By David Wojick
f you want to speak out against a bad project at a public meeting, consider asking a hard question instead of stating an objection. Objections call for no immediate action except perhaps a cursory “thank you, we will think about that.”
A hard question calls for an answer there and then. It also conveys an objection, but the point is to force the officials to say something specific in reply. Of course, there are ways to duck hard questions, but then they have done that publicly for all to see.
By way of example, below are some hard questions that raise serious issues with wind, solar, and battery projects. Along the way, I also discuss how to present these questions. But these are just suggestions, as every case depends on the local situation. These examples are mostly intended for meetings with elected officials who have to approve the projects.
Let us start with grid scale batteries. Wind and solar development has recently been constrained to some degree, but batteries are going great guns. These are 40 foot long, container-sized chemical energy storage units that often come in groups. That these huge batteries can spontaneously ignite or explode is well known. So the first thing to ask about is the evacuation plan, which should include all of the units going up at once.
For example: “Who is subject to evacuation under the evacuation plan?”
Do not just ask if there is a plan, because a simple “yes” ends the conversation. The point to press is that people have a right to know if they should be ready to evacuate. Of course, if there is no plan, this question raises that issue, but it does more than that. This question makes it personal.
In the case of wind towers, there is also a personal question that can be raised. Wind projects involve multiple towers that can be seen over a large area, in some cases many miles away. In closer, they can dominate the view.
These industrial views tend to lower property values, so there is this question: “Will you cut the property tax assessments where these wind towers cause property values to go down?” If they say “no,” ask “why not?” If they say “yes,” ask “how much?”
This is a two-step question and many are like that. In general, you need to prepare follow-up questions for the various likely answers to the initial question. The idea is to force a conversation about a big downside of the project.
Solar projects may not have the big local impact that battery fires and 500 foot wind towers can have, but there is the obvious downside of intermittency. This suggests the following question:
“We already have the electricity we need, and if we need more it is around the clock, so why are we paying for solar?”
This question is designed to create a lengthy discussion. If the proposed answer is that state law requires more renewables, it still does not require this project. The same question can be used for wind and battery projects.
Note that this question begins with some facts. This may often be necessary, but they should be kept to a hard-hitting minimum. The more you say, the easier it will be for the response to talk about the facts instead of the question.
Those are the examples. There are lots of ways to do this depending on the situation. The point is to take a really bad feature of the proposed project and force a conversation by asking a simple hard question.
There is an art to designing hard questions. It is important to know what the respondent’s official duties are so the question can address them. Don’t make a speech, but laying out the bad facts is also important so someone else doing that could come before the hard question. Be firm but not angry.
Indeed, David. This is why I have been suggesting that people go to PSC meetings, County planning commissions, county commissioners meetings and make comments if you have any relevant knowledge about the energy system, because these decision makers probably have little direct knowledge and are advised often enough by people with agendas, perhaps, or just fantastical ideas.
Excellent, Kevin. Some other things to show up for are school board meetings, and, particularly, school board elections. I assume some people here have heard how crazy woke Northern Virginia school boards have become – – it all stems from most folks not bothering to show up, thereby allowing the most radical ‘activists’ free reign to set and implement their agendas.
These are excellent points, David W. Thank you!
Spare a thought for UK freedom of expression
Are we still allowed to think about freedom of expression?
As long as what you’re thinking about freely expressing is an approved expression.
Ironically, the image at the top is of a Norman Rockwell painting. He of course lived in and worked in Wokeachusetts- where nowadays very few people dare to stand up at a town hall meeting and challenge ruinables or anything else, especially my beef, excessive pay for many public employees.
I wonder what a good hard question wouod be for that case?
If I went to a town hall meeting and complained about excessive pay for some of the town employees, I’d probably get beaten up- since only a small percent of the population now goes to town meetings- and it’s mostly town employees, to protect their salaries. In this state, if you stood up and spoke about ruinables- everyone would look at you as if you just landed in a space ship.
That is a good insightful, thought provoking question. It opens a realm of subjects that have not been considered in the past. (Blah, blah, blah for five minutes.) I’ll have my staff research that topic and I’ll have an answer at next months meeting.
I will be there to hear it.
“What assurances do you have that the subsidies will continue if your party loses power?”
”Has anyone actually tested that the offsets you claim for killing raptors really work?”
Good ones. Except the offsets are just for eagles since FWS wrongly ruled the Migratory Bird Treaty does not prohibit incidental taking of other raptors so no offsets are needed.
David,
Great points! Having served on a school board as well as a local Zoning Board of Adjustments I have seen some crazy things. I used this type of questing on a few issues with the lawyers in front of the board for zoning adjustment projects… I got my fellow board members to vote no once in a while. –earning the nickname ViNOla, but people did not look at the impacts down the road or that the purpose of an adjustment was hardships… Very frustrating. Citizens need to attend these meetings and educate themselves as they can really impact a community.
I assume here we can also address how they have factored in the long-term costs /replacement costs and impacts of landfill and hazardous materials after useful life. Plus much more of course.
Another question with respect to fires from battery storage developments is: Who will pay for property damage or medical bills resulting from a fire?
With respect to evacuation, who will pay for expenses incurred from evacuating?
Excellent approach.
Good questions can stop bad projects
And mad men can come up with no end of bad ideas
In the first of what is promised to be an annual “state of the climate” report, the energy and net zero secretary set out the findings of a Met Office-led study that detailed how the UK was already hotter and wetter, and faced a greater number of extreme weather events.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/14/ed-miliband-says-tories-are-anti-science-for-abandoning-net-zero-consensus
The Met Office? Now that is funny.
Paul Homewood does a great job on the Met Office.
His latest: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/08/16/how-the-met-office-catastrophise-summer/
I’d have hoped that everyone outside of the Cabinet – perhaps with the exception of Guardian hacks – has figured out by now just how dumb Miliband is. Those within the Cabinet are too dumb themselves to have done so.
So far I haven’t had the opportunity to attend a public meeting on methane. At least on line I can ask, “So how much global warming is methane going to cause by 2100?” I rarely get a coherent answer that remotely resembles “So many degrees by that date.”
In my opinion, regulating the world’s cattle herd and rice patties because of methane emissions is totally insane.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
No Need To Worry Over Methane
At NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory, the concentration of methane in dry air is reported as 1.93 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contains mere 1.4 milligrams of methane. The reason for the low concentration of methane in air is due to the initiation of its combustion by discharges of lightning. Everyday there many millions of discharges of lightning (cf. Wikipedia).
Methane is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of cold water can contain up to 35 mls of methane. In the ice cold polar waters, methane slowly diffuses to the ocean floor where it forms solid clathrate known as methane ice. There are vast deposit of methane ice on the polar ocean floors.
We don’t have to worry about any global warming from methane. Not now. not ever.
Question for mad Ed Miliband when pushing Net Zero: You say we must eliminate emissions to reduce atmospheric CO2 content? (answer can only be ‘yes’). Then can you tell us what the ‘right’ atmospheric content (in ppm) is we should aim for?
Or…What is the ideal temperature for the Earth?”
72° F and 70% RH
I and many other commentators have mentioned these facts before, but they still need to be thrown at any commentators who try to convince us that there’s an approaching or ongoing climate crisis. If the changing climate has been posing such a threat, why is it that during the past half-century or longer that (a) the global population has doubled? (b) global life expectancy has incre ased by 16 years? (c) agricultural output has tripled? (d) worldwide poverty levels have decreased? (e) infant mortality rates have also dropped? (f) global GDP has gone up? (g) Deaths from extreme weather events have declined worldwide. And if fossil fuels pose such a threat to the planet’s well-being, why is 82% of the world’s primary energy for industry, transportation, heating, agriculture and electrical generation still dependent on them? The standard answers are that it’s only a short matter of time before everything starts coming apart at the seams because of failure to adopt clean energy practices, except those seams are made up of much sturdier material than alarmists like to concede.
Successful people argue differently:
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/01/19/yale-researchers-how-highly-successful-people-argue.html
“Arguing to learn” sounds like a tactic to lose an argument and not change the mind of your opponent(s). Only a fool would engage in a debate without educating themselves on both the topic and the likely ‘facts’ to be presented by their opponent(s). Remember the admonition to lawyers: “Don’t ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.”
If one is involved in a fact-finding exercise, then it is perfectly appropriate to play a passive role and listen and only ask questions. However, if one is in a one-on-one debate or a panel discussion with two points of view, then the role is to convince the audience of who has a better grasp of reality.
If one or more of the opposing-position panel members have some significant stature or reputation, you will be bull-dozed by them unless you can destroy their claims with indisputable facts or logic. There is the historical situation of Lord Kelvin being held in such awe by most scientists that none were initially willing to challenge his claim about the age of the Earth. If other scientists had taken the advice of Matthew Fisher, and only listened, we might still be accepting the age of the Earth to be less than 200 million years. There is a time to learn, and there is a time to follow the lead of “Darwin’s Bulldog.” A “people-pleaser,” Thomas Huxley was not.
It’s hard to stop all the virtue signalling with Gummint and their Quangos-
Australia Post announce major change coming to our roads
Just add the fait accompli to the postage
A question I’ve been wanting to ask solar-farm proponents:
“How do you keep weeds from growing up to cover your solar panels? Do you use Roundup?”