It is not on the same scale, of course, but the now widely accepted assumption that wind power is "green" reminds us of Harry S. Truman's attack against McCarthyism as "the big lie."
The basic underlying truth of Truman's argument was that if repeated often enough and loudly enough, in any context, even a blatant lie becomes accepted as truth by some.
We argue that the definition of wind power as green is disingenuous because it leaves out something that in the early days was an integral part of the environmental movement before it was ever even called green.
From debris in the roadway to overhead electric lines in neighborhoods or across the visual fields of great buildings or works of art, most people knew what visual pollution was.
They still know, but those who hold onto their "greenness" like a religious conviction simply ignore it.
Now we can count the U.S. Department of Energy among the extremist groups.
DOE commissioned a near-mindless study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to see if wind farms in nine states hurt nearby home sales.
Now the Livermore lab is already on record as supporting wind power -- virtually no questions asked.
Here's a recent example of a class being offered at the facility:
"Those windmills spinning away in California's hills and mountain passes provide clean and renewable energy to our power grids. Today, the possibilities are even greater. As we face energy shortages and the effects of climate change, the wind is an inexpensive, inexhaustible and nonpolluting source that is becoming an important part of our energy future. This lecture will explain how wind turbines convert the forces of the atmosphere into electricity for our homes, businesses and even cars.
"It will explore how much power could be collected from the wind, how that amount compares to our demands, and how weather forecasts help wind turbines provide even more clean, renewable and reliable energy."
Not one word about ugly.
To read the complete editorial, visit The Tri-City Herald.