r/technology • u/chrisdh79 • 19h ago
Energy Why wind farms attract so much misinformation and conspiracy theory | If you think climate change is a hoax, you might believe wind turbines poison groundwater.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/08/why-wind-farms-attract-so-much-misinformation-and-conspiracy-theory/41
u/I_can_vouch_for_that 19h ago
Stupid people don't know they're stupid.
7
7
u/Realtrain 14h ago
"Dumb People Are Always Blissfully Unaware Of How Dumb They Really Are"
-Patrick Star
5
74
u/NolanSyKinsley 19h ago
My mother thinks climate change is a hoax because she doesn't believe humanity can cause that much of an impact on the earth but also believes in "chemtrails" to control the weather.....
26
u/Stannis_Loyalist 18h ago
This is common globally.
Currently Japan is facing record-breaking heat. Lots of Japanese completely believe China is using solar panels to heat up their country. I'm not kidding
4
u/fred11551 11h ago
The same propagandists who push the idea that climate change is a hoax (oil companies) will push the idea that any competitor to oil is the real danger. It’s not enough to let oil companies get away with poisoning the earth, they have to blame and demonize green energy too
2
1
u/Ameren 12h ago
This is what gets me. I don't mind when someone disagrees with me, but I find it frustrating when someone doesn't have a consistent position and frequently disagrees with themselves. It's very difficult to have a conversation with someone who has such disordered thinking.
The example you gave is a perfect illustration of this because they're completely incompatible claims. What they believe is amorphous and ill-defined. Unfortunately these people vote on the basis of their beliefs.
48
u/bytemage 19h ago
Stupid people believe many different stupid things. What's this got to do with technology? It's psychology, and as the article states, "no amount of fact-checking is likely to shift them".
7
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 18h ago
There’s a universe where poll testing isn’t racist and just confirms you can actually read the news written by people who are already 5 layers away from original research
13
u/arkofjoy 19h ago
The fossil fuel industry is spending a billion dollars a year in the US alone funding PR campaigns pushing climate change denial and lobbying governments to slow down action on climate change.
But their most cost effective expenditure has been the wholesale purchase of various conservative political parties around the world. Through this thry have successfully made climate change denial a cost of entry into the tribe of these parties.
Renewables are able to provide electrons at considerably lower costs than fossil fuels. They simply cannot compete in a free market. So this is the only way to protect their profits. The fact that the continued burning of fossil fuels kills millions of people every year, and if we continue at the current rate will render big areas of the planet incapable of supporting human life in a couple of generations is immaterial to these psychopaths.
36
u/DonManuel 19h ago
The moment the oil industry realized in the 50s they were going to destroy the climate they started their propaganda against alternatives which hasn't stopped until today. But they could have known in the beginning already because the glass house effect of trace gases like CO2 and methane has been detected already mid 19th century.
14
u/Wuzzy_Gee 19h ago
“If you think climate change is a hoax…” Then you’re an idiot, and you probably voted for that orange piece of trash.
4
u/Kdean509 17h ago
My farmer uncle in law said he learned “everything he needs to know about windmills on the show Landman.” So jot that down.
9
u/WestleyMc 17h ago
On a recent holiday, every meal was in the same seats so we made friends with the tables either side of us as the week went on. After a few nights we went for a drink and got talking.
2 of the guys were 60ish and the other 2 late 20’s.
Late 20’s guy mentioned he just finished Uni studying climate science and one of the older guys said something along the lines of climate change being nonsense. Young guy mentioned he literally just got his phd in a related field and patiently explained why it was real, what evidence there was etc.. old guy just said something like ‘well we can agree to disagree, you have your opinion , I have mine’ .
Completely ignoring the list of info and guy’s credentials. Did not have one thing to back up his ‘belief’ other than ‘he just can’t see it being true’.
Made me realise there’s just no point with some people.
3
u/SAugsburger 11h ago
You can't use logic to argue someone out of a position they didn't use logic to believe in.
4
u/amiwitty 17h ago
Because morons will believe anything if it reinforces their hate of a certain group.
5
u/biggersjw 14h ago
Pretty sure fracking is the one destroying ground water in addition to creating man-made earthquakes, but sure - go on believing wind turbines are bad, which don’t consume anything except wind.
7
3
u/BlueLaceSensor128 18h ago
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
3
3
u/ultrahello 14h ago
People of this nation went from “I don’t know, I’ll ask an expert” to “I know everything, I’m the expert. If I don’t know, I’ll make it up. Praise my fragile ego!”
2
u/TheStockFatherDC 18h ago
As windy as it is sometimes these days, I can’t imagine not using it for energy.
1
u/SirkutBored 14h ago
It's not like windmills are new tech, we're just using the energy differently now.
2
2
2
u/youaretheuniverse 15h ago
It’s crazy! I had no idea how many people think this way but dang there are more people around me thinking this crazy shit. I’ve seen t shirts and signs dedicated to how the wind turbines are super bad. It’s sad
2
2
u/hmr0987 14h ago
Climate change is a hoax but we don’t have four seasons anymore.
Climate change is a hoax but we’re seeing 100 and 1000 year storms every other year.
You can go on and on. I understand the apprehension to extreme reactions to climate change but I’ll never understand the logical things we can do to help. Wind farms and solar (especially off shore) are a two extremely obvious technologies we should be installing. Nuclear is next best, but is expensive, has been and can be dangerous.
We need to minimize use of natural gas and eliminate all coal. Idk how anyone can argue otherwise unless they’re coming at it with bad faith.
2
2
u/Buster_xx 12h ago
TI competes with nuclear and coal. It is economical which is counter capitalism and market trends.
3
u/Ill-Advertising4710 14h ago
Conspiracy theorists thinking they’re important enough to be poisoned via this incredibly convoluted method of building very expensive wind turbines
1
u/dee_c 19h ago
Is that speech from that Billy bob thornton show accurate? About how they couldn’t possibly replace oil at least not in the next 50 years?
3
u/Miserly_Bastard 18h ago
Somewhat. The market for jet fuel, bunker fuel (for ships), fertilizer, and intermediate refined goods that become plastics and rubbers is still heavily dependent upon petroleum production.
However, gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and electricity are all readily replaceable with renewables in most applications. If the demand side were curtailed to the extent already technically feasible then oil production would decline precipitously and only the cheapest fields would still produce. (Billy Bob's fields in the Permian Basin would no longer be feasible to produce very much at all.)
Ironically...that'd be such cheap oil that developing countries would probably ramp up their consumption. Also ironically...that's a perverse incentive for countries with lots of oil to get it out of the ground sooner than later, while it's still valuable.
So yeah, it's...messy.
3
u/Dapperrevolutionary 17h ago
You'll always need oil on some level. You can't run a military on renewable energy for example or make plastic without petrol but that doesnt mean we can't heavily transition most consumer products away from it
1
3
u/Stinsudamus 18h ago
No, it's not.
1
u/marioandl_ 13h ago edited 12h ago
theres a climate town episode that debunks this scene specifically
1
u/CaptainKrakrak 8h ago
Everywhere they put wind farms there’s a lot of wind… coincidence? I think not! /s
1
u/YourSource1st 6h ago
this article is just rambling statements without facts or sources.
AI Overview Wind turbines may impact groundwater by causing vibrations that stir up sediment, particularly in areas with certain types of shale and shallow aquifers
all things could impact something else, study and proper application reduce impacts. Wind turbine make a ton of noise and always will, DBa is a lie, total pressure is more representative, using thicker glass would protect homes but not sheep and cows.
1
1
1
1
u/Astralglamour 4h ago
You know what definitely poisons groundwater?
Fracking. and industrial superfund sites like what Standard Oil left behind in Brooklyn.
1
u/drainbead69 3h ago
The same people that believe climate change is a hoax had the same grand parents that thought smoking was healthy
They’ll also tell ya something like how you don’t need to wash and scrub your body because the shampoo from their head runs down to their feet from the top 😒
-6
u/Migoth 16h ago
While I have nothing against renewable energy farms, I feel that the blind faith in them is terrifying. Being in Scandinavia, there does happen to be days without much wind and sunshine, which happens to be what the government keeps gambling our lives on, and the trend to decommission other powerplants without an alternative is worrying me.
3
u/princeofponies 11h ago
Denmark is a world leader in wind power, with wind energy accounting for a significant and growing portion of its total electricity generation, reaching nearly 60% in 2023. This high level of integration has not compromised the stability of the power grid.
Denmark has one of the most reliable and secure electricity grids in Europe, with an exceptionally low rate of power outages.
-5
u/WastelandOutlaw007 18h ago
Im supportive of green energy, I just dont feel wind farm is the best way to go.
I much prefer solar or nuclear, as well as hydroelectric where possible.
10
u/Stinsudamus 18h ago
Why? Hydro electric disrupts the natural ecosystem and messes up any aquatic environment it is introduced in for many creatures that have to migrate. Wind uses a super tiny footprint for the power output they generate and are far better ecologically than hydro.
-1
u/WastelandOutlaw007 18h ago
Hydro electric disrupts the natural ecosystem
When I said hydro, I was thinking more of this, than dams
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/wave-power.php
3
u/mmavcanuck 16h ago
They aren’t the best way to go, everywhere. That’s why we need lots of different solutions
0
-4
u/BounceyDoubleU 12h ago
Those giant whirly gigs take more energy to create than they will ever put out. Those fiberglass blades? Can’t be recycled, and end up in a landfill. Choose any other renewable resource, that one is a farce.
5
u/Noodly_Appendage_24 11h ago
I can guarantee that the oil rigs and refineries and subsequent use of petroleum products for electricity pollute more than the fucking wind turbines.
-2
u/BounceyDoubleU 11h ago
You aren’t reading what I wrote. It takes more energy to create a wind turbine, than the turbine will ever make itself. So you burn more fuel to create a turbine, then the turbine will ever create on its own. Get it? Or should I dumb it down more for you?
3
u/Noodly_Appendage_24 10h ago
Oh I didn’t misread anything. The information which you likely got from a Facebook post or watching “Landman” is absolutely not true. There was a statement from a Canadian geoscientist that said “At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less. In a poor location, energy payback may be never.” The Facebook post skipped over the first part and only focused on the latter and who the fuck would put a wind turbine in a location with historically zero wind. This information you could have easily found, like myself, with less than 2 minutes of using google.
I like to back up all my shit talking with links:
0
u/BounceyDoubleU 9h ago
Your shit talking still holds up on only one leg. If the sea is a more suitable location for these art-pieces, why aren’t we installing them there? And those blades are still fiberglass, and that tends to have a negative effect on the environment around them. Especially when they are in the dirt, at the end of their life span when degradation causes sharding. The argument for modern units being more effective, and recyclable is great, but new technology takes time to implement, and we would still need to deal with the waste from the old. Existing US wind farms are an issue, and the prior statement about them being wildly inefficient is true. That may not apply world wide to wind turbines, but it does to ours.
1
u/springchickk 6h ago
Fiberglass gets ground up and does not add much volume to a landfill. Please link some source where these whirly gigs are a net negative product. Only person I ever heard speak of this is a lineman, funny enough as that is. What do you do for work Bouncey, are you a tradesman by chance?
-13
u/hedgerfuk 18h ago
Wind?? I heard all wind farms are coming down and solar is the new direction. Too costly in comparison. This article doesn't say anything about specific conspiracy theories surrounding wind besides a Trump quote. It's not a conspiracy that wind farms are outdated and being replaced by solar. Right?
11
3
121
u/chrisdh79 19h ago
From the article: When Donald Trump recently claimed, during what was supposed to be a press conference about a European Union trade deal, that wind turbines were a "con job" that drive whales "loco," kill birds and even people, he wasn’t just repeating old myths. He was tapping into a global pattern of conspiracy theories around renewable energy—particularly wind farms. (Trump calls them “windmills”—a climate denier trope.)
Like 19th century fears that telephones would spread diseases, wind farm conspiracy theories reflect deeper anxieties about change. They combine distrust of government, nostalgia for the fossil fuel era, and a resistance to confronting the complexities of the modern world.
And research shows that, once these fears are embedded in someone’s worldview, no amount of fact-checking is likely to shift them.
A short history of resistance to renewables
Although we’ve known about climate change from carbon dioxide as probable and relatively imminent since at least the 1950s, early arguments for renewables tended to be seen more as a way of breaking the stranglehold of large fossil-fuel companies.
The idea that fossil companies would delay access to renewable energy was nicely illustrated in a classic episode of The Simpsons when Mr. Burns builds a tower to blot out the sun over Springfield, forcing people to buy his nuclear power.
Back in the real world, similar dynamics were at play. In 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard gathered fossil fuel CEOs to help him slow the growth of renewables, under the auspices of a Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group.
Meanwhile, advocates of renewables—especially wind—often found it difficult to build public support for wind, in part because the existing power providers (mines, oil fields, nuclear) tend to be out of sight and out of mind.