Originally published at AlterPolitics
The Guardian recently obtained a confidential strategy plan co-written by John Droz, a senior fellow at conservative think tank American Tradition Institute (ATI), to spearhead a national propaganda campaign against wind farms as a green energy alternative to fossil-fuels.

Photo by Luis Alves.
One of their primary objectives is to “cause subversion” in the message of the wind power industry “so that it effectively becomes so bad no one wants to admit in public they are for it (much like wind has done to coal, by turning green to black and clean to dirty).”
They plan to join forces with the fossil-fuel industries (including oil and coal), as well as with right-wing think tanks (including ALEC and Americans for Prosperity — both funded by the billionaire Koch brothers) to procure financing and to counter findings by the wind industry. Experts will be selected to provide testimony to government agencies, as will key people who are capable of interfacing with the media.
They plan to utilize the tea party, anti-tax groups, business organizations, property rights advocates, and they recommend creating “controversy to spark ideas” and to “get people talking.” The memo states “public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a ‘groundswell’ among grass roots.” And this appearance of a ‘groundswell’ will “reach the elected officials and policy-makers” in such a way as to compel them to abort their wind power initiative.
It is reminiscent of the national health care reform debates, when the Tea Party stormed Town Hall meetings — shouting, interrupting, threatening — giving the appearance of a serious ‘groundswell’ of opposition to government intervention into health care. Of course, poll numbers, did not substantiate the impression the Tea Partiers and right-wing media left on our intrepid Democratic politicians. A majority of Americans (including the highly coveted Independent voters) were polled as being very much in favor of a public option.
The strategy memo goes further into how they would have hands-on coordination with the tea party and other groups:
The networking committee will be responsible for coordinating the response of networked groups … includ[ing] the tea party, anti-tax leagues and utility rate groups as well as government watch-dog, anti-waste groups. This committee will help spread our message to the network groups and then gather feed-back as to their interests and needs for further information from the organization.
Additionally, they plan on using Youth Outreach (a tax-exempt Christian group whose goal is to bring students and young people into the Church), to help coordinate an anti-wind-power program in public schools and on college campuses. Here is the sneaky way they envision Youth Outreach helping to convince young people that wind power is not a viable energy source:
This will include community activity and participation with sponsorships for science fairs, school activity etc. with preset parameters that cause students to steer away from wind because they discover it doesn’t meet the criteria we set up (poster contest, essays etc).
Other measures in this effort include:
♦ Sending “dummy businesses” into communities that are considering wind power as an energy source, to propose building 400 foot billboards, in order to spark local controversy.
♦ Running ads, funding/distributing signage, bumper stickers, etc., and spreading propaganda across social sites like Twitter.
♦ Commissioning a book ‘expose’ on the wind power industry, to spread negative messages about how it would harm communities and negatively impact people and the environment.
♦ Spearheading boycotts of any company that imprints a wind-turbine seal on the packaging of its products (to inform green-conscious consumers that wind power was used in its production).
♦ Suing developers, zoning boards, etc. all across America, for a whole host of reasons, all while maintaining comprehensive documentation on these suits, so that any successful legal strategies can be reused in other communities.
♦ Create counterintelligence branch.
And to oversee all of this, they propose forming a tax-exempt organization, with $750,000 in seed money, and a paid staff. The organization would be comprised of the following committees: Media, Science, Regional State Coordinators, Networking, Lobby/Political, Group policy.
The strategy memo even goes as far as to provide a case example demonstrating how the group’s committees would respond upon learning that a wind power funding bill had advanced in Congress:
In this example, the group policy committee has identified that a particular bill providing funding for the opposition has been advanced to committee for a hearing. Policy committee has asked for a coordinated effort to stop the progress of the funding measure.
First, the lobby committee uses their contacts to begin a campaign from the inside against the bill with phone calls and private meetings. They meet with several staffers who suggest that the bill is being supported because it has been moved as green legislation and several committee members are afraid to oppose it on that basis. The lobby committee reports this to media and science for further action.
The media committee decides to use a full page advertisement in the Washington Post as a method of communicating the ‘not so green truth’ to congress, and at the same time coordinates a special interview and story from a scientific point of view that illustrates the dirty side of the industry. At this same time, the science committee holds a press conference to announce that the industry is using dishonesty and “greenwashing” as a cover for what amounts to corporate welfare.
The message is also repeated in Wash Times, WSJ, Fox and other sources.
State regional coordinators are tapped at this time to provide a letter writing campaign from the grass roots asking the key legislators to back away from the funding measure. This campaign is also echoed in various directorate groups coordinated from the organization including tea party, anti-tax leagues, etc.
The coordinated effort stretches across multi-channels and multi-voices, and appears to come from as many as a dozen separate sources, but the message is the same and stays on point. The created barrage of voices provides enough cover that the elected officials have a way to vote no because they can clearly see they have support for our position.
ATI, a think tank devoted to discrediting climate science, told The Guardian that its senior fellow Droz worked independently on this plan, though the document does list ATI as a group likely to join the effort.
Droz held a meeting in Washington last February, attended by members from 30 anti-wind-power groups, including the Tea Party Patriots. Since then, the groups have begun pooling their efforts together on this issue, including phone call and email campaigns to Congresspeople.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this memo, is the insight it gives into how the corporatocracy works to maintain the destructive, yet highly profitable, status quo.
Everyone intuitively knows this sort of coordination happens, but this memo actually documents it: the insidious collusion between industry, right-wing think tanks, AstroTurf groups (like the Tea Party), tax-exempt Christian groups, lobbyists, right-wing media — all collaborating, synchronizing their propaganda (so that all remain on message), while pretending to act independently of one another; and thereby giving the grand illusion of a ‘ground swell’ of opposition coming from many different places.



27 Comments

I do believe that this is what is known as a smoking gun.
I’m not clearly seeing the motivation here. Wind farms don’t really directly threaten conventional hydrocarbon’s market share. There are, and are likely to always be, demand and markets for conventional fuels and even as feed stocks for industrial processes if not as combustible thermal fuel after a transition to sustainable energy sources.
I guess once people feel there are viable sustainable alternatives like wind and solar, they will be less vulnerable to propogandizing about the need for fracking and oil sands and coal trains and other profitable monstrosities.
These energy mafioso are truly over the top cartoon villains. It astonishes me anyone treats them with anything other than withering abusive contempt.
The fact that the energy villains feel threatened by wind energy suggests to me that those villains have done the maths and concluded it represents a significant threat to their business. Which is actually great news. The harder the Koch brothers et al fight alternative energy the more it suggests they consider it a technically feasible alternative to their business model.
I have to ask where is the wind power industry plan to counter this.
Seems to me that the numbers will tell the truth.
Excellent point!
Every MWHr produced by wind displaces coal or gas-fired plants at the dispatch margin on the electric grid. And when that happens, the market price paid to trad sources for their power falls. It is a direct threat.
It’s to protect the value of HC assets in the ground.
Wind power ind is small; doesn’t have enough $$$$ to counter such an elaborate plan.
The despicable Koch brothers are involved. You got my attention.
Seems like a waste of time and money. The only place wind power is viable is where nobody lives.
Why do you say that?
I would turn your argument around, and use the memo as evidence that wind power is a real threat to the HC ind.
Personally, I hate wind power. When I see all those mills in a pristine desert as I go by, I nearly cry.
Horse buggy and whip manufacturers unite to fight the onslaught of the automobile.
They don’t need a ton of money, just need to offer cheaper power.
Boxturtle (America would elect Bush the Lesser again if they thought it would reduce their power bill)
Tell that to the Danes and Germans. Of course the U.S. will still be using coal when the rest of the planet has moved on. Gas masks will be provided.
Tell that to the Chinese.
And the Danes.
Right on target.
Is it cheaper?
Never been there, but I’ve been to West Texas, and I’ve been to Dallas, and I know where I’ve counted the most turbines.
It doesn’t have to be a one for one or cheaper alternative to current carbon-based energy sources. People need to think of alternative energies (plural). It’s wind plus solar plus wave energy plus thermal plus whatever.
The current energy grid isn’t as robust as it needs to be for our ever-increasing reliance on our electronic devices. When the alternative is _absolutely nothing_ and something that mostly works for a good enough price, then people will start adopting it fairly quickly.
We don’t need to replace our centralized, massive power generators with equivalent alt energy generators. Think PCs versus big mainframes. There are lots of places we could put small energy form factors that could add up quickly to large and more survivable energy production.
There are also a number of innovations in materials and engineering that will bring much more efficient alt energy sources to market. I think this is why we are seeing some of this all-out assault on alt energy by the old industries. Instead of embracing innovation, they are stuck kicking and screaming in the 19th Century.
As for large horizontal axis windfarms, they have there place but look at these cattail-like and vertical axis alternatives.
Sorry, new to this. Let’s see if the links show up better.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine
Response to Ref 9.(alan1tx)
Once you generate the electricity it could be transmitted by line. wind powered trubines are most desirable in remote locations. I bet you are not aware of wireless electricity transmission (another subject). You probably meant to say that Wind power is not practical around populated areas.
I have a hypothesis, which a lot of your information supports, that relates to what I typed in 10, although I have not much specific info to back it up. I think the HC ind is running scared, that they could be put out of biz very quickly by green energy. I’m relying mostly on HC ind virulent attacks on green energy of any type.
As I was a science major undergrad before I switched fields to economics, I’m also aware of the general principle that once a concerted effort is made in a certain field, unintended good outcomes often make the process faster than you would have anticipated in advance. Your ref to innovations in materials & engineering is precisely the kind of development I have in mind, without knowing any specifics.
I’m off to another task at the moment, but thanks for the links & I’ll come back to read them later.
It makes no sense to spend large public sums subsidizing wind farms. We still need to build gas fired electric plants to handle base load and peaking. When the wind stops blowing, we must have conventional power capacity available to come on line to avoid brownouts and blackouts. Great Britain has had big problems precisely because they did not expand fossil fuel based electricity and put too many resources into wind farms instead. On a cost per kilowatt hour basis, wind is multiple times more expensive than electricity produced from natural gas. The US has the cheapest natural gas in the world, and this is forecast to continue for years to come with all of the new supply being developed.
Certainly there is right wing angst against wind power. Follow the carbon money, and feel comfy in rejecting their case.
But the opposition is more eclectic than that. Here in Mass there is a NIMBY contingent, which is otherwise green-friendly and supposedly hates carbon. There is a well heeled, blue, but 1% contingent which is hell bent against seeing wind towers offshore between Hyannis and Nantucket. There is so much going on in this conflict that the regular, moderate, conscientious populace throws up its hands in confusion.
So here we have well placed suspicion against both the pro and con agitators, the public having been burned by both over the years. One will hear carefully filtered, conflicting arguments from both sides, and straw-man cases built to prey on public attitudes, and which have little directly to do with the merits.
Environmental anti-winders draw upon turbine noise, flicker caused by spinning blades, and blades killing too many protected birds. Count the Audubon Society, Wildlife Federation, in that mix, among others, and they are not funded by the Koch Bros. or other carbon-dependent psychotics.
Its obvious they’re doing all this because they find Wind, solar and every other Alt. energy program a threat to their hegemony on Energy. These are a bunch of environmental criminals.
The minutes from the American Wind Energy Association’s December 2011 board meeting (coalitionforsensiblesiting.com/doc/AWEAPolicyDoc-Nov2011.pdf) states:
We need to create a space for the wind energy industry without defining it as an alternative to fossil fuels and coal and that goes beyond being one of many “renewables.” “Renewables” in general are saddled with weaknesses that we don’t want to have to carry.
The regional strategies outlines efforts focused on establishing, defending, and increasing state renewable/clean energy portfolio standard requirements to favor wind (e.g., by excluding large hydro).
Other efforts include ensuring that siting regulations benefit developers, convincing utilities and regulators that wind provides reliable and economical capacity, and pleading with them to expand transmission and change the rules to benefit wind.
Local efforts also include contesting landscape, wildlife, and health protection rules as “not based on science”.
They have committed millions of dollars to the efforts to keep wind development free from regulatory scrutiny as well as to keep subsidies (which pay for two-thirds to three-fourths of a project) flowing. This is all done with the help of the Republican PR firm “Revolution” as well as their own WindPAC, which funnels big energy donations to legislators.
The anti-wind effort described in this article is obviously the fantasy of one man. But the true grassroots questioning of heedless industrial wind development in rural and wild places is already strong, and it comes from those who are politically “left” as well as “right”.
Regardless of either side’s political actions I still have to favor renewable energy sources over non-renewable. A wind farm or solar farm or the like are superior to coal mines and oil derricks and plants that burn the stuff or the waste and risk from nuclear energy. Sustainable living requires sustainable solutions.
In response to Rucio #26. Why is it surprising or shocking that the wind energy industry is playing the game? They really don’t have much choice given the strong hold that the non-renewable energy industries have on our legislators. Its clear that money is the only way to get any kind of positive legislative attention.