You just can't trust the media these days. Instead of impartially reporting the news anymore, many major media outlets are engaged in pushing the propaganda of energy companies and political goals. Case in point: This article about a solar farm in Michigan.
The "victim" in this article is a landowner who needed money and decided to lease her ground to a solar company. Neighbors objected to the solar farm so local zoning got changed and the project was blocked. Isn't that democracy at work? The needs of the many trump the needs of the few. Local governments have become ground zero for land use issues, and the voters drive acceptance or rejection. But for some reason, the media presented the story to make the voters the bad guys and the few the "good guy." Of course this isn't how democracy works, but somehow this anti-democratic rhetoric was championed in the name of "clean energy." That is, the government should be allowed to dismiss the concerns of the voters if it's about a clean energy project. There, the few rule supreme. This is about huge multi-national corporations making money building things we may or may not need in our own communities. We no longer have a voice in our local affairs. The article touts policies in several states where state level government can overrule local government and direct land use in the locality. Is this a good idea? The article tries to make you think so, but if you extrapolate this out to things like data centers, Walmarts, and polluting factories, the supporters of state rule suddenly think it's not a good idea. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
We are constantly told that rural areas must make a sacrifice to create and transmit "clean energy" for urban areas that don't want to put that stuff in their own community because... you guessed it... their voters object to that use of remaining open space. How about a little empathy? If you don't want it in your backyard, we don't want it in ours, either. Urban areas are not "more special" where they can push energy impacts off onto less fortunate and politically-connected communities in order to save themselves. This is the rich and politically powerful enslaving the rest of the country... so they can live well in their own communities and not give "those people" another thought. Some of them tell themselves that "those people" like being their slaves and that they should be congratulated for giving "those people" an opportunity to "be heard." What good is "being heard" when nobody listens? Giving "those people" an opportunity to shout into an empty well before you run them over is not democracy.
When did our energy system stop becoming democratic? It never actually was. It was designed for benefit of corporations, and those corporations are still the ones who benefit. Pretending that "everyone else" loves clean energy and transmission when it is sited on someone else's property, is not democracy, it's corporate-fueled mob rule. And somehow rural property owners protecting the land that produces their income are the demons, the NIMBYs.
NIMBY stands for "Not In My Back Yard." NIMBY is name-calling at its most basic level. Calling opponents "NIMBYs" does not deal with their arguments in a logical way, it simply directs the reader to dismiss the NIMBY altogether and not listen to his arguments because they must be "selfish." Who's the real selfish person here? The person trying to protect himself from invasion, or the person doing the invading in order to protect himself from a similar invasion? Corporations who stand to make big bucks exploiting rural landowners are quick with the NIMBY label. They also try to shut down any NIMBY arguments by claiming they are "misinformation." And they further demonize the NIMBYs by falsely claiming that they are organized and funded by corporations and mysterious "national organizations." All this adds up to censorship of "those people" by turning them into unacceptable groups who are so extreme that they should not be allowed to speak out or object in any way to the invasion.
Case in point: This article demonizing NIMBYs. The author is a real jerk, pretending he's Mr. Science and is somehow figuring out NIMBY motivation. Poor fella, he has no idea what motivates "NIMBYs" and never will until he actually becomes one himself. You cannot truly know how another man feels until you walk a mile in his shoes.
He also doesn't get the reason why thousands of unaffected "YIMBYs" don't show up to shout down the NIMBYs, acting as his own personal army. First of all, use of the term "YIMBY" -- YIMBY stands for "Yes In My Back Yard." None of the proposed YIMBYs even have a back yard of their own if they're the proposed young and clueless climate protestors. They are not accepting any sacrifice for themselves, just demanding that others make a sacrifice for them. YIMBY is not the proper word here. Paid protestor is more apt. It doesn't take a lifelong study of human nature to realize it is harder to whip up support for something than it is to whip up opposition. The supporter simply doesn't care enough to go out of their way to support someone else's project. However, the objector whose property and way of life is threatened will go to great lengths to protect himself. The only way corporations have been successful in creating supporters is with good, old fashioned cash. Paid advocates, whether they are handed cash, free dinners, or business favors, will go out of their way to provide support if the price is right. They will also spread any misinformation they are handed. They are part of national organizations.
The "victim" in this article is a landowner who needed money and decided to lease her ground to a solar company. Neighbors objected to the solar farm so local zoning got changed and the project was blocked. Isn't that democracy at work? The needs of the many trump the needs of the few. Local governments have become ground zero for land use issues, and the voters drive acceptance or rejection. But for some reason, the media presented the story to make the voters the bad guys and the few the "good guy." Of course this isn't how democracy works, but somehow this anti-democratic rhetoric was championed in the name of "clean energy." That is, the government should be allowed to dismiss the concerns of the voters if it's about a clean energy project. There, the few rule supreme. This is about huge multi-national corporations making money building things we may or may not need in our own communities. We no longer have a voice in our local affairs. The article touts policies in several states where state level government can overrule local government and direct land use in the locality. Is this a good idea? The article tries to make you think so, but if you extrapolate this out to things like data centers, Walmarts, and polluting factories, the supporters of state rule suddenly think it's not a good idea. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
We are constantly told that rural areas must make a sacrifice to create and transmit "clean energy" for urban areas that don't want to put that stuff in their own community because... you guessed it... their voters object to that use of remaining open space. How about a little empathy? If you don't want it in your backyard, we don't want it in ours, either. Urban areas are not "more special" where they can push energy impacts off onto less fortunate and politically-connected communities in order to save themselves. This is the rich and politically powerful enslaving the rest of the country... so they can live well in their own communities and not give "those people" another thought. Some of them tell themselves that "those people" like being their slaves and that they should be congratulated for giving "those people" an opportunity to "be heard." What good is "being heard" when nobody listens? Giving "those people" an opportunity to shout into an empty well before you run them over is not democracy.
When did our energy system stop becoming democratic? It never actually was. It was designed for benefit of corporations, and those corporations are still the ones who benefit. Pretending that "everyone else" loves clean energy and transmission when it is sited on someone else's property, is not democracy, it's corporate-fueled mob rule. And somehow rural property owners protecting the land that produces their income are the demons, the NIMBYs.
NIMBY stands for "Not In My Back Yard." NIMBY is name-calling at its most basic level. Calling opponents "NIMBYs" does not deal with their arguments in a logical way, it simply directs the reader to dismiss the NIMBY altogether and not listen to his arguments because they must be "selfish." Who's the real selfish person here? The person trying to protect himself from invasion, or the person doing the invading in order to protect himself from a similar invasion? Corporations who stand to make big bucks exploiting rural landowners are quick with the NIMBY label. They also try to shut down any NIMBY arguments by claiming they are "misinformation." And they further demonize the NIMBYs by falsely claiming that they are organized and funded by corporations and mysterious "national organizations." All this adds up to censorship of "those people" by turning them into unacceptable groups who are so extreme that they should not be allowed to speak out or object in any way to the invasion.
Case in point: This article demonizing NIMBYs. The author is a real jerk, pretending he's Mr. Science and is somehow figuring out NIMBY motivation. Poor fella, he has no idea what motivates "NIMBYs" and never will until he actually becomes one himself. You cannot truly know how another man feels until you walk a mile in his shoes.
He also doesn't get the reason why thousands of unaffected "YIMBYs" don't show up to shout down the NIMBYs, acting as his own personal army. First of all, use of the term "YIMBY" -- YIMBY stands for "Yes In My Back Yard." None of the proposed YIMBYs even have a back yard of their own if they're the proposed young and clueless climate protestors. They are not accepting any sacrifice for themselves, just demanding that others make a sacrifice for them. YIMBY is not the proper word here. Paid protestor is more apt. It doesn't take a lifelong study of human nature to realize it is harder to whip up support for something than it is to whip up opposition. The supporter simply doesn't care enough to go out of their way to support someone else's project. However, the objector whose property and way of life is threatened will go to great lengths to protect himself. The only way corporations have been successful in creating supporters is with good, old fashioned cash. Paid advocates, whether they are handed cash, free dinners, or business favors, will go out of their way to provide support if the price is right. They will also spread any misinformation they are handed. They are part of national organizations.
Despite all the biased media, we've yet to see rural landowners bow down to their wannabe urban masters. Who do they think they're convincing with this hogwash?
RSS Feed