think about it. Both the pollution from a volcano – and – how that’s just not something people generally can understand, or even know about.

  4. Over the course of my lifetime I’ve developed a great sense of trying to live as efficiently as possible. I do this not for the sake of conservation, but conservation is the inevitable result.

    I remember when I used to drive an old beater years ago. I had some outraged friends that would tell me for earth’s sake I needed to buy a new car. I would ask them how much energy and resources were required to manufacture a new car and also how would me buying a new car ensure that my old car would not be driven by somebody else. Of course nobody would even try to answer those questions.

    Those cash-for-clunkers videos where they’d put silica in the oil to kill perfectly serviceable cars still haunt me. It was like watching an execution of the innocent.

    • Hi Mister,

      I could have written the same! I was a kind of red-headed stepchild among the cognoscenti, when I still lived in the DC area and drove old beaters – all of which were paid-for – as opposed to the new BMWs and so on that others drove. People would ask me – as they asked you – why I drove (one example) a clapped out ’74 Beetle when I could be driving something neeeeeeew! I told them I liked not being the bitch of some finance company, which meant being the bitch of some employerI dared not cross else not be able to make those low, low monthly payments. Thus have I lived my life ever since.

      Much of America’s affluence is a facade. If people had to live within their means, almost all new car sales would collapse tomorrow and the grotesqueries of 5,000 square foot McMansions on quarter-acre lots would curl up like a slug in the sun, doused with salt.

      • Yup. Total facade. I think that’s part of the reason they want you to buy a new car. Misery loves company. How dare you not be a bitch slave like them!

        It goes without saying that this independence is what allowed folks like us to raise our middle fingers to the sickness psychosis.

      • Yes, I used to drive old cars and still do, although I recently procured a new car with max factory warranty for my spouse as she will probably outlive me and I want her to have as few problems as possible.
        I used to get the same questions from friends and associates, me driving old Plymouth Valiants–6 cylinder, “three on the tree” cars. “Why don;t you buy a new car? You make good money.” I stated, “I don’t have a car payment. If it dies because of a major problem, I can just walk away”.
        I presently have a 2004 Saturn Vue with 276,000 miles and hope to achieve 300,00 miles by year end. The engine has never been opened up and doesn’t burn oil. Oil is changed with the seasons regardless of mileage. Oil is cheap insurance.
        My favorite is my 1982 Mercedes 240D diesel with well over 300,000 miles on it.

        • Anarchyst, your 240D is barely BROKEN IN with only 300K on the clock! There are few vehicles that are more durable than those old Mercedes oil burners… 🙂

    • Mister,
      Waste not, want not. Simple. Not working so well here, where waste is considered the standard lifestyle, financed by debt.
      Similar you, I’ve lived my life on the principal of leaving the smallest footprint. If for no other reason, it’s cheaper to live that way. Which means I don’t have to work as hard nor as long, not being in debt. As a result, nor do I have to put up with as much male bovine excrement. I have time to spend on other things, like being here with all of you, contemplating the universe.
      In the old days, when most of a car was made out of steel, it took more energy to make one than it would use in its lifetime. Somehow, with the advancement of plastics, it cost less to make one, but the price hasn’t gone down.(?) Oh, yeah, regulation.

  5. Can’t make money if there’s plenty. Reduce supply until there’s just enough but not too much. That’s efficient. Sometimes you come up short, but hey, if you’re delivering 99.99% of the time (54 outage minutes per customer per year) that’s good enough. Going from four nines to five (99.999%, or 5.2 outage minutes) requires massively redundant systems and very exacting management. Or voodoo math and lawyers.

    WRT old vehicles, seems like manufacturers are going out of their way to eliminate the aftermarket too. Most vehicles up until recently had DIN mount stereos, basic engines that took well to high performance upgrades and even seats were easily replaced and upgraded. These days about all you can do is get custom rims, and even those might screw up the TPS alarms. Seats have airbags so you can’t remove them. Engines are tightly controlled. ECMs are locked down and hacking/tuning will void any service warranty. The stereo is integrated into the dashboard display network, so you better like what you got.

  6. You know why, to a great extent, this shit happens with the apparent approval of *enough* people? It’s because they’ve been sold on this idea that there’s somebody else or something else that needs their sacrifice more than they individually deserve to enjoy their lives. And that it’s noble or godly or virtuous or whatever they tell themselves, i.e., a massive guilt trip.

    Until these fucken idiots (e.g., most people in CA), come to the conclusion that *THEY* are the ones that need help, they’re never gonna stop allowing this tyranny. It looks like that’s the last thing that will happen until major pain has been suffered.

    However, it looks like plenty of pain is heading their (and everyone else’s) way due to the voting choices that have been made. Enough to change their minds? Who knows.

    Over the weekend on Lew Rockwell, there was an article by Gary Barnett that talked about this, albeit from a different angle and much more comprehensively:


  7. ‘It’s too bad about conservationism … about being a good steward of the environment. But then, there’s not much money in that.’ — eric

    Nightmare in Commiefornia:

    ‘As Sept. 6 arrived, Elliot Mainzer, CAISO’s chief executive, knew he was facing one of his organization’s toughest days.

    ‘Utilities began firing up backup generators. None of it was enough. At 4:57 pm, demand for power in CAISO’s system hit 52,061 megawatts — nearly 4 percent higher than the record.

    “The sheer temperatures that were going on outside just kept pushing the load,” Mr. Mainzer said. “It was just going up and up and up. We’re also facing sunset.”

    ‘That meant the supply of solar power was about to drop off rapidly, and the grid operator was running out of backup tools.’


    They roll up the streets
    When the sun goes down
    I’m a midnight girl
    In a sunset town

    — Sweethearts of the Rodeo, Midnight Girl in a Sunset Town

  8. ‘Conservationism lost out to “environmentalism” chiefly because there’s no money in the former as opposed to the latter.’ — eric

    They ain’t much money in the old-time mandolin
    So I cash my check and I drink ’til I’m on my ass again
    As soon as the sun goes down
    I find my way to the Mustang Lounge
    And if you don’t sit facing the window
    You could be in any town

    — Jason Isbell, Cumberland Gap


    ‘If the EeeVee scam can’t go on forever, it will eventually stop.’ — Herbert Stein [edited for contemporaneousness]

  9. “Conservationists” tend to be deer hunters, trout fishermen, and other like minded conservative individuals.

    “Environmentalists” tend to be city slickers who cringe at the idea of anyone owning a firearm, let alone using one to harvest game.

    City mouse vs. country mouse, IOW.
    Lots more city mice than there are country mice, AFAIK.
    Just sayin…

    • Adi,
      Of course the “environmentalist” doesn’t have to take any personal or spiritual responsibility for killing their food. It comes from the grocery store. Manufactured in the back room where the butchers work.
      When I first started hunting, I did so because I enjoyed it. I later discovered why I enjoyed it. Because I WAS taking personal and spiritual responsibility for the food I ate. Later yet, getting old, I enjoyed it much less, but continued until I could no longer do so, because of that responsibility.

    • The Robertson-Pitttman Act imposes an 11% tax on firearms, ammunition and archery gear that is paid at the manufacturer level. This Act was and is still supported by true conservationists, not the “bunny and tree-hugging environmentalists” of today.
      This “tax” was enacted in 1937 and continues to this day.
      Now, who is the true conservationist environmentalist even today?
      It ain’t today’s environmentalists…

  10. Ever see a 25 foot in length one foot in diameter armature from a steam turbine salvaged from a power plant? Anyone? Bueller?

    Just an estimate of the size, but they are out there if you ever see one. har

    Was behind an oil field equipment implement on a major US highway, it was probably 10 wheels wide and 80 feet in length with wheels four feet apart, it was a big machine of some kind, commanded both lanes of the highway, you followed until the coast was clear.

    More than likely a piece of equipment used in hydraulic fracturing technology.

    This ain’t the Stone Age these days.

    Oil exploration and development is a green energy business from the get go. Crude oil is a product of the sun’s energy, nothing else.

    Hydrocarbons power civilization. It is instant collapse without the evil wicked mean and nasty hydrocarbons.

    Supply and Demand

    Crude oil rules the game.

    • ‘Crude oil is a product of the sun’s energy.’ — drumphish

      … therefore, green.

      Instead, we get this:

      ‘E-fuels, like e-methane, e-kerosene and e-methanol, are all fuels in gas or liquid form that are produced from renewable (solar or wind power, for example) or decarbonised electricity.

      ‘Liquid e-fuels: like e-methanol and e-crude, also known as synthetic crude oil, which make e-kerosene and e-diesel.’

      Stick an ‘e’ in front of a fuel; it’s as magical and virtuous as the ‘i’ in iPhone.

      Never mind what it will cost to do things the hard way.

      Mother Gaia demands no less.

  11. Conservationism is using and replacing natural resources in a responsible manner while environmentalism calls for culling the population and limiting access to natural resources to only a few.

    • Also, environmentalism calls for shutting you up if you do not agree with them or say the right things.

      They are trying to build up some steam to do so:

      “… Ardern lashed out at “disinformation” and called for a global coalition to control speech. After nodding toward free speech, she proceeded to lay out a plan for its demise through government regulation: […]

      “We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. […]

      How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists?” […]

      As the great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”


      Oh, I think they have understanding all right, it’s the useful dupes they intend to manipulate into supporting them on their quest for madness & destruction whom lack the understanding.

  12. green solar…lol

    The government has stupid solutions for the climate change lies……technology that is far more destructive to the environment…..

    NOTE: solar panels, lithium batteries and wind turbines are all catching fire, they are very dangerous…

    95% of lithium batteries aren’t recycled, Solar panels can’t be recycled, Used wind turbine blades can’t be recycled, Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds, they are made from fiberglass.

    Lithium batteries:

    Can’t be recycled = really green energy….haha
    A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, (tesla batteries go up to 1800 lb., hummer battery is 3000 lb. ) It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
    It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just one battery.” For the larger batteries multiply all that by 2 X.

    Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”

    Open pit lithium mining for battery manufacture, often done with child slave labour, is worse then tar sands mining.

    95% of lithium batteries aren’t recycled……someone said there is a $4500 recycling fee, so they will get thrown into the woods probably.
    Lithium fire bomb batteries catch fire, are very dangerous….

    Solar panels:

    The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicone dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
    Solar panels can’t be recycled…..what will they do with them (and wind turbine blades)? throw them down old mine shafts like nuclear waste?…..lol..

    solar panels are toxic. They sterilize the ground they sit on. Birds that fly over a solar farm are roasted mid-flight.
    Have you researched the temperature directly above a solar farm?? These farms have been accused of creating warming in the regions around them.

    Solar panels catch fire, they are a fire hazard…

    The alarmists will always show you pictures of solar panels on green grass – which have to taken as soon as the panels are installed. They leach cadmium and other toxic chemicals and sterilize the soil. Just try to find anything growing under a solar farm that has stood for a few years.

    Going 100% wind and solar would mean the landmass that both wind and solar would take up would be most of the farmland in America.
    Right now we’re not even at 3% electrical production of both. We’re going down a doomed path!

    Wind turbines

    Wind turbines are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.

    Wind turbines are junk energy yes the cost is enormous! They have a lifespan of roughly maybe 20 years and to decommission one costs $500,000! And the landmass that both wind and solar take up will take up most of the farmland in America. Right now we’re not even at 3% electrical production of both. We’re going down a doomed path!

    Used wind turbine blades can’t be recycled, Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds, they are made from fiberglass.

    The average wind farm has 150 turbines. Each wind turbine requires 80 gallons of oil for lubrication, and this isn’t vegetable oil; this is a PAO synthetic oil based on crude… 12,000 gallons. Once a year, that oil must be replenished.

    The wind farm in Mt. Pulaski has been running for 3 1/2 years. They have been replacing the generators in all the wind towers. There are 100 of them in this wind farm. So evidently the life span on the generators on these things is about 3 to 4 years. It takes 12 semi trucks and trailers, A 9 axle 500,000 pound crane, A 100,000 pound crane and 12 pick up trucks to change each generator. That is a huge amount of diesel fuel being used to maintain these wind towers. And the “Green Groups” would like You to believe they are all fueled by magic fairy dust.

    they leak oil from their motors. They cannot be recycled so they are buried in Landfills. They use more electricity than they create. They can fling ice for hundreds of meters. They kill large predatory birds, bats and insects. Their infrasound negatively affect the hearts of humans and animals that live near them. The huge cement footings damage aquifers.

    wind turbines catch fire, they are dangerous a fire hazard……

    But truly, there is no making sense of these people anymore.
    They are ready to shell out hundreds of billions to take over arable acreage with solar panels even as we face a food crisis,

    and festoon the countryside with bird-slaughtering windmills rather than permit more pipelines and refineries to open.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here