Many people see wind turbines as ominous and oppressive, and their toll on wildlife is growing.
Sir, you may have been unfairly treated on the topic of biomass, but do you still support covering the world with obnoxious, inefficient industrial wind turbines? Those who call them "beautiful" are a strange breed, considering what's being lost as they dominate natural vistas. The film rightly showed that wind turbines need a lot of natural gas or coal back-up for seamless power, and those sources may add more power than wind itself.
It also documented farcical examples of "100%" renewable-powered events, and should have delved more into the "carbon credits" illusion that allows Apple and other greenwashers to claim they only run on renewables (which aren't 100% renewable anyhow).
Your seminal book, "The End of Nature," featured a dead bird on the jacket and I hope the irony is evident. When Greens can only say "house cats kill more!" something is very wrong (and cats don't kill the same species). There's also a growing bat mortality problem, with vague solutions of shutting down entire wind projects whenever bats fly near. Nobody should seriously think that will work.
Nuclear (e.g. SMR) is a viable low-sprawl alternative to Big Wind, yet many environmentalists are firmly against it while making excuses as the world's scenery morphs into a sprawling mess of white sticks and red FAA warning lights. Surely you find this blight no less tragic than global warming, and can see that wind's scale will never replace the fossil fuels that build it? They're also critical for fertilizer and agriculture, banked on to feed billions.
The point of the film was that Man used to be smaller than nature but has grown far too big. Neo-environmentalists want to keep growing in different but not intrinsically better ways. Deep ecologists see that it's all a continuum, and we need to save landscapes and seascapes, not just the atmosphere.
It's dystopian when Greens call industrial scenery "beautiful" except for mining & drilling scars.
