Gates, Zuckerberg and other billionaires to back clean energy - Yahoo Finance

 

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and another two dozen billionaires are hoping to speed up research into clean energy with a new investing initiative to back promising technologies.
The group, dubbed the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, plans to invest in everything from electricity generation and storage to transportation and energy system efficiency. But the group, which also includes Alibaba (BABA) CEO Jack Ma, Amazon (AMZN) CEO Jeff Bezos, Hewlett Packard Enterprises (HPE) CEO Meg Whitman, and SAP (SAP) Chairman Hasso Plattner, hasn't yet disclosed how much capital they'll be contributing or many details about their investment selection process. Other prominent investors in the group include venture capitalists John Doerr and Vinod Khosla along with hedge fund titans Ray Dalio and Julian Robertson.
Zuckerberg unveiled the effort in a blog post on Facebook (FB) on Sunday timed to coincide with the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Paris this week. The group's aim is to fund promising but risky ideas that governments and venture capitalists don't currently support, the Facebook founder said.
"Progress towards a sustainable energy system is too slow, and the current system doesn't encourage the kind of innovation that will get us there faster," Zuckerberg wrote. "The Breakthrough Energy Coalition will invest in ideas that have the potential to transform the way we all produce and consume energy."
Overall investment in solutions such as solar and geothermal energy production that do not create carbon emissions has bounced up and down in recent years, hurt by cutbacks in tax breaks in some countries and the low price of oil. Last year, governments, corporations and private investors spent about $15 billion on research and development, according to data from the United Nations Environment Programme and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That was down from $17 billion in 2008 and still only a relative pittance compared to the trillions of dollars spent on energy needs worldwide.
Gates, who has been investing in clean energy efforts for years, also posted about the new group on his blog. He said the effort would work in concert with a pledge from 20 countries including the United States, China and  Germany to double their spending on clean energy research and development over the next five years.
"The renewable technologies we have today, like wind and solar, have made a lot of progress and could be one path to a zero-carbon energy future," Gates wrote. "But given the scale of the challenge, we need to be exploring many different paths—and that means we also need to invent new approaches. Private companies will ultimately develop these energy breakthroughs, but their work will rely on the kind of basic research that only governments can fund. Both have a role to play

Gates, Zuckerberg and other billionaires to back clean energy - Yahoo Finance

MIG/DeWane Landfill finally being fixed

 

Here is a letter regarding the project from Illinois EPA

Go to Facebook to see the project progress:  https://www.facebook.com/MIGDeWaneLandfill?fref=photo

MIG/DeWane Landfill

6 hrs ·

As part of the planned improvements to the site’s final top cover, a top layer of soil has been applied to the west side of the landfill and seed will be applied later to control erosion.

MIG/DeWane Landfill

November 11 at 4:26pm ·

We are thickening the top cover on the south side and readying the area to apply grass seed.

Gov. Brown signs climate change bill to spur renewable energy, efficiency standards - LA Times

 

Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed a pared-down climate change measure that will increase renewable energy generation and make buildings more energy efficient.

The legislation, SB 350 by Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), was amended to remove a third component that would have required reduced gasoline use on California roads. The battle over the controversial proposal dominated the closing weeks of the legislative session last month.

Despite ceding some ground in a tug-of-war with oil companies, Brown and De León have touted the remaining parts of the legislation as significant steps in California’s fight against climate change.

Brown said the law would help the state lead a worldwide effort and improve the health of Californians.

"This is big," he said. "It’s big because it’s global in scope. It’s also big because it’s local in application."

A quick guide to California's climate change battle

Chris Megerianneed to invest in storage technology and other initiatives

California's battle against climate change involves an alphabet soup of agencies responsible for different programs and several key laws that guide state actions. Here's a glossary:

SB 350: This bill is now law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in Los Angeles on Wednesday. It sets two targets for 2030...

California's battle against climate change involves an alphabet soup of agencies responsible for different programs and several key laws that guide state actions. Here's a glossary:

SB 350: This bill is now law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in Los Angeles on Wednesday. It sets two targets for 2030...

(Chris Megerian)

The bill will require California to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2030, up from the current target of 33% by 2020.

“We’re mainstreaming clean power," De León said. No matter where Californians live, “you will have the same access to clean electricity and clean air.”

The state’s target is expected to stimulate the development of more solar and wind power plants, but it will also raise new challenges. Renewable energy can be unreliable because it's impossible to predict when the sun shines or the wind blows, and experts say California will to ensure the right amount of electricity is available when it's needed.

The state will also need to become twice as energy efficient by 2030 under the new law. For existing buildings, that could include installing newer appliances or improving heating and air conditioning systems.

“What we’re trying to do is facilitate, where necessary, the marketplace for energy efficiency, for building upgrades, for remodels," said Andrew McAllister, a commissioner at the California Energy Commission.

Above is from:  Gov. Brown signs climate change bill to spur renewable energy, efficiency standards - LA Times

Obama Slams Koch Brothers at Clean Energy Summit for 'Standing in the Way of Progress'

 

President Obama has returned from vacation and he said he feels “refreshed, renewed, recharged” and “a little feisty.” Well, that feistiness was apparent as he delivered the closing address at the 8th National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada Monday. Sun-blessed Nevada is being hailed as “ground zero in the solar boom.” He slammed critics of his energy policies for “wanting to protect an outdated status quo” based on fossil fuels and warned them away from “standing in the way of the future” and his efforts to combat climate change.

He railed against U.S. political and business figures, particularly the Koch brothers, for attempting to thwart the expansion of wind and solar power, which is widely popular among the American public.

“When you start seeing massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests, or conservative think tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards, or to prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding, that’s a problem,” Obama said, marking the first time the President has singled out the Koch brothers in a climate speech. The explosive growth of solar in the U.S. “has some big fossil fuel interests pretty nervous,” Obama noted.

And he pointed out the inconsistency of those who promote free market solutions, except when those solutions point to renewable energy. “Now, it’s one thing if you’re consistent in being free market,” said Obama. “It’s another thing when you’re free market until it’s solar that’s working and people want to buy and suddenly you’re not for it any more.”

Koch-backed groups, particularly the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), have fought renewable energy programs in several states, including pushing for states to withdraw from climate compacts, penalizing rooftop solar installations and repealing renewable portfolio standards.

That’s not the American way. That’s not progress. That’s not innovation. That’s rent seeking. That’s standing in the way of progress,” Obama said. The President’s speech, however, was not all doom and gloom and bashing his critics. Obama spoke optimistically about American ingenuity and with great hope about solar and other renewable forms of energy. “We’re here today because we believe that no challenge poses a greater threat to our future than climate change,” Mr. Obama said. “But we’re also here because we hold another belief, and that is, we are deeply optimistic about American ingenuity.”

Obama said the growth in solar—which is 20 times bigger than it was in 2008, is “like evolving from the telegraph to the smartphone in less than a decade.” And he noted that “solar isn’t just for the green crowd any more, it’s for the green-eyeshade crowd too,” citing the fact that Walmart, Google and Apple are among the largest buyers of renewable energy in the world.

The speech came “as his administration announced a series of measures to encourage solar power construction, including making an additional $1 billion in loan guarantee authority available in a federal program for innovative versions of residential rooftop solar systems,” reports The New York Times.

“We’re going to make it even easier for individual homeowners to put solar panels on the roof with no upfront cost,” Obama said. “So we’re taking steps that will allow more Americans to join this revolution, with no money down.”

And this is all on the heels of the President’s Clean Power Plan, which requires states to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Much of those cuts would come from bringing more renewable energy projects online.

Environmental groups praised the President’s latest efforts. “President Obama’s announcement today is a huge win for American families from coast-to-coast,” said Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce. “These policies will save homeowners money on their electricity bills, put more people to work and empower Americans to act to tackle climate disruption in their everyday lives.”

Obama Slams Koch Brothers at Clean Energy Summit for 'Standing in the Way of Progress'

Pope's stance leaks; calls for urgent action on environment

 

NICOLE WINFIELD

Associated Press

‎June‎ ‎15‎, ‎2015

 

Pope's stance leaks; calls for urgent action on environment

NICOLE WINFIELD

Associated Press

‎June‎ ‎15‎, ‎2015

VATICAN CITY (AP) — A draft copy of Pope Francis' eagerly awaited encyclical on the environment calls for urgent action to protect the Earth and fight global warming, which the pope says is "mostly" due to human activity and the burning of fossil fuels.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the document that was leaked to the Italian newsweekly L'Espresso and published on its website Monday was not the final version and that the official encyclical would still be released as scheduled on Thursday.

The L'Espresso draft, which was published in galley form in Italian, makes many of the same points that Francis and his advisers have been making in the months-long rollout of the document.

In the draft, Francis lays out both the scientific and the moral reasons for protecting God's creation, noting that the poor are already suffering the most from air pollution and toxic dumping and will continue to bear the brunt of rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions. The draft says population growth isn't to blame for ecological problems but rather the consumerist, wasteful behavior of the rich.

Francis backs up his comments with science showing the impact on the planet of the continual loss of biodiversity in Amazonian rainforests, the melting of Arctic glaciers, the overfishing of the seas and the pollution of the world's water supply.

Francis has said he wanted the encyclical to be read by everyone — not just Catholics — and he notes in the introduction that the document is now part of the formal teaching "magisterium" of the Catholic Church. That could be read as a warning of sorts to climate skeptics, including many Catholics in the U.S. who have suggested they simply will ignore the encyclical since the pope's views on the environment clash with their doubts about climate change.

Francis in September will travel to the United States and address both the United Nations and the U.S. Congress. Some Republicans are vocal climate skeptics and many conservatives have criticized the pope from even taking up the environment in an encyclical, the most authoritative teaching document a pope can issue.

Francis has said previously that climate change is "mostly" man-made and that humankind has a moral imperative to radically change its behavior to protect the planet for future generations — as well as to prevent the poor from suffering due to the sins of the rich.

In the draft, the pope repeats that scientific studies have shown that global warming is due "mostly" to human activity and the emission of gasses that prevents heat from dispersing in the atmosphere. He says that is worsened by a development model based on using fossil fuels as the main source of energy in the world.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as many environmental groups, declined to comment on the content of the document, noting the Thursday embargo set by the Vatican for the official release.

 

FROM:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/draft-popes-eagerly-awaited-environment-encyclical-leaks-182821141--finance.html

Solution to electronics recycling crisis making headway in Springfield | The Herald-News

 

By LAUREN LEONE–CROSS - lleonecross@shawmedia.com

JOLIET — The effects of the state's electronics recycling crisis played out last weekend during Will County's Recyclepalooza event, where attendance was "overwhelming."

More than half of the 1,000 people surveyed at the event said they were there to drop off electronics, said Marta Keane, recycling program specialist and green business relations coordinator for the county's Resource Recovery & Energy Division.

Most electronic devices — televisions and computers included — have been banned from Illinois landfills since 2012, so there is nowhere for them to go without these programs, Keane said. But last week's event was so overwhelming that county officials had to turn people away.

"Never in our history have we had to turn people away," Keane said. "We had to close it down at 2 p.m. The last car was serviced after 5 p.m. The last [contractors'] truck pulled away at 9 p.m."

The good news is that new legislation making its way through Springfield is aimed at saving underfunded electronics recycling programs statewide, Keane said.

Short-term fix

A key change to House Bill 1455 addresses a major issue faced by electronics manufacturers: The expensive process of shipping cathode ray tube glass — a toxic material used in old TVs and monitors — overseas or out of state.

The bill also adjusts the funding formula used by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to determine how much manufacturers pay into these programs. If nothing is done, the steep cost of recycling could shift to consumers or local governments.

Local and state officials and the Illinois Manufacturers Association are onboard with these changes, said Mark Denzler, vice president and chief operating officer for IMA.

Solving the CRT glass issue

Complicating matters is CRT glass, which is heavy and difficult to recycle.

Most manufacturers ship CRT glass overseas or out of state due to the lack of certified CRT recycling facilities in the U.S., Keane said. The latest proposal provides manufacturers the cheaper option of sending the leaded material to Peoria Disposal Company, where it would be stored at a landfill until it could be properly recycled.

“While we don't favor landfilling the material, we see this a crisis,” Keane said. “This is not a final fix. This is a Band-Aid fix.”

The move is estimated to save costs to manufacturers. The stored material would also count toward recycling goals.

The Illinois House and Senate passed resolutions earlier this month supporting the move, noting "stockpiles of abandoned CRT glass have been discovered at several former electronic waste processing facilities across the U.S."….

Read more by going to Page 2 on the following:  Solution to electronics recycling crisis making headway in Springfield | The Herald-News

Pope Francis in Washington DC » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

by ROBERT HUNZIKER

On the heels of his Papal Encyclical about sustainability, due in June ‘15, Pope Francis is scheduled to address Congress this coming September.

Meanwhile, and only four months before the Pope’s scheduled address: “The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology voted Thursday to cut deeply into NASA’s budget for Earth science, in a clear swipe at the study of climate change,” Michael Hiltzik (The Economy Hub), The GOP Attack on Climate Change Science Takes a Big Step Forward, Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2015.

The Holy See does not hand out Papal Encyclicals every day. Rather, an encyclical, which may address bishops, as well as all Christendom, is a sacred papal letter that addresses the pressing issues of the times.

The upcoming June ’15 Papal Encyclical will address ecological sustainability. Environmentalists have their fingers crossed, hoping the Pope hits the ball out of the park. Climate change deniers, to a great extent, hope he strikes out at the plate.

In preparation, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Vatican’s research unit, recently hosted a one-day conference, bringing together scientists and spiritual leaders from around the world.

Only the highest-ranking Vatican officials know the contents of the upcoming encyclical. Nevertheless, according to Bloomberg news reporter Eric Roston, The Pope Is About to Release His Secret Climate Change Plan, Bloomberg Business, May 1, 2015.

According to Bloomberg’s report, “the letter itself is finished.” Inside the Vatican, theologians and translators are putting together the greatly anticipated letter in the languages of the world. After all, the Pope is the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, and certainly one of the most influential people on the planet. It makes perfect sense he address worldly issues.

Clues about contents of the preeminent encyclical may be discerned by reading-between-the-lines the origin behind the recent meeting at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute is one of the key organizers. According to Mr. Sachs, “We’re here today because sustainable development is far off course.”

“Sustainable development is far off course” is a polite way of saying “degradation of the planet sucks.”

Further clues as to the Pope’s position are found on the Pontifical Academy of Sciences web site under the heading: “Statement of the Joint PAS/PASS Workshop on Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility,” wherein it states:

“The massive fossil fuel use at the heart of the global energy system deeply disrupts the Earth’s climate and acidifies the world’s oceans.”

Well, well now, it is very doubtful much changed with ocean acidification or fossil fuel use since the Joint PAS/PASS affaire in 2014. Those conspicuous clues are likely as valid as a handprint in dried concrete Therefore, we know where the Pope is coming from and likely what he’ll say. Namely, fossil fuels have got to go, the sooner the better. How else interpret the statement that fossil fuel “deeply disrupts” the Earth’s climate?

Not only that, but the biggest clue to the contents of the encyclical is this: Why, in the first instance, conduct a meeting about “sustainability” if the planet is already sustainable? End of story.

But, the story continues as Pope Francis is, after all, scheduled to address Congress this September. Talk about a clash of interests. “Republicans don’t like the idea of addressing climate change head-on,” Ibid.

It doesn’t get much more “head-on” than an address by the Pope, who commands attention whenever and wherever he speaks, especially on the heels of a Papal Encyclical.

How will America’s climate change pooh-pooh entourage in Congress handle such an affaire?

Pope Francis in Washington DC » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Rauner appointee to Illinois Gaming Board heads group that took money from casino: BGA | Chicago

 

A Gov. Bruce Rauner appointee to the Illinois Gaming Board heads a group that has taken money from the Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, the state’s most lucrative casino.

In naming Illinois State Police special agent Hector Alejandre last month to the board that regulates the state’s casinos, Rauner said Alejandre “will bring a law enforcement perspective to the position.”

The governor noted that Alejandre is the president of the Hispanic Illinois State Law Enforcement Association, or HISLEA, a nonprofit organization of Latino police officers.

The group — which holds safety seminars and provides college scholarships — has taken $5,500 in donations from Rivers since 2012. The money went toward scholarships and programs, according to Juan Valenzuela, a spokesman for the group.

Alejandre wouldn’t talk about that.

Don Tracy, who chairs the gaming board, said that after being asked about the casino’s donations, Alejandre has agreed to recuse himself from voting on anything involving Rivers that comes before the board in the next six months.

Valenzuela said the group has decided not to take any more donations from Rivers Casino as long as Alejandre is on the gaming board.

Another HISLEA member, past president Isaiah “Danny” Vega, is the gaming board’s deputy administrator of enforcement, investigating casinos to ensure they’re operating above board.

The Rivers Casino donations came while Vega and Alejandre were both top officers of HISLEA.

Vega didn’t return calls seeking comment.

Mark Ostrowski, the gaming board’s administrator, said Alejandre and Vega haven’t broken any agency rules.

But Aaron Jaffee, who was gaming board chairman, under former Gov. Pat Quinn, said “people who sit on the board can’t take money” from the casino industry. “We’ve always held very strict standards.”

In January, Rauner replaced Jaffe with Tracy, a Springfield lawyer.

“The administration does not believe these prior donations, which help support scholarship programs, will impact Hector Alejandre’s ability to remain impartial while a member of the Illinois Gaming Board,” a Rauner spokeswoman said. “The last donation to the HISLEA by Rivers Casino was more than six months ago, and it will decline any future contributions.”

A Rivers spokesman didn’t respond to requests for comment.

 

The gaming board regulates the state’s 10 casinos.

Last year, Rivers reported taking in more than $425 million after paying winnings, a figure that made the casino the most lucrative in Illinois, state records show.

Rauner’s EPA pick and his lobbyist-father

In January, Ryan McCreery was in the private sector, trying to calm Kentucky residents who feared that a natural gas pipeline proposed by his then-employer would contaminate drinking water.

Today, he’s one of the state’s top environmental regulators, hired by the Rauner administration in February as deputy director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Asked about his environmental experience, McCreery pointed to his time as a contractor and public affairs manager for the gas and oil pipeline company Kinder Morgan.

“I partnered with stakeholders on many different projects,” he said in response to questions, “with the objective to expand energy infrastructure in an environmentally conscious and compliant manner.”

McCreery’s father, W. Michael McCreery, os a longtime Springfield lobbyist. And the elder McCreery intends to lobby the Illinois EPA, he says in a registration statement filed with the state.

Ryan McCreery said there will be no conflict of interest, though.

“My father has listed numerous agencies under ‘lobbying intent,’” Ryan McCreery said. “He does so on an annual basis so as to be covered in case he gains new clients throughout the reporting period.”

Ryan McCreery said his father doesn’t have any current environment-related clients, nor will he take any as long as his son is deputy director of the state EPA.

Michael McCreery didn’t return calls.

Ryan McCreery said Nancy Kimme, acting on behalf of Rauner’s transition team, recruited him. Kimme, a lobbyist, was chief of staff for Judy Baar Topinka, the late Illinois state comptroller. Kimme couldn’t be reached for comment.

— Brett Chase

Rauner appointee to Illinois Gaming Board heads group that took money from casino: BGA | Chicago

Influential Role Seen for Pope Francis at 2015 Climate Negotiations in Paris | Bloomberg BNA

 

March 12 — Pope Francis, leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, could have an influential role in this December’s negotiations for a climate agreement and is expected to issue a call for action to address the problem this year, observers and Senate Democrats told Bloomberg BNA.

Those predictions come shortly after a senior Vatican official, who helped write the first draft of Pope Francis’s expected encyclical on the environment, outlined several key themes expected in the upcoming document, expected to be released this summer.

The pope's views, possibly expounding upon climate change, will again take center stage in September when he will travel to the U.S. and address a joint session of Congress and the UN General Assembly.

Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said the pope won't make a political statement on climate change but instead will emphasize ancient church teaching that core components of life include fighting inequality and protecting the environment.

While international agreements on climate are important, Turkson said, a “changing of human hearts” is necessary to adequately fight the problem on a global scale.

Duty to Care for Creation

Turkson, speaking March 5 in Ireland, acknowledged lingering disagreement over the role of human activity in climate change. But “what is not contested is that our planet is getting warmer,” and Christians have a duty to address the problem, he said.

“Even the compelling consensus of over 800 scientists of the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] will have its critics and its challengers,” Turkson said. “For Pope Francis, however, this is not the point. For the Christian, to care for God’s ongoing work of creation is a duty, irrespective of the causes of climate change.”

Francis himself in January said climate change is “mostly” due to the actions of humans and criticized United Nations negotiators for a “lack of courage” to address the problem.

The pope expressed hope that negotiators would be “more courageous” when they meet Nov. 30—Dec. 11 in Paris with the goal of reaching an international climate accord.

Unique Influence Seen

Those closely monitoring the climate negotiations and some senators told Bloomberg BNA in interviews March 11-13 that the pope would bring a significant moral influence to the discussions that could help boost the odds of reaching a final agreement.

“Few individuals wield a megaphone as big as the pope’s,” Elliot Diringer, who tracks the negotiations as executive vice president for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said. “He can introduce a genuine moral dimension into a debate that otherwise is far too ideologically driven.”

“We typically make the case based on science, but when science and religion are pointing in the same direction, that can be a powerful signal,” Diringer added.

Even coal and several conservative organizations acknowledged to Bloomberg BNA that the pope could have a major impact on the negotiations through his encyclical and other speeches, but they said Francis should consider scientific work that does not back the consensus that human activity significantly contributes to climate change and should weigh the impact climate policies could have on many of world's poorest people.

Others expect Pope Francis to help raise public awareness about the issue of climate change and tout the issue to a worldwide audience due to his popularity across various religious groups.

“Will it transform the discussion and lead to a totally different outcome? Maybe not, but it will bolster the chances of an agreement in Paris and boost the urgency world leaders feel,” Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said. “It will have a pretty big impact.”

The encyclical, in particular, could have a profound impact on certain world leaders and lead to greater engagement at the negotiations, others said.

“The pope can touch hearts and minds in ways that few others can—by connecting with people on a personal, moral level,” Jennifer Morgan, global director for the World Resources Institute's climate program, told Bloomberg BNA in a statement. “His encyclical on climate change could prompt some leaders to engage more productively in the lead up to the Paris climate negotiations.”

Vatican Has `Observer State' Status

While not a formal party to the negotiations, the Holy See holds the status of an “observer state” to the talks held under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Several Senate Democrats told Bloomberg BNA the pope’s leadership on climate issues would be helpful to the negotiations in Paris.

“I think the pope’s statements are going to bring a moral weight to the whole process,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has been closely watching progress toward an international agreement, said. “[It's] very hard to overstate its importance.”

Francis also has the unique ability—as the head of a major religion and head of state for the Vatican—to speak to “what most people believe is the moral compass of our globe” in both religious and governmental terms, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said.

“It’s a very effective voice because I think most people recognize it’s rooted beyond the interests of one country,” Cardin said. “He really can bridge his religious standing with his standing as the head of the Vatican. I think he can get a much broader audience than just a head of state.”

Anticipation of Congressional Visit

Americans are likely to hear more from the pope about the need for addressing climate change when he visits the U.S. in September. Francis plans to deliver the first-ever address by a pope before a joint session of Congress Sept. 24.

Another Democrat aggressively seeking global action on climate change, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), said Francis could play a “huge role” in the talks through publication of his encyclical and addressing Congress this fall.

“I think the encyclical is potentially historic,” Whitehouse said. “I think his speech to the joint session of Congress in September could be a tipping point. His standing throughout Europe is such that he could be a real presence in Paris.”

Several of those following the talks said Francis has been working behind the scenes to reach out to leaders of different faiths, perhaps in hopes of issuing a joint statement or declaration ahead of the Paris negotiations.

“If they’re able to do something across faiths, that would also be very powerful,” Meyer said.

A State Department official declined to speculate about the content or impact of the pope's forthcoming encyclical but said the department is “encouraged to see broad participation from all sectors in ensuring strong global action to address the threat of climate change.”

Elevating Issue of Climate Change

Both of the pope’s immediate predecessors—Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI—spoke out more generally in favor of environmental protection, but Francis is the first to elevate the issue of climate change to such prominence.

Encyclicals such as the one Francis will soon issue on the environment are among the strongest papal statements and usually reserved for important Catholic teachings.

Many expect Francis to devote a portion of his address to Congress to climate change, even though most Republicans in the House and Senate don't agree with the scientific consensus that human activity significantly contributes to climate change.

“It is hard for me to imagine that he wouldn’t bring this in” to his speech before Congress, Meyer said.

Conservatives Urge Open Mind

Coal industry and several conservative groups told Bloomberg BNA they hoped Pope Francis would keep an open mind to the impact climate policies could have on poor communities throughout the world, but acknowledged his potential influence on the topic.

“I actually believe it is appropriate for the pope to speak on this, but I think his message should be the appropriate message,” H. Sterling Burnett, a research fellow on energy and environmental issues with the Heartland Institute, told Bloomberg BNA. “He needs to take account of the harms to people if they restrict access to fossil fuels...I don’t believe the pope will change any minds, but he could reinforce existing positions.”

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal industry trade group, said coal was the only fuel source that could lift emerging economies out of poverty.

“While we certainly respect the views of the Pope, we too believe we’re on the side of Angels as we consider the plight of billions of people around the globe who are living without electrification and suffering though untold poverty and disease as a result,” Laura Sheehan, senior vice president of communications for the group, said. “We believe we must work together with policymakers and social leaders – like Pope Francis – to support policies that bring about new advances in clean coal technologies so that we can strike a balance between economic and climate needs.”

The offices of several Republican senators—Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.) and James Inhofe (Okla.)—declined to comment on the pope's involvement in climate issues.

Benjamin Zycher, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said spiritual leaders should in general avoid highly political issues but said the pope's ideas should ultimately be judged for their analytical rigor.

Caution Over Political Topics

“We'll have to see what he says, but as a general proposition I would advise spiritual leaders to avoid topics that are highly charged politically and not closely related to doctrinal interpretations,” Zycher said. “There will be also an obvious tension between any advocacy of action on climate policy and the long-term concern of the Church for the economic wellbeing of many millions of people less fortunate. The environment left will deny this, but that is sophistry that I hope Francis will not endorse.”

Several conservatives have more bluntly criticized Pope Francis for his statements on climate change and for his embrace of what they call a “radical left” agenda.

“Pope Francis—and I say this as a Catholic—is a complete disaster when it comes to his policy pronouncements,” Stephen Moore, chief economist for the Heritage Foundation, wrote in a January op-ed. “On the economy, and now on the environment, the pope has allied himself with the far left and has embraced an ideology that would make people poorer and less free.”

Despite the perception by some that the pope is taking sides in a contentious political issue, Cardinal Turkson said Pope Francis was merely reiterating ancient church teachings as the world enters the critical period leading up to a potential climate agreement.

“The coming 10 months are crucial, then, for decisions about international development, human flourishing and care for the common home we call planet Earth,” Turkson said. “As we confront the threat of environmental catastrophe on a global scale, I am confident that a shaft of light will break through the heavy clouds and bring us what Pope Francis describes as the warmth of hope.”

Influential Role Seen for Pope Francis at 2015 Climate Negotiations in Paris | Bloomberg BNA

2014 Was Hottest Year on Record, Surpassing 2010 - NYTimes.com

By JUSTIN GILLISJAN. 16, 2015

Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history, scientists reported on Friday, underscoring scientific warnings about the risks of runaway emissions and undermining claims by climate-change contrarians that global warming had somehow stopped.

Extreme heat blanketed Alaska and much of the western United States last year. Several European countries set temperature records. And the ocean surface was unusually warm virtually everywhere except around Antarctica, the scientists said, providing the energy that fueled damaging Pacific storms.

In the annals of climatology, 2014 now surpasses 2010 as the warmest year in a global temperature record that stretches back to 1880. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human emissions and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and to the natural world.

Of the large inhabited land areas, only the eastern half of the United States recorded below-average temperatures in 2014, a sort of mirror image of the unusual heat in the West. Some experts think the stuck-in-place weather pattern that produced those extremes in the United States is itself an indirect consequence of the release of greenhouse gases, though that is not proven.

Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño, a large-scale weather pattern in which the ocean dumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.

Longstanding claims by climate-change skeptics that global warming has stopped, seized on by politicians in Washington to justify inaction on emissions, depend on a particular starting year: 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century.

With the continued heating of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records.

Read more by clicking on the following:  2014 Was Hottest Year on Record, Surpassing 2010 - NYTimes.com

Majority of Republicans Believe in Regulating Emissions - Pacific Standard: The Science of Society

 

On the heels of last year’s Pew study showing that the majority of Americans believe in climate change, researches at Yale University have further blurred the lines by demonstrating that the majority of Republicans do in fact support the reduction of carbon pollution.

By polling a wide range of Republicans—liberal leaning, moderate, conservative, and Tea Party members—researchers have shown that, overall, 56 percent of Republicans support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Predictably, the subdivided percentages reflect how far right each group leans: 71 percent of liberal Republicans and 74 percent of moderate Republicans believe carbon dioxide should be regulated, while only 54 percent of conservatives and 36 percent of Tea Party Republicans do.

When the Atlanta Tea Party, for example, joined with the Sierra Club in 2013 to argue for Georgia homeowners’ right to install solar roofing panels, there was party philosophy—though not necessarily environmental—at play.

However, when asked about their thoughts on global warming in general, the party was a bit more hesitant. While the majority of self-identified liberal and moderate Republicans believe global warming is real—68 percent and 62 percent, respectively—that number drops to 38 percent of conservative Republicans and a dismal 29 percent of Tea Partiers.

To reach these numbers, Yale’s Project on Climate Change Communication aggregated data from six national surveys, conducted between 2012 and 2014. In all, responses from 5,513 registered voters—2,330 of whom identified as Republican or Republican-leaning—were taken into account. The survey incorporated all socioeconomic groups (researchers even provided laptops and Internet access to a portion of the panel).

Read the entire article:  Majority of Republicans Believe in Regulating Emissions - Pacific Standard: The Science of Society

The Keystone XL battle could go on all year - Yahoo Finance

 

That will only be the beginning of the drama, however, because Obama has pledged to veto such legislation. Assuming he does (and Congress fails to override the veto), the stakes will rise as Republicans craft new tactics to avert or overcome a veto and the White House digs in its heels. “It’s good news for anybody in Washington who works on Keystone,” quips Matt Letourneau, a spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21^st Century Energy, which lobbies in favor of the pipeline. “It’s quite possibly going to go on all year.”
Serving "the national interest"

Lost amid the political intrigue is the fact that the Obama administration can approve Keystone XL without any legislation at all — and there remains a small chance it could still do that. The State Department has approval authority because the pipeline would originate in a foreign country, and it must decide whether the pipeline “would serve the national interest” — a standard that obviously entails some subjectivity.

Read more:  The Keystone XL battle could go on all year - Yahoo Finance

Wind Turbines and Health: A Critical Review of the Scientifi... : Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

This recent M.I.T. work maybe the definitive work on health studies on the effects of wind turbines.

Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine:

November 2014 - Volume 56 - Issue 11 - p e108–e130

doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000313

Original Articles

 

Wind Turbines and Health: A Critical Review of the Scientific Literature

McCunney, Robert J. MD, MPH; Mundt, Kenneth A. PhD; Colby, W. David MD; Dobie, Robert MD; Kaliski, Kenneth BE, PE; Blais, Mark PsyD

 

From the Department of Biological Engineering (Dr McCunney), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; Department of Epidemiology (Dr Mundt), Environ International, Amherst, Mass; Travel Immunization Clinic (Dr Colby), Middlesex-London Health Unit, London, Ontario, Canada; Dobie Associates (Dr Dobie), San Antonio, Tex; Environment, Energy and Acoustics (Mr Kaliski), Resource Systems Group, White River Junction, Vt; and Psychological Evaluation and Research Laboratory (Dr Blais), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Address correspondence to: Robert J. McCunney, MD, MPH, Department of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, 16-771, Cambridge, MA 02139 (mccunney@mit.edu).

The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) funded this project through a grant to the Department of Biological Engineering of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In accordance with MIT guidelines, members of the CanWEA did not take part in editorial decisions or reviews of the manuscript. Drs McCunney, Mundt, Colby, and Dobie and Mr Kaliski have provided testimony in environmental tribunal hearings in Canada and the USA. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted an independent review of the final manuscript to ensure academic independence of the commentary and to eliminate any bias in the interpretation of the literature. All six coauthors also reviewed the entire manuscript and provided commentary to the lead author for inclusion in the final version.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citation appears in the printed text and is provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (www.joem.org).

Abstract

Objective: This review examines the literature related to health effects of wind turbines.

Methods: We reviewed literature related to sound measurements near turbines, epidemiological and experimental studies, and factors associated with annoyance.

Results: (1) Infrasound sound near wind turbines does not exceed audibility thresholds. (2) Epidemiological studies have shown associations between living near wind turbines and annoyance. (3) Infrasound and low-frequency sound do not present unique health risks. (4) Annoyance seems more strongly related to individual characteristics than noise from turbines.

Discussion: Further areas of inquiry include enhanced noise characterization, analysis of predicted noise values contrasted with measured levels postinstallation, longitudinal assessments of health pre- and postinstallation, experimental studies in which subjects are “blinded” to the presence or absence of infrasound, and enhanced measurement techniques to evaluate annoyance.

The development of renewable energy, including wind, solar, and biomass, has been accompanied by attention to potential environmental health risks. Some people who live in proximity of wind turbines have raised health-related concerns about noise from their operations. The issue of wind turbines and human health has also now been explored and considered in a number of policy, regulatory, and legal proceedings.

This review is intended to assess the peer-reviewed literature regarding evaluations of potential health effects among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. It will include analysis and commentary of the scientific evidence regarding potential links to health effects, such as stress, annoyance, and sleep disturbance, among others, that have been raised in association with living in proximity to wind turbines. Efforts will also be directed to specific components of noise associated with wind turbines such as infrasound and low-frequency sound and their potential health effects.

We will attempt to address the following questions regarding wind turbines and health:

1. Is there sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines adversely affect human health? If so, what are the circumstances associated with such effects and how might they be prevented?

2. Is there sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that psychological stress, annoyance, and sleep disturbance can occur as a result of living in proximity to wind turbines? Do these effects lead to adverse health effects? If so, what are the circumstances associated with such effects and how might they be prevented?

3. Is there evidence to suggest that specific aspects of wind turbine sound such as infrasound and low-frequency sound have unique potential health effects not associated with other sources of environmental noise?

The coauthors represent professional experience and training in occupational and environmental medicine, acoustics, epidemiology, otolaryngology, psychology, and public health.

Earlier reviews of wind turbines and potential health implications have been published in the peer-reviewed literature^1–6 by state and provincial governments (Massachusetts, 2012, and Australia, 2014, among others) and trade associations.⁷

This review is divided into the following five sections:

1. Noise: The type associated with wind turbine operations, how it is measured, and noise measurements associated with wind turbines.

2. Epidemiological studies of populations living in the vicinity of wind turbines.

3. Potential otolaryngology implications of exposure to wind turbine sound.

4. Potential psychological issues associated with responses to wind turbine operations and a discussion of the health implications of continuous annoyance.

5. Governmental and nongovernmental reports that have addressed wind turbine operations.

To read the entire study go to:  Wind Turbines and Health: A Critical Review of the Scientifi... : Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

[Here are the conclusions from each of the five sections of the study:]

[1. Noise]

Conclusions

Wind turbine noise measurement can be challenging because of the necessity of measuring sound levels during high winds, and down to low frequencies. No widely accepted measurement methodologies address all of these issues, meaning that methods used in published measurements can differ substantially, affecting the comparability of results.

Measurements of low-frequency sound, infrasound, tonal sound emission, and amplitude-modulated sound show that infrasound is emitted by wind turbines, but the levels at customary distances to homes are typically well below audibility thresholds, even at residences where complaints have been raised. Low-frequency sound, often audible in wind turbine sound, typically crosses the audibility threshold between 25 and 125 Hz depending on the location and meteorological conditions.¹²,¹⁵,¹⁹,²⁰,²³ Amplitude modulation, or the rapid (once per second) and repetitive increase and decrease of broadband sound level, has been measured at wind farms. Amplitude modulation is typically 2 to 4 dB but can vary more than 6 dB in some cases (A-weighted sound levels).¹⁹,²⁴

A Canadian report investigated the total number of noise-related complaints because of operating wind farms in Alberta, Canada, over its entire history of wind power. Wind power capacity exceeds 1100 MW; some of the turbines have been in operation for 20 years. Five noise-oriented complaints at utility-scale wind farms were reported over this period, none of which were repeated after the complaints were addressed. Complaints were more common during construction of the wind farms; other power generation methods (gas, oil, etc) received more complaints than wind power. Farmers and ranchers did not raise complaints because of effects on crops and cattle.⁴¹ An Australian study found a complaint rate of less than 1% for residents living within 5 km of turbines greater than 1 MW. Complaints were concentrated among a few wind farms; many wind farms never received complaints.¹⁵

Reviewing complaints in the vicinity of wind farms can be effective in determining the level and extent of annoyance because of wind turbine noise, but there are limitations to this approach. A complaint may be because of higher levels of annoyance (rather annoyed or very annoyed), and the amount of annoyance required for an individual to complain may be dependent on the personality of the person and the corresponding attitude toward the visual effect of the turbines, their respective attitudes toward wind energy, and whether they derive economic benefit from the turbines. (All of these factors are discussed in more detail later in this report.)

Few studies have addressed sound levels at the residents of people who have described symptoms they consider because of wind turbines. Limited available data show a wide range of levels (38 to 53 dBA [10-minute or 1-hour Leq] outside the residence and from 23 to 37 dBA [10-minute Leq] inside the residence).¹⁹,²⁶,²⁸,²⁸ The rate of complaints surrounding wind farms is relatively low; 3% for residents within 1 mile of wind farms and 4% to 5% within 1 km.¹³,³²,⁴¹    

^{…. .}

[2.]Epidemiological Studies of Wind Turbines

Key to understanding potential effects of wind turbine noise on human health is to consider relevant evidence from well-conducted epidemiological studies, which has the advantage of reflecting risks of real-world exposures. Nevertheless, environmental epidemiology is an observational (vs experimental) science that depends on design and implementation characteristics that are subject to numerous inherent and methodological limitations. Nevertheless, evidence from epidemiological studies of reasonable quality may provide the best available indication of whether certain exposures—such as industrial wind turbine noise—may be harming human health. Critical review and synthesis of the epidemiological evidence, combined with consideration of evidence from other lines of inquiry (ie, animal studies and exposure assessments), provide a scientific basis for identifying causal relationships, managing risks, and protecting public health.

….

Conclusions

A critical review and synthesis of the evidence available from the eight study populations studied to date (and reported in 14 publications) provides some insights into the hypothesis that wind turbine noise harms human health in those living in proximity to wind turbines. These include the following:

* No clear or consistent association is seen between noise from wind turbines and any reported disease or other indicator of harm to human health.

* In most surveyed populations, some individuals (generally a small proportion) report some degree of annoyance with wind turbines; however, further evaluation has demonstrated:

* Certain characteristics of wind turbine sound such as its intermittence or rhythmicity may enhance reported perceptibility and annoyance;

* The context in which wind turbine noise is emitted also influences perceptibility and annoyance, including urban versus rural setting, topography, and landscape features, as well as visibility of the wind turbines;

* Factors such as attitude toward visual effect of wind turbines on the scenery, attitude toward wind turbines in general, personality characteristics, whether individuals benefit financially from the presence of wind turbines, and duration of time wind turbines have been in operation all have been correlated with self-reported annoyance; and

* Annoyance does not correlate well or at all with objective sound measurements or calculated sound pressures.

* Complaints such as sleep disturbance have been associated with A-weighted wind turbine sound pressures of higher than 40 to 45 dB but not any other measure of health or well-being. Stress was associated with annoyance but not with calculated sound pressures.⁶³

* Studies of QOL including physical and mental health scales and residential proximity to wind turbines report conflicting findings–one study (with only 38 participants living within 2.0 km of the nearest wind turbine) reported lower HRQOL among those living closer to wind turbines than respondents living farther away,⁶⁶ whereas the largest of all studies (with 853 living within 1500 m of the nearest wind turbine)⁶⁷ found that those living closer to wind turbines reported higher QOL and health than those living farther away.⁶⁷

Because these statistical correlations arise from cross-sectional studies and surveys in which the temporal sequence of the exposure and outcome cannot be evaluated, and where the effect of various forms of bias (especially selection/volunteer bias and recall bias) may be considerable, the extent to which they reflect causal relationships cannot be determined. For example, the claims such as “We conclude that the noise emissions of wind turbines disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4 km of the two wind turbines installations studied” cannot be substantiated on the basis of the actual study design used and some of the likely biases present.⁷⁰

Notwithstanding the limitations inherent to cross-sectional studies and surveys—which alone may provide adequate explanation for some of the reported correlations—several possible explanations have been suggested for the wind turbines–associated annoyance reported in many of these studies, including attitudinal and even personality characteristics of the survey participants.⁶⁹ Pedersen and colleague,⁵⁹ who have been involved in the majority of publications on this topic, noted “The enhanced negative response [toward wind turbines] could be linked to aesthetical response, rather than to multi-modal effects of simultaneous auditory and visual stimulation, and a risk of hindrance to psycho-physiological restoration could not be excluded.”^(p.389) They also found that wind turbines might be more likely to elicit annoyance because some perceive them to be “intrusive” visually and with respect to their noise.⁶⁵ Alternative explanations on the basis of evaluation of all health complaints filed between 1993 and 2012 with wind turbine operators across Australia include the influence of anti-wind power activism and the surrounding publicity on the likelihood of health complaints, calling the complaints “communicated diseases.”⁵²

As noted earlier, the 14 papers meeting the selection criteria for critical review and synthesis were based on only eight independent study groups—three publications were based on the same study group from the Netherlands⁵⁸ and four additional publications were based on the combined data from the two Swedish surveys⁶¹,⁶² or from the combined data from all three. The findings across studies based on analyses of the same data are not independent observations, and therefore the body of available evidence may seem to be larger and more consistent than it should. This observation does not necessarily mean that the relationships observed (or the lack of associations between calculated wind turbines sound pressures and disease or other indicators of health) are invalid, but that consistency across reports based on the same data should not be overinterpreted as independent confirmation of findings. Perhaps more important is that all eight were cross-sectional studies or surveys, and therefore inherently limited in their ability to demonstrate the presence or absence of true health effects.

Recent controlled exposure laboratory evaluations lend support to the notion that reports of annoyance and other complaints may reflect, at least in part, preconceptions about the ability of wind turbine noise to harm health⁵²,⁷¹,⁷² or even the color of the turbine⁷³ more than the actual noise emission.

Sixty years ago, Sir Austin Bradford Hill delivered a lecture entitled “Observations and Experiment” to the Royal College of Occupational Medicine. In his lecture, Hill stated that “The observer may well have to be more patient than the experimenter—awaiting the occurrence of the natural succession of events he desires to study; he may well have to be more imaginative—sensing the correlations that lie below the surface of his observations; and he may well have to be more logical and less dogmatic—avoiding as the evil eye the fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc,' the mistaking of correlation for causation.”^74(p.1000)

Although it is typical and appropriate to point out the obvious need for additional research, it may be worth emphasizing that more research of a similar nature—that is, using cross-sectional or survey approaches—is unlikely to be informative, most notably for public policy decisions. Large, well-conducted prospective cohort studies that document baseline health status and can objectively measure the incidence of new disease or health conditions over time with the introduction would be the most informative. On the contrary, the phenomena that constitute wind turbine exposures—primarily noise and visual effect—are not dissimilar to many other environmental (eg, noise of waves along shorelines) and anthropogenic (eg, noise from indoor Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning or road traffic) stimuli, for which research and practical experience indicate no direct harm to human health…..

[3.]Sound Components and Health: Infrasound, Low-Frequency Sound, and Potential Health Effects  ….

Conclusions

Infrasound and low-frequency sound can be generated by the operation of wind turbines; however, neither low-frequency sound nor infrasound in the context of wind turbines or in experimental studies has been associated with adverse health effects….

[4.] Annoyance, Wind Turbines, and Potential Health Implications….

Conclusions

Annoyance is a recognized health outcome measure that has been used in studies of environmental noise for many decades. Noise levels have been shown to account for only a modest portion of self-reported annoyance in the context of wind turbines (r = 0.35).⁴ Noise sensitivity, a stable psychological trait, contributes equally to exposure in explaining annoyance levels (r = 0.37). Annoyance associated with wind turbine noise shows a consistent small to medium adverse effect on self-rated QOL and psychological well-being. Given the coarseness of measures used in many studies, the magnitude of these findings are likely attenuated and underestimate the effect of annoyance on QOL. Visual effect increases annoyance beyond sound exposure and noise sensitivity, but at present there is insufficient research to conclude that visual effect operates separately from noise sensitivity because the two variables are correlated. Wind turbine development is subject to the same global psychogenic health worries and nocebo reactions as other modern technologies.¹³⁹

Economic benefit mitigates the effect of wind turbine sound; however, research is needed to clarify the potential confounding role of (self) selection in this finding. The most powerful multivariate model reviewed accounted for approximately 50% (r = 0.69) of the variance in reported annoyance, leaving 50% unexplained. Clearly other relevant factors likely remain unidentified. Nevertheless, it is not unusual for there to be a significant percentage of unexplained variance in biomedical or social science research. For example, a meta-analysis of postoperative pain (a subjective experience), covering 48 studies and 23,037 subjects, found that only 54% (r = 0.73) of the variance in pain ratings could be explained by the variables included in the studies.¹⁴⁴ Wind turbine development is subject to the same global psychogenic health worries and nocebo reactions as other modern technologies. Therefore, communities, government agency, and companies would be well advised to adopt an open, transparent, and engaging process when debating the potential effect of wind turbine sites. The vast majority of findings reviewed in this section were correlational and, therefore, do not imply causality, and that other as of yet unidentified (unmeasured) factors may be associated with or responsible for these findings….

[5. Public Policy]

DISCUSSION

Despite the limitations of available research related to wind turbines and health, inferences can be drawn from this information, if used in concert with available scientific evidence from other environmental noise studies, many of which have been reviewed and assessed for public policy in the WHO's Nighttime Noise Guidelines.¹⁰⁴ A substantial database on environmental noise studies related to transportation, aviation, and rail has been published.¹⁴⁷ Many of these studies have been used to develop worldwide regulatory noise guidelines, such as those of the WHO,¹⁰⁴ which have proposed nighttime noise levels primarily focused on preventing sleep disturbance.

Because sound and its components are the potential health hazards associated with living near wind turbines, an assessment of other environmental noise studies can offer a valuable perspective in assessing health risks for people living near wind turbines. For example, one would not expect adverse health effects to occur at lower noise levels if the same effects do not occur at higher noise levels. In the studies of other environmental noise sources, noise levels have been considerably higher than those associated with wind turbines. Noise differences as broad as 15 dBA (eg, 55 dBA in highways vs 40 dBA from wind turbines) have been regularly reported.¹⁴⁷ In settings where anthropogenic changes are perceived, indirect effects such as annoyance have been reported, and these must also be considered in the evaluation of health effects.

We now attempt to address three fundamental questions posed at the beginning of this review related to potential health implications of wind turbines.

Is there available scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines adversely affect human health? If so, what are the circumstances associated with such effects and how might they be prevented?

The epidemiological and experimental literature provides no convincing or consistent evidence that wind turbine noise is associated with any well-defined disease outcome. What is suggested by this literature, however, is that varying proportions of people residing near wind turbine facilities report annoyance with the turbines or turbine noise. It has been suggested by some authors of these studies that this annoyance may contribute to sleep disruption and/or stress and, therefore, lead to other health consequences. This self-reported annoyance, however, has not been reported consistently and, when observed, arises from cross-sectional surveys that inherently cannot discern whether the wind turbine noise emissions play any direct causal role. Beyond these methodological limitations, such results have been associated with other mediating factors (including personality and attitudinal characteristics), reverse causation (ie, disturbed sleep or the presence of a headache increases the perception of and association with wind turbine noise), and personal incentives (whether economic benefit is available for living near the turbines).

There are no available cohort or longitudinal studies that can more definitively address the question about causal links between wind turbine operations and adverse health effects. Nevertheless, results from cross-sectional and experimental studies, as well as studies of other environmental noise sources, can provide valuable information in assessing risk. On the basis of the published cross-sectional epidemiological studies, “annoyance” is the main outcome measure that has been raised in the context of living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Whether annoyance is an adverse health effect, however, is disputable. “Annoyance” is not listed in the International Classification of Diseases (10th edition), although it has been suggested by some that annoyance may lead to stress and to other health consequences, such as sleep disturbance. This proposed mechanism, however, has not been demonstrated in studies using methods capable of elucidating such pathways.

The authors of this review are aware of the Internet sites and non–peer-reviewed reports, in which some people have described symptoms that they attribute to living near wind turbines. The quality of this information, however, is severely limited such that reasonable assessments cannot be made about direct causal links between the wind turbines and symptoms reported. For example, inviting only people who feel they have symptoms because of wind turbines to participate in surveys and asking people to remember events in the past in the context of a current concern (ie, postturbine installation) introduce selection and recall biases, respectively. Such major biases compromise the reliability of the information as used in any rigorous causality assessment. Nonetheless, consistent associations have been reported between annoyance, sleep disturbance, and altered QOL among some people living near wind turbines. It is not possible to properly evaluate causal links of these claims in the absence of a thorough medical assessment, proper noise studies, and a valid study approach. The symptoms reported tend to be nonspecific and associated with various other illnesses. Personality factors, including self-assessed noise sensitivity, attitudes toward wind energy, and nocebo-like reactions, may play a role in the reporting of these symptoms. In the absence of thorough medical evaluations that include a characterization of the noise exposure and a diagnostic medical evaluation, confirmation that the symptoms are due to living near wind turbines cannot be made with any reliability. In fact, the use of a proposed case definition that seemed in a journal not indexed by PubMed can lead to misleading and incorrect assessments of people's health, if performed in the absence of a thorough diagnostic evaluation.¹⁴³ We recommend that people who suspect that they have symptoms from living near wind turbines undergo a thorough medical evaluation to identify all potential causes of and contributors to the symptoms. Attributing symptoms to living near wind turbines in the absence of a comprehensive medical evaluation is not medically appropriate. It is in the person's best interest to be properly evaluated to ensure that recognized and treatable illnesses are recognized.

Available scientific evidence does not provide support for any bona fide–specific illness arising out of living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Nonetheless, it seems that an array of factors contribute to some proportion of those living in proximity to wind turbines, reporting some degree of annoyance. The effect of prolonged annoyance—regardless of its source or causes—may have other health consequences, such as increasing stress; however, this cannot be demonstrated with the existing scientific literature on annoyance associated with wind turbine noise or visibility.

Is there available scientific evidence to conclude that psychological stress, annoyance, and sleep disturbance can occur as a result of living in proximity to wind turbines? Do these effects lead to adverse health effects? If so, what are the circumstances associated with such effects and how might they be prevented?

Available research is not suitable for assessing causality because the major epidemiological studies conducted to date have been cross-sectional, data from which do not allow the evaluation of the temporal relationship between any observed correlated factors. Cross-sectional studies, despite their inherent limitations in assessing causal links, however, have consistently shown that some people living near wind turbines are more likely to report annoyance than those living farther away. These same studies have also shown that a person's likelihood of reporting annoyance is strongly related to their attitudes toward wind turbines, the visual aspect of the turbines, and whether they obtain economic benefit from the turbines. Our review suggests that these other risk factors play a more significant role than noise from wind turbines in people reporting annoyance.

The effect of annoyance on a person's health is likely to vary considerably, based on various factors. To minimize these reactions, solutions may include informative discussions with area residents before developing plans for a wind farm along with open communications of plans and a trusted approach to responding to questions and resolving noise-related complaints.

Is there evidence to suggest that specific aspects of wind turbine sound such as infrasound and low-frequency sound have unique potential health effects not associated with other sources of environmental noise?

Both infrasound and low-frequency sound have been raised as possibly unique health hazards associated with wind turbine operations. There is no scientific evidence, however, including results from field measurements of wind turbine–related noise and experimental studies in which people have been purposely exposed to infrasound, to support this hypothesis. Measurements of low-frequency sound, infrasound, tonal sound emission, and amplitude-modulated sound show that infrasound is emitted by wind turbines, but that the levels at customary distances to homes are well below audibility thresholds, even at residences where people have reported symptoms that they attribute to wind turbines. These levels of infrasound—as close as 300 m from the turbines—are not audible. Moreover, experimental studies of people exposed to much higher levels of infrasound than levels measured near wind turbines have not indicated adverse health effects. Because infrasound is associated more with vibratory effects than high-frequency sound, it has been suggested that the vibration from infrasound may be contributing to certain physical sensations described by some people living near wind turbines. These sensations are difficult to reconcile in light of field studies that indicated that infrasound at distances more than 300 m for a wind turbine meet international standards for preventing rattling and other potential vibratory effects.^14…..

^…..

SUMMARY

1. Measurements of low-frequency sound, infrasound, tonal sound emission, and amplitude-modulated sound show that infrasound is emitted by wind turbines. The levels of infrasound at customary distances to homes are typically well below audibility thresholds.

2. No cohort or case–control studies were located in this updated review of the peer-reviewed literature. Nevertheless, among the cross-sectional studies of better quality, no clear or consistent association is seen between wind turbine noise and any reported disease or other indicator of harm to human health.

3. Components of wind turbine sound, including infrasound and low-frequency sound, have not been shown to present unique health risks to people living near wind turbines.

4. Annoyance associated with living near wind turbines is a complex phenomenon related to personal factors. Noise from turbines plays a minor role in comparison with other factors in leading people to report annoyance in the context of wind turbines.