The abandonment of the NIMBY thesis?

Despite the recognition in the literature, some people in Port Burwell (7/16) clearly believed those opposed to wind turbines were doing so because of selfish motives – with three people noted NIMBY-ism itself. “Dave” represents this group who believe that unlike in European nations, attitudes relating to NIMBY-ism are commonplace in Canada. While the idea of NIMBY is losing credibility in the academic world, the popular media still commonly portrays those opposed to wind energy developments as selfish. This important trend and the value of questioning it will be spoken of in more detail in the discussion chapter.

Though I only interviewed four people (three in Clear Creek) clearly opposed to large wind turbines, NIMBY seemed absent. For the most part, people felt as though turbines in ‘their backyard’ were only part of the problem. Most of the reasons why they objected to their local wind farm had to do with the problems they saw with wind energy in general and/or wind energy policy in Ontario.

There were some indications through two of the four interviews that people objected to wind because it was located near their homes. Most prevalently, “Charlena” noted that although turbines are located in rural areas of Ontario, much of the power they produce goes to serve the needs of people in urban centres such as Toronto. She

described the disconnect between power generation and use as being nonsensical:

Charlena: What I am in favour of is putting tiny generators on the utility poles in cities. You want power? You want power from wind? Get it in your own city! Get it in your backyard! Instead of mine! And see how you like having these things

zimming around the whole time. You want the power? It should be generated where you are living. And I don’t mind seeing people who put up their own generators, that’s, that’s sensible. But to do it here so that we can supply Toronto’s air conditioners does not thrill me very much.

Charlena’s comments could be construed as NIMBY but this also seems to refer to the scale of the turbines; that is her reference to “own generators”. On the other hand most arguments the opponents had against wind seemed much further removed from NIMBY. In fact, the vast majority were rooted in the theme fighting the good fight. Particularly from the vocal opponents in Clear Creek, arguments made against wind often had more to do with macro-level themes of injustice, province-wide health problems, and

procedural inequities.

4.6.3 “Fighting the good fight”

Once seen as a major impediment to a project’s construction, NIMBY attitudes were perceived to exist in all those who opposed the development of wind farms (see Literature Review). Opponents are often seen as either ignorant or deviant in this way. From the interviews with the opponents of wind energy in Clear Creek, I found neither point to be applicable. Two of the three interviewed in particular may have been the most knowledgeable about wind turbine issues than anyone interviewed in Port Burwell. In discussion of the literature surrounding wind turbine impacts, “Bob” would often be quite familiar and was even able to cite by memory an important conclusion made in “The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines” (King, 2009):

Chad: The big [conclusion] is that she recognizes people living near turbines are reporting symptoms… but she later goes on to say that scientific evidence doesn’t link those symptoms with actual, with the turbines themselves…

“Bob”: Ya well, actually the line [is] while there are many reports of sleep disturbance, headaches, the scientific literature TO DATE does not demonstrate a direct causal link. There’s a lot of qualifiers that she used in there to get away with making that statement and not losing her medical license.

The fact that “Bob” was able to recite a piece of Dr. King’s paper is perhaps a testament to his devotion to the cause and perhaps more importantly that the ‘cause’ goes beyond his own interests. His involvement with the medical side of the debate (without any indication of an interest in financial compensation) makes his opposition much nobler in this way. Additionally, in emails sent back and forth after the interview, “Bob” further showed his willingness to read and involve himself in the literature. He would often display his knowledge of the physics of audible and infrasound, Ontario’s policy

approach with green energy, and the medical ‘evidence’ showing how people are affected by turbines placed too close to their homes.

Opponents also were able to provide admirable forms of criticism of wind

turbines- helping to support ‘their case’. For example, though they are often perceived as being selfish, “Bob” in particular would often cite the well-being of other people or future generations. From his perspective, the problems with wind turbines extended far outside of their own ‘backyard’:

“Bob”: People's homes, health and human rights are on the line, and businesses are investing billions of dollars into an industry that is founded on

The other opponents “Henry” and “Barbara” share similar feelings of unselfishness however tended to focus on the problems in Norfolk County. Concern for other people is something “Henry” speaks about on a regular basis during the interview:

“Henry”: Well it’s brought a lot of friction between a lot of the local people from both sides. Animosity between them. My concern for nature…with the neighbours I’m still concerned…I’m still concerned about their health.

On the whole, it appears that through our few interviews with opponents in Clear Creek that one may at least begin to seriously question the validity and use of NIMBY to describe those that believe there are problems with wind turbines. Opponents are most certainly against the development of wind turbines near their home but almost equally they are against turbines near anyone’s home.