Rich, white communities most likely to oppose wind farms, study finds
By: Lanna Lewis
News Article: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/25/us/wind-farm-opposition-study-climate
Peer-Reviewed Article: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2302313120
Background:
Communities of color with higher rates of poverty are more likely to host coal fueled power plants and bear their adverse effects (1). Coal plants emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds while leaving behind ash (2). This has been linked to adverse health effects such as cancer, asthma, heart attacks, and premature deaths (1). To reduce the carbon footprint of humans and mitigate global warming, many countries have tried to implement more clean, renewable sources of energy. Some common renewable energy technologies are solar, wind, and hydroelectric power (3). Renewable energy is able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution; however, opposition to it has led to project delays and cancellations (4).
News Article:
The news article immediately starts off with a hook to catch the reader's attention. The first sentence states how wealthy white communities in the U.S. and Canada are “more likely to oppose wind energy projects.” The author quickly follows up by bringing up the study as evidence and even interviews one of its authors. The study’s author emphasizes how surprising the finding is and promotes its shock value to the readers. The body of the article details how anti-wind power opposition has grown throughout the years and gives more details on the research methods the study used. The last half of the article goes into how the politics of each state didn’t determine how receptive they were of wind power; however, in Canada, there is a noticeable partisan split. For its conclusion, they interview an energy analyst and he has a call to action. He states, “We need to be thinking about the way that energy privilege and whiteness and wealth come into decision-making,” because coal and gas plants tend to impact minority communities who end up bearing the consequences of decisions made by the wealthy and white.
This is a review paper that looks at opposition to wind projects from 2000-2016 in the U.S. and Canada. In 2020, 8% and 6% of electricity from the US and Canada, respectively, came from wind energy. There’s a wide variety of factors that could predict opposition such demographics, project size, project location, perceived economic and environmental costs/benefits, and the process to develop wind projects. The author went on to elaborate that people tend to not like the way wind farms look and the noise that comes from constructing it. The location may also affect support because data shows there is more support for wind projects in remote areas. The economic cost and benefits may predict opposition because if these projects are seen providing local benefits like jobs or lower energy costs, the support will be greater. Higher unemployment rates mitigates opposition because there is hope for job creation. Stakeholder engagement is also a factor because having stakeholders be engaged with and reassure the public decreases the likelihood of opposition.
In their research, they collected data on demographics and project characteristics and included successful and unsuccessful opposition of wind projects (Figure 1). They compiled 36,000 news articles and used them as a means to identify opposition to wind projects. Opposition was defined as “physical protests, legal actions, legislation, and/or letters to the editor, all aimed at preventing the project’s completion.” The most common tactics used to oppose wind projects were legal challenges, legislation, and, in Canada, protests. In Canada, Ontario had the most supportive policies and therefore the most wind projects. Most of the opposition to wind projects came from the northeast part of the U.S, and Ontario, Canada (Figure 2). Opponents were very likely to be white and in wealthier areas in both countries
Figure 1. “Top row: Number of wind plants in Canada and the United States over time, by year of operation. Projects that did not experience opposition are shown in blue, those that did are shown in red. Bottom row: Percentage of plants that experienced opposition in both countries over time, including a linear trend line.”
Figure 2. “Spatial distribution of wind energy projects and opposition in the United States of America and Canada. Projects that experienced opposition are shown in red. Darker shades indicate a larger concentration of plants in that specific area. Wind projects were heavily concentrated in the middle of the US, in the area stretching from Minnesota to Texas. They were also interspersed throughout the West, Mountain West, and Northeast. There were few projects in the Southeast, in part because those states have never passed Renewable Portfolio Standard laws. In Canada, wind projects were concentrated in Ontario due to the province’s supportive policies for renewable energy in the 2000s.”
They acknowledged that the data they collected on wind farms in the U.S. was biased to projects close to completion, so they pulled data from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University to reinclude wrongfully excluded data. They found that in both countries, larger projects with more turbines or taller turbines were more likely to face opposition. In the US, race and ethnicity were the strongest predictors of opposition. Opposition occurred in areas with high percentages of white people and lower percentages of Hispanics. Interestingly, opposition was not associated with partisanship in the U.S. In Canada, there was more opposition in areas with higher median incomes. Race was not a significant predictor; however, partisanship was. It was found that places experiencing opposition had lower support for the Liberal Party.
They used an ordinary least square (OLS) regression model to examine predictors of opposition to wind projects in the US and Canada. This confirmed their previous findings. An opposition score was also created to understand what tactics were associated with the intensity of opposition to wind projects. It was from a scale of 0 to 4, with 0 being no tactics used, and a 4 having all 4 of the measured tactics used (courts, legislation, physical protest, and letters to a newspaper editor). Again, they found white people oppose more and Hispanic people oppose less, but Hispanic people were also found to use less tactics if they did oppose.
Analysis:
I would give this article a 8/10 because it was relatively comprehensive and very easy to understand. They also interviewed the author of the peer-reviewed article, and she added thoughtful insight into the interpretation of results while providing more credibility to the news article. I think the news article summarizes the key statistics of the peer-reviewed article well. I really appreciated how they touched on how opposition was greatest in the Northeastern U.S. and Ontario, Canada while tying in how this relates to energy privilege. They also interviewed an energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists to emphasize how communities of color are impacted by decisions these wealthy, white communities make.
I took off two points because the news article did fall short on talking about what was defined as opposition and didn't mention the opposition score at all. They also generalized how many people typically participate in these protests instead of saying around 20-30 people usually show up. Additionally, important methodological details were omitted, and they did not mention the OLS regression done to confirm the study’s findings. Despite these shortcomings, the article did a good job of conveying the findings and emphasizing the issue of energy privilege.
(1) Cranmer, Z.; Steinfield, L.; Miranda, J.; Stohler, T. Energy Distributive Injustices: Assessing the Demographics of Communities Surrounding Renewable and Fossil Fuel Power Plants in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science 2023, 100, 103050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103050.
(2) Córdoba, P. Emissions of Inorganic Trace Pollutants from Coal Power Generation. In Air Pollution - Monitoring, Quantification and Removal of Gases and Particles; IntechOpen, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79918.
(3) US EPA, O. Local Renewable Energy Benefits and Resources. https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/local-renewable-energy-benefits-and-resources (accessed 2025-10-26).
(4) Susskind, L.; Chun, J.; Gant, A.; Hodgkins, C.; Cohen, J.; Lohmar, S. Sources of Opposition to Renewable Energy Projects in the United States. Energy Policy 2022, 165, 112922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112922.
Good Job Lanna. It is very interesting to me that those in these privileged areas have such strong opposition to the cleaner energy that would come from these plants. I was wondering if in any of the research they polled the people opposed to these changes and asked them why they may be against the wind plants. I think their reasoning would be an eye opener in terms of how to get people on the side of these projects. I think in terms of going forward with renewable energy, public support or opposition is the biggest factor that determines whether or not these projects will move forward. I also found it interesting that you brought up the concept of environmental racism in terms of the disproportionate effects that non renewables have on marginalized communities. I wonder if those objecting to cleaner energy felt a proportional amount of the adverse effects felt by those in the marginalized communities if they would change their opinions on the proposals of more clean energy. I would agree with your rating of the news article, I felt that it was fair and I liked how it brought up the concept of “energy privilege” for those that benefit from non-renewable energy but don’t really feel the harmful effects as much. I think these types of conversations are essential for achieving more in renewable energy.
ReplyDeleteHi Sarea! Unfortunately, they did not poll any people as apart of their data collection method because they took their data from news articles. This may have been flawed at times because some news articles did not go into the same amount of detail with the methods of opposition as others. I think it would have been interesting if they used surveys and interviews as well. I believe that the people opposing clean energy most likely do not feel many adverse effects from things like coal plants. They seem to be more worried about how wind projects could possibly inconvenience them.
DeleteThank you for sharing a really interesting study! I'm disappointed but not surprised by the finding of greater opposition in wealthier white communities, since they have the resources (time, money, etc.) to fight. This opposition will only continue to harm lower-income communities and communities of color where pollution from fossil fuels/energy production is highest. I wish there wasn't such a stigma against wind power because it is a great way to generate energy when put in the right location. Unfortunately, not everywhere is suitable for quieter sources of renewable energy (like solar), and I think we're at a point where sacrifices (such as noise or aesthetics) need to be made if we are going to try and limit global warming. I didn't see a mention of this in the peer-reviewed article, but I wonder what their reasons for opposition were, and if they were in favor of other renewable energy projects in place of wind power.
ReplyDeleteHi Sophie! I really like your take. In the peer-reviewed article, they mentioned that existing research has shown the height of the turbines, potential noise/disruptions, and if they find the planning process of the project to be fair are common reasons for opposition. However, they did not mention if they were in favor of other renewable energy projects.
DeleteHi Lanna, this was an awesome analysis by you. I found the title itself to be very polarizing and fun to read about. Within the news article I found it interesting that it was said that party ID didn’t matter for the study, I feel like that was really surprising given what the some political stances are around climate change and renewable energy. Wealth definitely comes with privilege, and it’s interesting that these people are not as altruistic given they are having nearly all their needs met. The article has that call to action at the end which is of note. How does this make you feel and would you want a wind energy near where you live given that it can be an eye sore?
ReplyDeleteHi Rahib! I think I would feel the same as I do when there is construction on campus: it's annoying, but I can recognize there is a greater purpose for it. I think I could handle a few months of construction if there is an overall positive impact because of the project. I was also very surprised that it was found that party ID didn't matter for opposition in the US. In the peer-reviewed article, it mentioned that several other papers have found a political divide with greater opposition from conservatives; however, that is why this is such a remarkable finding.
DeleteHi Lanna! I really enjoyed reading your blog post. I thought that the title was definitely an attention grabber. I felt that the findings in the study were unsurprising, other than the fact that there wasn't really a partisan bias in the U.S. for or against wind farms. I think that it is definitely a privilege to be able to speak out against issues that you oppose, as this requires time, effort, and commuting, which are often things that more privileged people have to spare. I also think that the argument against wind farms, since constructing them produces noise, is mindless. Are there ways you think that can be productive in convincing people otherwise?
ReplyDeleteHi Kirsten! I think educating people about what will happen during and after the wind project would be a good way to convince them. Sometimes, people get riled up and think that a wind project will negatively affect them or be an eyesore, instead of recognizing all the good it can do. The peer-reviewed article mentioned that people are more receptive to these projects when new jobs are created, so perhaps incentives should also be offered to communities.
DeleteHi Lanna! I thought your analysis was really interesting. My research article for the presentation also brought up how the biomass energy facilities were disproportionately located near minority communities, which in turn meant that these communities were significantly exposed to the harmful pollutants that are released during energy generation. It is so important to connect the social implications in environmental decision-making. I thought it was really interesting to see that the opposition to the wind energy projects was not tied to partisanship in the US, as I would have assumed. Do you think getting early community engagement could bring about more participation and reduce opposition later on?
ReplyDeleteHi Talia! I do think that getting the community engaged with the project will reduce the levels of opposition. It mentioned in the peer reviewed article that stakeholder engagement is essential to minimizing opposition. This means that people doing the project should take some time to know the people within the community to ease their concerns.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Lanna! I think you did a great job analyzing summarizing both the peer-review and news article. I had a few follow-up questions to some of the discussion you presented.
ReplyDelete1. It makes sense that participants in the opposition studies who scored higher on the scale of 0 to 4 would be wealthier more-privileged individuals of the community since they have more time and resources. Did they study ever discuss how effective the mitigation tactics (courts, legislation, physical protest, and letters to a newspaper editor). of those individuals were in thwarting the development of windmill infrastructure?
2. In Figure 1, the USA shows an almost linear increase in opposition to wind energy over time. Although the top panel indicates that fewer wind plants were built between 2013 and 2016, public opposition continued to grow steadily. Do the authors discuss any strategies to reduce overall bias against wind turbines?
Hi Lanna! Good job on your analysis. I was curious if there was any reason given from the people who opposed as to their reasoning? I would be curious to see if it was just do to looks and noise of wind turbines or if its for some other reasoning that they may have heard somewhere. I wonder if there might have been some news source in opposition that they read/got information on and came to their conclusion with. I would be interested in seeing a poll from the same group that if it's just the noise/look if they would be opposed to a different type of renewable energy plant nearby.
ReplyDeleteHi Lanna! I really enjoyed your article choice and your analysis. I agree with your news article rating of 8/10 and also think it would have benefitted from the inclusion of more specific methodological details. I also thought the conclusion that opposition to these wind farms was most closely associated with race and ethnicity in the United States, but income and partisanship in Canada was really surprising. I would be very interested to learn more about how the study's authors differentiated all of these categories, because I feel like some of these categories could potentially be associated with each other (for example, in the US, white Americans are more likely to lean conservative than other minority groups).
ReplyDeleteHi Lanna, great analysis! The news article's title is certainly catchy, framing the findings in a way that maximizes its social impact. I did have a question about the data presentation in Figure 1 (Bottom Row). The linear trend line for opposition in Canada seems a bit unconvincing. The data points from 2000-2010 are almost all near zero, and the entire upward trend appears to be driven by a few high-opposition years post-2010. It makes me wonder how robust that "growing over time" conclusion is for Canada, or if it's more of a stepwise jump reflecting a specific policy change (like in Ontario).
ReplyDeleteI'm also curious about the reasons for opposition, which the study seems to group together. And how does this opposition rate compare to other clean energies, like solar farms? It's hard to tell if this is a unique problem for wind or a broader clean energy problem.
The news article's conclusion, quoting the analyst that “We need to be thinking about....", is a right starting point. But it leaves challenging practical questions: what are the actual policy mechanisms we could use to integrate this finding into decision-making? How can permitting boards, for example, quantitatively or qualitatively account for this "energy privilege" without this leading to an overcorrection? It seems like a difficult balance between addressing this systemic injustice and still respecting the important principle of local community input.
Great Job Lanna! I thought this was a very interesting article and I thought you summarized it well. I find it interesting that partisanship was not associated with opposition of wind farms in the US considering the fact that Donald Trump HATES windmills (he talks about them constantly). One thing I am curious about is how income played a role in the US. I also wonder if different racial groups besides white people would be more opposed to windmills. For example, how would the data for African Americans and Hispanics compare to each other. I also wonder how low income white areas in the US compared to high income white areas.
ReplyDeleteGreat Job, this topic is very interesting, especially the non partisan relationship that opposition to wind energy has with American political parties. Even though renewable energy is an extremely politicized topic there is somehow isn't a specific political party that opposes wind energy more frequently than another. One thing I found concerning was how opposition to wind farms has increased over time since 2000. I would have assumed the opposite before reading this article, given the compounding environmental strain that fossil fuel consumption creates every year. A question I have is whether or not it is known if the whiteness of a specific specific community or the wealth of a specific community has a bigger influence is the level of opposition that said community has on wind plant opposition? I agree with your rating of the news article and believe they did a good job summarizing the peer reviewed study. The discussion on energy privilege was an important and showed how the communities that are suffering from wind plant opposition aren't the ones opposing it.
ReplyDeleteI definitely find the topics of wind generation to be of interest, as my grandpa has a wind turbine that was placed on his farm and know of several others that exist in his rural town that mainly consist of white and Hispanic populations, so I was interested to see that Hispanics tend to oppose less to wind projects. It definitely is concerning that the opposition to wind projects has been growing over the last 10 years ago, likely due to the increase of misinformation caused from increased usage of social media. I also wonder if could wind projects be increasing in opposition as they now are being in considered to be built in places of more wealthy, higher income areas?
ReplyDeleteHi Lanna, this was a really interesting review! I think a lot of solutions to climate change or to be more sustainable leave out the qualitative and human factors elements, which this really highlights. I’m very familiar with NIMBYism but I’ve never seen examples of it for renewable energy. As we move towards more renewable energy options, this is definitely a hurdle that we as scientists and engineers typically aren’t equipped to handle.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how different the results would be if they surveyed people versus using news articles, which I would imagine are already biased towards reporting about rich, white people. I worked in public works for a city in the past and the greatest success I had on my projects came from community engagement and incorporating some educational component meant for the public. Do you think if the study included surveys, they might have found different results or explored community engagement?