Wind Turbine Syndrome – or Wind Turbine Phobia?

Come writers and critics

Who prophesize with your pen

And keep your eyes wide

The chance won’t come again

And don’t speak too soon

For the wheel’s still in spin

 -          Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin’

 

The Old Road Is Rapidly Agin’

It was social upheaval on a scale so vast, it defied comprehension.  The people were astounded by the pervasive nature of this change, which seemed without precedence in history.  The train of progress kept on gaining speed, hurling society forward at such a pace it seemed like new track couldn’t be laid down fast enough to keep pace.  In the face of so much uncertainty, such dramatic upheavals of the world they knew (and found comfort in) the people were afraid – afraid that society itself was going off the rails.

This fear of an unknown future gripped the common man.  A wave of anxiety overtook the masses as the walls of society seemed to topple around them.  People began to panic about being left at the station as progress steamed its way into tomorrow.  All this uncertainty and stress fostered anger and resentment against the agents of progress, best personified by one intrusive, aggressive symbol.

 

Welcome to Victorian England, mid-1800s.  It was a time of rapid industrial growth and social upheaval that saw a polarization between progressives and conservatives over the future of the nation and the consequences of social adaptation.  It’s a time worth understanding well, as it mirrors what we’re going through today.  Wind turbines, you see, are being viewed through the exact same lenses now as were trains then.  Let us consider:

I Hear the Train A Comin’ 

For a time, men of means in Victorian England were struck by railway fever.  Whatever the general public felt, they believed that the future of public transport was in trains; as such, they were “induced to believe that they had only to embark in one of these schemes to ensure themselves a life of affluence and ease.”  Rail’s proponents said trains would better harness a key commodity of the era – time itself – and that railway tracks and bridges would “architecturally embellish” the countryside.

The majority of the population, of course, were not people of means.  To them, the gridding of their countryside, their farms and homesteads with tracks was a unilaterally imposed threat.  History tells us they don’t like the idea of their power to decide their future being taken away from them; the same was true here.  By 1845, there was an almost universal aversion to the railways.  Railway historian Frederick S. Williams summed up the growing NIMBYISM of the age thusly: “A rumor that it was proposed to bring such a thing as a railroad within a dozen miles of a particular neighbourhood was enough to elicit adverse petitions to Parliament, and public subscriptions were opened to give effect to the opposition.”

 

People did not like the idea of seeing a train rumble by past their front door.  A Quaker wrote the following complaint to the Leeds Intelligencer on January 31, 1831:

 

“On the very line of this railway, I have built a comfortable house; it enjoys a pleasing view of the country.  Now judge, my friend, of my mortification, whilst I am sitting comfortably at breakfast with my family, enjoying the purity of the summer air, in moment my dwelling, one consecrated to peace and retirement, is filled with dense smoke of foetid gas; my homely, though cleanly, table covered with dirt; and the features of my wife and family almost obscured by a polluted atmosphere.  Nothing is heard but the clanking iron, the blasphemous song, or the appalling curses of the directors of these infernal machines.”

The concerns of the common citizen extended beyond the aesthetic; farmers worried about the long-term impact of passing trains and coal-smoke on their crops, produce and livestock.  Indeed, at the time, nobody could say with any hint of certainty what the effects of the railway would be on a hen’s laying capacity or a cow’s grazing habits.

A sense of economic opportunity; a fear of health risks and a loss of aesthetic appeal; broader, social upheaval.  Does any of this sound familiar?

The Winds of Change

In Victorian England, broader environmental concerns weren’t so recognized; people were more alarmed over the consequences to their own backyard.  The need for speed and access, the building of a social transportation infrastructure was the big requirement for social and economic growth.  While today, we understand more or less the need to balance social growth with the wellbeing of our environment, our primary concern is still our backyard. 

NIMBYISM is as alive today as it was back then, particularly in the case of landowners who feel an entitlement to do as they please with their own property.  The big need is not so much new infrastructure (though what we have is getting old), but for more energy.  Electricity is the food that sustains industry, technology, the family home – we need more of it that is easily accessed, reliable and safe.  Maslow’s hierarchy of needs remain true here as elsewhere – personal needs trump social concerns, both in terms of usage and NIMBYISM.  We want power, but we don’t want a lot to pay for it, nor do we want to have its generation be a fixture of our own personal landscapes.

Wind turbines have replaced trains as the symbol of social upheaval.  As such, they have become the new lightening rod for progressives and conservatives alike.

Pro wind-turbine advocates like CanWEA see wind-generated energy in much the same light as 19^th Century investors saw trains – as a profitable solution to emerging social issues.  Coal is dirty, nuclear is dangerous, the demand for oil and the instability of so many oil-producing countries makes it both environmentally unsound and expensive.  Wind technology, though in its infancy, offers a partial solution to all these problems.  The issue is not one of generation, really, as it is of storage.

On the other side, wind-turbine opponents present a list of familiar arguments, only given more detail thanks to the growing interest in evidence-based problem identification and solution development.  Therefore:

-          Wind turbines are seen as aesthetically displeasing – and here’s the polling data to prove this.  It’s not just risky, it’s a political hot potato – government, do you really want to go there?

-          Turbines produce health risks.  Not only do they kill birds and bats due to low-frequency waves, but these same waves are damaging human health, too.  They’re actually bad, not good, for the environment.  Its best to pursue something else

-          Landowners don’t want somebody else deciding what happens to their land.  It’s their land, they absolutely must be the ones who decides what happens to their property or what impacts their property.

If you look at the facts, the core opinions against wind turbines are the same as those that were used against trains.  The arguments for wind farms are pretty similar to those for trains, too.  In short, there’s nothing new under the sun – specific positions and tactics aside, what we’re looking at is collective progress that generates wealth for a few but benefits the many vs. change-resistant conservatism that stands against individual loss of control and sees progress as threatening.

The Train Has Left The Station

Trains are common, now; inter-city, GO, subways and other forms of mass-transit are part and parcel of urban life.  A big battle facing the City of Toronto’s Council is whether to go with more subways or Light Rail Trains (LRT).  The right-wing Mayor wants to see more public transit buried underground, freeing up road use for more cars.  He sees this as a solution for managing gridlock.  Whether proponents of subways or LRTs, advocates for more space for cars or greater public transport options, nobody is talking about the health impacts of the vibrations or exhaust of vehicles.  It’s not just trains – cars, buses, fire trucks, all vehicles rumble through the city and across the landscape, carrying their low-frequency vibrations with them.  Not coincidentally, the city is testing the benefits of wind generation to help satiate its voracious appetite for energy.

People in urban areas are accustomed to trains, to electricity, to communications towers, crowds, all the things that mass-transit, urban living and technology imply.  They live near them, work near them, play near them.  Ontario is probably one of the very few jurisdictions in the world to have a train that rides right beneath its Legislature.  The world that would have mortified our letter-writing Quaker friend is accepted and comfortable today.  For ubran dwellers, the sounds, shakes and general turbulence of transit is at most, an annoying background noise that reduces property value.  Frequently, it isn’t even noticed at all.  Certainly, few would claim that their health is severely impacted by the presence of these ambient noise and tremors.

Yet, people in rural areas express their uneasiness with wind turbines.  This woman describes how her family’s sleep is disrupted by the thrum of 11 turbines not far from her property.  Is this all exaggeration, a rural conspiracy to justify an inclination towards NIMBYism?  The symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome have been widely consistent in their description: 

 

-          Insomnia

-          Irritability

-          Headaches

-          Difficulty concentrating

-          Dizziness

 The frequency and repetitive nature of these symptoms should not be ignored, but we must carefully weigh their origins.  The Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE) is among those doing serious research into the potential health effects of Wind Turbine Syndrome.  Hopefully, these researchers are turning to history as an indicator of what, more broadly, might be happening here.

Go back to the top of this article and follow the link behind wave of anxiety in the second paragraph.  See any similarity between the symptoms of Anxiety and Wind Turbine Syndrome?  Now, consider the problems first associated with the arrival of the train and how prevalent those concerns are now.  Notice the similarities?

We Have Nothing To Fear…

 There is a strong argument to be made that Wind Turbine Syndrome isn’t a product of wind turbines themselves, but rather, the physical manifestation of anxiety caused by the presence of wind turbines.  This makes total sense.  There are countless examples of people who have severe physiological responses caused by the presence of external factors, but not by those factors themselves.  There’s a word for this phenomenon – phobia.

 

Some people have an absolute terror of flying – the very presence of a plane makes their heart race and their palms get sweaty.  Others will go into panic at the notion of public speaking.  These phobias aren’t universal, though – otherwise, we’d never have world-travelling public speakers.  Even those folk who have phobias can learn to overcome them.  Key to overcoming a phobia is understanding the cause and addressing it – you can’t determine a solution if you haven’t correctly identified the problem.

Is it possible that we have misidentified the cause of wind turbine-related health impacts?  Instead of studying Wind Turbine Syndrome, should we instead be treating Wind Turbine Phobia?  Phobias, of course, are considered to be indicative of weak minds, of mental illness.  We still have a pervasive stigma against mental illness; it’s fair to say that many of those people who suffer from Wind Turbine Phobia would rail against the very notion of their anxieties being internally, not externally, caused.  Such an admission would completely undermine the argument it’s not them, but the changes (beyond their control) being wrought to their landscape that are at the heart of the problem. 

Conclusion

The arguments made by the anti-turbine movement are almost identical to those that were made by the anti-railway movement.  The health concerns expressed by each are also remarkably similar – and both strongly resemble the psychological condition we have now identified as anxiety.  With the rise of the urban community and the growth of transportation networks, the concerns of the former have all but disappeared.  One can imagine that, with the growth of wind farms, future generations will grow up with turbines an accepted part of their landscape.  I would wager these generations will have far lower incidences of Wind Turbine Phobia than their ancestors are experiencing now.

 

In the meantime, our ignoring of anxiety as a legitimate cause for turbine-related health symptoms means everyone is focused on solving the wrong problem.  Instead of promoting or decrying the development of wind farms, perhaps resources could be used to address sound-reduction insulation for homes or broader proactive mental health care investment.

The renewable energy train has left the station; the winds of change are upon us.  It makes more sense to put up a sail than it does to turn our backs.

ETHICS: MORALITY, SOCIETY, URBAN ADAPTATION AND WHAT IT ALL MEANS FOR ETHICAL OIL

"Levant’s thesis is simple enough: compared to most of the world’s oil sources, northern Alberta is a veritable bastion of stability, political enlightenment and environmental responsibility."

 “If it weren’t for Alberta’s energy sector, I wouldn’t enjoy the quality of life I do today.”

There are two things the hubbub around “ethical oil” have to tell us about society:

ONE – ETHICS MATTER

Despite what Conservatives pundits have tried to tell me (and PM Steven Harper tried to tell the world when he said Canadians “don’t care” about morality in procedure) – ethics matter.  The Defenders of the Crude would never use the term otherwise.

The importance of ethics makes sense not out of some perceived notion of the better angels of human nature, but out of simple social evolutionary adaption.  Do Unto Others as You’d Have Them Do Unto You only gains in meaning when the Other is beside you every day on the subway, or can access your whole life – and your social networks – online.  The give-a-penny, share-a-penny mentality also makes sense because it proactively builds good will, collaboration and mutual benefit.  Call it the busker model of business.  It’s not unique to humans – even chimpanzees do altruism, because it pays. 

The users of oil might just be using “ethical” to soften the appeal of their cause, but the fact that they feel it necessary to use the word at all is telling in and of itself.  Just like “clean coal”, there is recognition on the part of old-tier energy resource advocates that people ARE concerned about environmental degradation and the impact of resource-use on local communities.  It’s the same trend we saw with the advent of “humane” capital punishment, moving from public hangings to private, less painful injections.  Eventually, you get to a point where you can’t simply can’t sugar-coat the unpalatable enough and choose a third way.

The third way is renewable energy, clean/green energy.  The broad, long-term appeal here is that “renewable” will translate into “ever-lasting” and “clean” will end up meaning less degradation in one’s backyard.  In ancient Rome or even Victorian England, personal waste got dumped on the street.  That kind of self-centred, short-term focused thinking led to plagues and epidemics that impacted everyone equally.  It took a while, but we eventually learned how to collaborate on a more effective model; we have a public sewage system now, and are all a lot healthier for it.

Fossil fuel is today’s equivalent to dumping crap on our streets; yes, it’s handy, yes, it’s there, but you mess up the lawn and risk health (individual and environmental) and access to green space to get it.  If your personal gains outweigh the costs, you don’t care – which is why Albertans are more pro-oil than they are willing to adopt new technologies, but we’ll get to that in point two.

The clean/green movement is the advocate for  tomorrow, but that tomorrow comes at the expense of oil-beneficiaries’ present.  Yes, it is telling that the majority of them aren’t dependent on oil-or-coal generated income.  That just means that the short-term carrot of fossil fuel is smaller for them than the long-term carrot of consequence, while the long-term carrot of better access with less consequence is perhaps bigger than the short-term stick for “Ethical Oil” folk in adapting to a new system.  The great minds behind the Oil Industry could be redirecting their energy on building the next thing – creative destruction as the only option for perpetual success.  It’s far easier, though, to keep promoting and expandinge horse-and-buggy market rather than invest in developing cars.  Though we know how that turns out.

The weighing of long-and-short term carrots and sticks is the history of cognitive development and civilization.  As we live in increasingly dense urban environments, the long-term sticks that result from snatching short-term carrots grow in significance, as does the possibility of big carrots down the road if you perhaps skip the small carrot available at the present.  The societal whole is increasingly less tolerant of individual gain at social cost.

Hence, ethics.  And that’s why even the use of the term “ethical oil” is a great indicator of the slow demise of fossil fuel dependence.  

TWO – YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK TO BEFORE

There comes a time when any model outlives its practical usefulness.  There is never a clean cut line between models, however – there is always a period of friction.  In that way, social upheaval is the same as the shifting of tectonic plates – and equally inevitable.

As an example: Feudal Japan went out fighting – the samurai battled against the adoption of the Western model and the country against the West itself.  In the end, the result was inevitable.  You can’t stop progress.

The use of the horse and buggy was familiar and comfortable.  Just as important, it was routine.  The advent of the car brought great benefits, but new challenges.  The introduction of the train, though, was terrifying for once-isolated communities.  The train brought disruption, diversity, quantity.  It changed everything.  It is no coincidence that the concerns being raised around mass transit through a railway grid used the exact same arguments being leveled against wind turbines today.  There were concerns about the health impacts of trains on people and livestock.  Some said that the noise and commotion of locomotion lead to two-headed calves being born.  While many of the arguments presented might seem ridiculous, but they were based in a very real place – the discomfort of change.

Change, unfortunately, is the order of the day.  Just look at the impact of the Internet on print journalism, the pulp and paper industry and the communities that depended on it.  The ripple-effects of the 21^st Century are shattering the conventions that have sustained us, in some cases, since the dawn of the industrial revolution.  Is it any surprise that stress-related mental illness diagnoses are on the rise, economies are contracting, national and domestic tensions increasing, and decision-makers are waffling?

I think there would be a lot of agreement with that concept.  The Tea Party and Occupy Movement would surely be on board.  But what does this have to do with oil?

Here are the pro-ethical oil and anti-oil arguments, as I understand them:

Anti-oil

Depending on your point of view, oil is all kinds of wrong – its extraction hurts the environment, it’s a limited resource so can’t be relied on forever and the sheer amount of energy, resources and innovative potential put into obtaining it are long-term wasted as again, it won’t last forever.  When there is even the remote potential of something cleaner and more sustainable, why on earth would you focus on building the better buggy when cars are the thing people are after?  When that opportunity equates to economic opportunity, isn’t it detrimental not to pursue green energy?

Pro-oil

Or, it is absolutely right.  Fossil fuels have been the source of social growth since the industrial age – you can’t expect that to change.  There’s still enough out there to last all of mankind for, well, a while; we’ll have time to figure out what next way down the road, (ie: not our problem).  Given that reality, isn’t it better that we use our own oil and make money doing so?  Fossil fuel generated income plays a huge role in our economy and besides, the way Canada does oil is far better than other countries.  We successfully and proudly advertise “ethical” Canadian diamonds to a desiring world market; “ethical oil” is the same thing.  Besides, this is a Western thing.  The elites in Central Canada have called the shots, ignoring the West, for far too long – it’s our term to lead now and if it’s at their expense, so be it.

The first argument is a proactive one; the minimal size of the carrot to be had from oil extraction and use stands in contrast to the broader implications of the long-term stick of environmental degradation and the lack of preparedness for what a world without oil would mean.  The short-term discomfort to be had from developing and building a clean/green energy infrastructure is nothing compared to the long-term benefits of stability, sustainability and a back-yard that doesn’t reek of bitumen and muddy up your carpet. 

The emerging clean/green energy industry is all about building new partnerships, information sharing, building on innovation – horizontal integration, building new energy networks, etc.  Proactive is adaptive. 

The second argument is a reactive one; we’ve got it, we’re using it, the payoff is great.  If you don’t get the payoff, too bad, but don’t try to take it away from me.  I don’t want less of what works, I want more of it – shouldn’t everyone?  Those trying to take away my carrot are themselves the stick, so I have to swat them with a club.  Hence, the whole ethical oil movement. 

Notice the focus of Ethical Oil is on the unethical nature of their opponents?  It’s less about why fossil fuel use is good, it’s why the alternative is bad.  Green energy is unproven.  Foreign oil is blood-fuel.  Those who are against us are either soft-hearted lefties or the powerful, foreign interest groups conspiring against us.  It’s not about who the partners are or could be – China, for instance – it’s about who the enemy is and how the enemy is not us.  It is no irony that the Harper Conservatives used the same “trouble lapping at our shores”/”socialists and separatists” threats to push for a majority government as they’re using to back ethical oil.  The whole ethical oil argument fits in with selectionist thinking; it’s reactive.  Reactive is combative.

When it looks like their opponent’s arguments are gaining traction, the anti-oil factions become equally reactive.  When reactive meets reactive, you inevitably end up with conflict.  Just ask Rob Ford.

This is as true in national politics as it is in personal politics.  Politics, really, is the social equivalent to fighting – the whole point of politics is to plan your success at the expense of someone else, or mitigate harm to yourself by deflecting it with criticism pointed elsewhere.

Some of my journalist friends’ would tell me segueing into why reactive vs proactive is a distraction that takes away from the main point, but I think it’s fundamental to understanding what’s really happening here.  Plus, this is a blog, not a lecture – you can read whichever pieces you like.  The industrial revolution, the horse and buggy, the collapse of print media and the rise of online social networks, the ethical oil argument and even the rise of urban living are all tied into the same paradigm. Understanding the causal factors behind social, behavioural patterns is key to making the best decisions that balance long-term interests against short-term needs.  They all tie in to the rise of the city.

URBAN, ADAPTIVE LIVING

Urban living forces people to be ever-adaptive as every facet of their daily routine is subject to countless external influencers.  In Toronto, a domestic fight can lead to a distracted driver who runs a light, hits a streetcar and grinds the whole metro system to a halt.  Even a photo in a newspaper can throw one of the most powerful politicians in the country off their routine (Rob Ford = great metaphorical fodder).  Urbanites are intensely inter-dependent in ways most people never even consider, yet there it is. 

At the same time, the diversity of intense urban living provides untold benefits – mass transit, ethnic cuisine, theatre, new business opportunities.  We are willing to take the risks, the lack of individual control over our lives, because in the cost/benefit analysis, the opportunity pros outweigh the adaptive cons, and even the adaptive needs offer room for innovation, which potentially creates new benefits.

That doesn’t mean that there are those who are adverse to change or who see the costs of change as outweighing the benefits – hence, NIMBYism.  Across the board, though, the benefits of dense urban living are enticing; this is why urban growth continues to escalate, globally.

RURAL, ESTABLISHED LIVING

By contrast, small-town anywhere tends to be less diverse and, therefore, more homogeneous – not just in terms of demographics, cuisine or social activities, but even down to routine.  This is a lifestyle that works – the benefits are there, the risks of change are minimal, life is good.  Until, that is, external change forces internal change.

I grew up in Cornwall, Ontario when it was a mill town.  Kids didn’t think it an exciting place to be, though there was some theatre, bowling, the odd festival.  Parents could be relatively assured that their jobs at plants like Domtar were secure and that positions would be there for their kids when the time came.  Routines were pretty established, from family dinners to summer bonfires.  Not much changed, because not much needed to change – until the realities of the global economy came home to roost.  Cornwall is still in the process of adapting to the forced reality of closed plants and unemployment, but it IS adapting.  Part of the process has involved, not surprisingly, diversification – there are new industries popping up and, at the same time, diverse consumption opportunities, too.  Who’d have thought Cornwall would ever have two sushi joints?

Cornwall’s change was met with resistance, yet it undeniably is happening.  The rebirth of Japan was met with fierce, ultimately futile, resistance.  Apartheid didn’t go down quietly, nor did slavery in the United States, although the Civil War was about more than just that.

What we’re witnessing with Ethical Oil is the last forceful gasps of an industry that is losing its hold over the present.  As soon as they started applying the “ethical” descriptor and started pouring vast amounts of resources into mounting an offense, they were done.  This isn’t politics, this isn’t the four-year cycle;  this is a fundamental change in the nature of the fuel that drives our economic engine. 

I don’t expect those behind ethical oil to switch horses mid-stream, no matter how tired their current horse is.  I don’t expect Albertans or Steven Harper to back away from their staunch defence of bitumen.  For their sake, for our collective sake, I hope they spare a few thoughts and a few dollars to what is coming next.  Adaptation, after all, is the key to survival.