From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By P Gosselin on 31. May 2026
Germany is chronically stuck in “green” insanity. Prognosis: very poor.

Symbol image generated by Grok AI
Germany’s online Blackout News just published an article today titled: The True Cost of Green Energy? A Forester’s Warning on Wind Turbines in the Woods.
Germany has gone to arguably insane lengths to go green when it comes to generating electricity. Not only is the country commiting economic suicide with its Energiewende, it is also undergoing ecological suicide in some regions. One example is the destruction of virgin, fairy tale forests, such as the Reinhardswald in the state of Hesse.
The Blackout News article highlights a viral warning from retired forester fJosef Erhard.
Speaking out against a planned wind energy zone in his former district within the Bavarian Forest, Erhard leverages decades of boots-on-the-ground experience to shed light on a side of the green transition that many city-dwellers and politicians rarely see.
Incredibly destructive
Many people assume that putting a wind turbine in a forest simply means clearing a small circle for the mast. Erhard warns that the reality of the construction phase is incredibly destructive.
To transport components like 80-meter-long rotor blades and to bring in heavy-duty cranes, existing narrow logging trails must be drastically widened. New access roads with massive turning radiuses have to be bulldozed straight through the trees, ditches built to divert water away, turning quiet woodlands into heavy-construction zones.
“Wind power in the forest: that means forest clearing/deforestation,” reports Blackout News.

More deforestation to clear way for wind turbines in northern Germany. Photo by P. Gosselin
Irreversible forest floor destruction
Rich soil is the foundation of a healthy forest, and Erhard emphasizes that the damage done here is permanent – it cannot be reversed. The sheer weight of construction vehicles causes severe soil compaction. Once compressed to this degree, the earth loses its ability to absorb rainwater and nurture tree roots.
Huge construction road ditches intercept and redirect rainwater and streams away from the downside forest, damaging the biotope. Furthermore, each turbine requires a massive reinforced concrete foundation dug deep into the earth—structures that will remain buried long after the turbine’s lifespan is over. These too massively interfere with the biotope’s water supply system.
Unviable environment
Forests aren’t just collections of trees; they are complex ecosystems. The area slated for development is a known habitat for protected species, including lynxes, wildcats, bats, and birds of prey.
While forests can naturally recover from storms or beetle infestations, Erhard points out that clearing land for wind energy permanently transforms natural habitats into industrial zones. He pulled no punches regarding the threat to wildlife, grimly referring to the spinning blades as “shredders” for birds and insects.
Water pollution
Forests act as giant natural sponges and filters, playing a critical role in replenishing groundwater and securing local drinking water. Erhard warns that digging deep trenches for power cables, carving out roads, and compacting the soil disrupts natural water flow patterns. In high-altitude ridge lines, this could have devastating consequences for downslope water tables and community water supplies.
Massscale damage and no benefit
Finally, the veteran forester questions whether wind power in forests is actually as sustainable as marketed. He points to the environmental impact of microplastic shedding from the rotor blades, the risk of hydraulic oil leaks, and the carbon footprint of global supply chains required to source the thousands of tonnes of turbine materials.
Furthermore, he notes that regions like southern Germany are notoriously low-wind areas, meaning these projects are often heavily dependent on government subsidies while still requiring conventional power grids to back them up when the wind dies down.
Josef Erhard urges policymakers to rigorously weigh the actual energy output of these turbines against the irreversible, long-term destruction of our natural carbon sinks, biodiversity, and drinking water resources.
Not mentioned in the Blackout News article are the local climatic impacts that turbines have. Studies have shown that air speed on the leeward side of the turbines causes the airt temperature to rise, which would only contribute to drying out the forest whose water system has already been severely damaged by the contruction.
In short, you can’t get more environmentally-criminally negligent than this source of power.
Video of Erhard here.
“existing narrow logging trails must be drastically widened”
What are logging trails doing in a virgin fairy tale forest?
I doubt “virgin fairy tale forest” is entirely accurate.
The article says that forests provide habitat for “lynxes, wildcats, bats and birds of prey.” Well, lynxes and wildcats need to hunt, and old growth forests don’t have much food on the ground for what lynxes and wildcats would hunt, because the canopy shades the forest floor too much for anything to grow.
So it’s likely that some logging was going on to clear areas (“cut blocks”) that would become meadows. These cut blocks would then get enough sun to allow plants to grow that would feed the animals that would be hunted by the wild cats and any other predators that might live in the forest.
I don’t know for a fact how they log in Germany, never having been to their forests. I’m just making an educated guess based on what I learned from my Dad, who was Registered Professional Forester here in Canada.
Every forest needs some fire trails etc, but these are usually just wide enough for logging or fire engines etc.. hopefully
A far cry from the massively wide swathes that need to be cut for delivering wind turbine towers and blades, not to mention the huge areas denuded by the placement of wind turbines themselves.
The wind turbine major roads dissect the forest into sections, create massive run-off erosion issues, and destroy the natural fauna of the whole area, just like the operation of the wind turbines destroys the avian wildlife of the region.
Everyone knows that old forests in Europe and the UK have lots of narrow roads running through them !
Snow White was a fairy tale character, is Nick trying to slight her character, (before marriage etc), or deny that she might have walked on trails in the forest.
So what were those dwarves up to?
Actually I believe there was a history of mining there.
Human caused climate change is a fairy tale… and Nick “believes” in that.
Mining by dwarfs, by hand, was a thing…
… but nothing like the wholesale destruction of habitat wrought by wind industrial estates.
So there were no animal trails, hunter trails, trails between small communities?
“A forest being more or less free from human ecological disturbance.”
These cynical brutes just don’t understand kumbayah with Gaia and how idyllic and cheap it can all be Nick-
The German village that made itself immune to the Hormuz shock
If only we could all come together like that and fix the great moral imperative of our times with the global boiling.
Nick, trees die. Trees are no different than animals where overpopulation can throttle growth. Removal of dead trees and thinning promotes fire prevention and stronger tree. Logging trails and fire trails are minimally invasive devices that assist in proper forest management.
Virgin forests are those that have not been commercially managed to maximize the board feet that can be sustainably removed by replanting non-native species that have faster growth.
So you can be a virgin even if you’re only a little bit pregnant?
But wind energy production hasn’t been maximized here, so I guess that’s OK.
You don’t know much, do you?
Stokes never fails to disappoint.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
— Charles MacKay
Eventually, the German wind insanity will end, but not until the Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) Party gains prominence. Recent polls for the first time ever show they are leading in the polls.
Core AfD position on wind and solar
1) Opposition to expanding renewables
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f449.svg This applies to both wind and solar, since both are part of Germany’s renewable energy policy.
2) Calls to eliminate subsidies for wind and solar
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f449.svg In Germany, both wind and solar expansion rely heavily on subsidies and feed‑in frameworks, so this would significantly affect both sectors.
3) Explicit anti‑wind stance (very prominent)This is the most visible and specific part of their policy:
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f449.svg So:
4) Criticism of the entire “energy transition” (Energiewende)From their official program and parliamentary materials:
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f449.svg This frames opposition to wind/solar as part of a broader energy strategy, not just a technical disagreement.
5) Preferred alternativesInstead of wind and solar expansion, AfD policy emphasizes:
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f9ed.svg Bottom line (concise)
Sounds like eminently sensible policies…
.. which means they probably won’t win a German election 😉
In the modern political lexicon, making sense means you are Nazi.
The other parties have an agreement not form a government with AfD.
AfD would need a majority to take over the government
AfD can achieve ‘prominence” without being the majority. A majority is essentially impossible in Germany because of the numerous parties, only coalitions can govern. For example, If the AfD secures 30% of the vote and the next closest party is at 20%, that 30% of the German populous will demand participation in governing for the AfD.
“these projects are often heavily dependent on government subsidies”.
Nope.
Government subsidies are heavily dependent on these projects.
Heavily dependent?
They wouldn’t exist without them.
That’s an interesting point. Do you know whether the article is referring to a truly untouched old-growth forest, or simply a forest that has been largely left alone for a long time?
Also, are there any forestry practices in Germany that differ significantly from what you’d expect in Canada, particularly when it comes to maintaining habitat diversity for predators like lynx and wildcats?
Green policies are a crime against life.
With all the environmental damage that’s reported I’m expecting to hear a renewable energy spokesman say “We have to destroy the planet in order to save it.”
Hur Hur look I used germany and holocaust in a sentence. There is no bottom when it comes to stupid headlines here it seems?
And look, ecological “Holocaust” for coal mining. Guess we love that, right?
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08082010/new-maps-reveal-massive-forest-loss-mountaintop-coal-mining
VILLAGE HOLOCAUST FOR A COAL MINE!!!!111!!
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jan/24/eviction-lutzerath-village-destroyed-coalmine-a-photo-essay
If you don’t want to live in a cave we’ll have an impact. Surprisingly energy doesn’t come from the wall socket.
Beside that I can’t find any credible sources that support that article. Bavaria has almost no wind energy to begin with.
The site is in Hesse, not Bavaria. It’s true that 18 turbines are being erected. The decision was made by Kassel in 2022 – article here.
Thamks. That sounds more like what I expected it to be.
“I can’t find any credible sources”
We had notice that about all of your posts. !
Wind Industry Now Destroying 1000-Year Old German Forest That Inspired Grimm Fairy Tales – Climate Depot
German fairy tale forest to be felled for wind turbines – Brussels Signal
Fury in Germany as 120k trees in fairytale forest felled to make way for wind farm | World | News | Express.co.uk
TRAVESTY: Germany’s Greens commence deforestation of Enchanted Forest to make way for wind turbines
1000 Year-Old Forest Being Destroyed for Turbines – WIND CONCERNS
German fairytale forest to be cleared for WIND TURBINES
It really is hilarious to see you talk about credible sources…
.. just after posting a link to the Guardian.. Very funny !
Coal mines don’t pretend to be saving the environment while destroying huge chunks of it.
Coal mines are required to remediate after they are finished. They put up huge deposits to fund remediation should the company go bankrupt prior to finishing the project.
Wind and solar are not required to do anything to remediate the damage they do.
LooserName knows that, he’s been informed of it many times. He just doesn’t care. Facts have never been something he has been acquainted with.
I agree; one may find that pun somewhat questionable. I don’t find it particularly skillful. Now consider the number of times alarmists have referred to skeptics as “deniers,” thereby drawing a parallel between climate skepticism and the denial of the Holocaust and the gas chambers.
The State , dog marking it’s supremacy .
The part that nobody sees …
Approximate foundation size for an 80 m–blade onshore turbineFor a modern onshore turbine with ~80 m blades (roughly 4–6 MW class), a typical gravity concrete foundation is roughly:
Those numbers shift with soil conditions, turbine manufacturer, and local codes, but that’s the right order of magnitude.
From Copilot AI.
Here is a promotional video showing a bit of the site prep along with the full site assembly for a wind turbine. Does this look environmentally friendly to anyone? And, this is just the site prep/assembly phase. Before this, a lot of mining was required using very heavy FF powered machinery to extract the minerals needed for fabrication, transport via truck/rail/ship to the the fabrication facility (likely in China), the energy intensive fabrication process powered mostly by coal, then transport via truck/rail/ship to ultimate destination, then after site prep/assembly, maintenance and ultimate decommissioning and disposal with the added benefit of having a short life span so all this gets repeated more frequently.
https://blog.enerpac.com/wind-turbine-construction-time-lapse-video/
By that logic, nothing is environmentally friendly. Every power source requires mining, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning. The relevant question isn’t whether wind turbines have an environmental footprint—they obviously do. The question is how that footprint compares to the alternatives over the energy they produce during their lifetime.
A time-lapse of heavy equipment moving online casino components around looks dramatic, but it doesn’t tell us much about the overall lifecycle impact. You’d need to compare the total emissions, resource use, and waste per unit of electricity generated against coal, natural gas, nuclear, and other sources. Otherwise, we’re just reacting to what happens to be visible in a construction video.
I am not making the case that every power source requires mining, etc. – they clearly do. The fact is, both wind and solar require roughly 10 times the amount of minerals required for their fabrication to produce the same amount of electricity as fossil fuels. Proponents of wind and solar seem to think these things pop up out of thin air and can replace fossil fuels. If anything, the only increase the need for them. Here is a bit more.
Solar panels and wind turbines do not magically appear out of thin air and are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave given that they can’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production.
· Both wind turbines and solar panels require massive amounts of minerals extracted from the earth in countries around the world with many countries having little to no labor laws and no environmental controls – they don’t care if rivers, land and ground water get polluted. The Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations” describes the human atrocities among folks with yellow, brown, and black skin, and the environmental degradation occurring in developing countries so that the wealthy countries can go green.
· Mining uses a lot of very heavy fossil fuel powered equipment, except the Congo where manual labor including children is used.
· Then the minerals need to be processed to separate the ore from the overburden – again using fossil fuel powered machinery.
· Then the minerals need to be transported to wherever the manufacturing facility is (mostly China) by truck, rail and ship.
· Then the energy intensive manufacturing process powered by fossil fuels.
· Then transported again by truck, rail, and ship to the ultimate destination which of course has to be prepared (cleared) using fossil fuel powered machinery, site assembly using fossil fuel powered machinery, life cycle maintenance – which for wind turbines at least requires fossil fuel powered machinery along with petroleum based lubricants, for solar, maybe just water to clean – imagine how much water would be needed to clean the enormous industrial solar arrays being promoted.
· Then of course ultimate decommissioning and disposal with the added benefit that since these things have a relatively short life span, the entire process needs to be repeated far more frequently than just using coal, gas or nuclear power plants to begin with, all of which require far less land.
· According to Mark Mills in https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/mines-minerals-green-energy-reality-checkMM.pdf, “compared with hydrocarbons, green machines entail, on average, a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy”.
· And of course, both wind and solar need a backup system for the times the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine adding to overall system cost. The net is, wind and solar are far more environmentally destructive than simply using fossil fuels to begin with given that wind and solar are pretty much 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave and if anything, only increase FF consumption. Proponents of wind and solar claim that the fuel is free while completely ignoring the enormous amount of mining and infrastructure required to capture the “free” fuel. Wind and solar are weather dependent, intermittent, variable, expensive and unreliable while weakening the grid. They are parasitic energy sources that require 100% backup by fossil fuels.
Then there is the land use issue. This comparison is for solar, but I suspect it would be similar for wind.
The video linked below shows, among other things, a comparison between Blevin Solar Complex in Texas, a 270 MW (nameplate) solar complex covering 2300 acres or 3.5 square miles to Bridge City gas plant, a 1200 MW gas plant covering 26 acres or 88 times smaller. The gas plant nameplate is over 4 times that of Blevin and generates electricity 24x7x365 while the solar complex produces electricity maybe 20-25% of the time (not the 270 MW nameplate) and never from dusk to dawn. Also, that solar complex may last 15-20 years at best whereas the gas plant will last 50 years or longer. And, those solar panels don’t just pop up out of thin air as described in my other reply to you. And what are we going to do with all those end-of-life solar panels (or wind turbines)? And of course, both wind and solar need a backup system for the times the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine adding to overall system cost and environmental impact. And who benefits most from all this? China!
So, let’s do a bit of extrapolation. For Blevin to reach just the nameplate capacity of Bridge City would require over 4 times the amount of land – that is over 15 square miles of solar panels. But, given that solar has a capacity factor of maybe 25%, you would need to multiply that 15 square miles by 4 again to reach the same output as Bridge City – so you are now looking at over 60 square miles of solar panels, and they still do not provide any electricity from dusk to dawn. In fact, the only time they produce at nameplate is between the hours of 10-2 during the time of the year when the sun is directly overhead on clear, cloudless days.
The net is, wind and solar are far more environmentally destructive than hydrocarbons, including coal, and if anything, increase the need for them. Both are parasitic and degrade grid performance leading to brown and black outs – read up on the Duck Curve. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/sunblock-the-global-fight-to-save
And, for a more complete analysis – https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-iron-law-of-power-density-revisited
We had to destroy the planet in order to save it.
Resorting to AI images to make a point is kind of low. Just show the reality instead of making it up. For parody, that’s a different case.
“Caution: Environmental Destruction Zone. For a Greener Tomorrow!”