Philosopher rebuts rebuttal on wind farm deconstructions

To the Expositor:

An interesting letter from Dr. Bill the dentist (Writer rebuts Island philosopher’s take on windmills, October 17, page 4) about my letter deconstructing the ostensible primary opposition to wind farms. I sought to establish the debate on more honest ground—away from the scurrilous health canard—and responses from the director of Wind Concerns Ontario and Dr. Bill seem to centre around feared higher costs of electricity and people selling their properties to get away from wind farms.

Perhaps sellers want to get a good dollar before a feared plunge in real estate values (never panic, but if you do, be the first to panic). These are valid concerns about any source of electrical generation. However, wind energy should prove to be no more expensive than any other form of clean production. One wouldn’t want financially challenged members of our community damaged by exorbitant energy costs, but the cost issue is another canard.

I had always assumed that one’s vote and one’s opinion were independent of one’s bank account and one’s choice of travel destination. I still believe this to be true. I thank heaven that it is true, because otherwise the debate about our global climate challenges would be horribly skewed by just the sort of intense local thinking characterized by these responses to my letter. One is always relieved that we have several tiers of hierarchical government in Canada when the type of: “I live here and work here,” “I pay huge taxes,” “this is my land,” outraged proclamations are inevitably issued by frighteningly politically confused, but otherwise quite successful, people.

I don’t cede primacy to the opinions of any people based on race.

About the personal comments of Dr. Bill I can say little, except “see you in the spring!”

Phil Dabous