Stupidest NYT headline ever?

“Wind farms may not lower air pollution, study suggests”

The implication is that somehow wind farms pollute just as much as coal-fired power plants.

But that’s not what the article says. Basically it says that over the next X years, enough wind farms won’t be built to counteract all the pollution that’s belching out of coal-fired power plants.

How is this an argument against wind farms? If we didn’t build wind farms, wouldn’t we have to build more coal-fired power plants? And wouldn’t this increase pollution?

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Stupidest NYT headline ever?

  1. dave says:

    And don’t claim that “lowering future increases” isn’t lowering pollution. If the government can claim that decreasing anticipated budget increases is a “budget cut,” then we should be able to use the same, er, spin, when we talk about wind farms.

  2. Marcio Botelho says:

    Right on, Dave! This article is further proof the NYT is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy! The little voices in my head were saying “Bogus,” and “Stupid,” and one was just doing a continuous Bronx Cheer for the NYT! Seriously though, without seeing the raw data from the NAS, it’s impossible to say how much of the article is Mr. Wald’s interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the study. I get the feeling there’s more spin than fact. The main argument against this clean form of energy seems to be it would make too little difference. Had the article talked about the amount of pollution produced in the construction of a windmill vs. its expected energy output, one might be able to decide whether it was a viable alternative to coal or not. The most absurd paragraph was the one in which the author brought up the harm to bats and raptors, albeit unmeasurable, as an excuse for not building the windmills. Had it compared the damage to bats from windmills vs. the damage to bats from the pollution produced by dirty coal-fired plants that would have been something else (I’m not even sure that’s possible). But to claim the environmental highground in relation to birds and bats, in order to justify spewing soot into the atmosphere made me groan.

Comments are closed.