We need to put them everywhere the wind blows if we want to become carbon neutral. Just putting up a couple of offshore turbines in northern Germany won't be enough by a large margin.

In Germany we always had very strict laws that regulate how long a house can be shaded by a wind turbine per year (8h/year, 30min/day iirc), only recently politicians started imposing arbitrary distance rules based on wrong information about noise immissions. I'd rather have a wind turbine close to my house than a road, provided I'm not in the flicker-shadow region of the blades.

"We need to put them everywhere the wind blows if we want to become carbon neutral."

That sounds far from optimal to me. If sea turbines are, say, five times more efficient and legally/socially non-problematic, why not just cover the sea with them as far as possible?

I think you have an overly optimistic view of sea turbines.

They're more expensive, require more infrastructure (pylons and electricity lines aren't conflict free either) and there are a lot of conflicts around use of seawaters. And for a country like Germany there simply isn't enough space within the north sea and baltic sea for all the wind power we'll need.

(And to be clear: I'm 100% supportive of offshore wind energy, I just think it's entirely unrealistic to assume that could be a replacement for onshore wind. We need both.)

Because "as far as possible" is not enough. Even if you ignore that off shore power is a good bit more expensive to build, there is just not enough room there with current technology. And, by the way, the ocean deserves just as much protection as the mountains. Building offshore wind parks is not exactly good for the local wildlife there either.

The planet is on fire, and we're arguing about whether firefighters create too much traffic congestion. Future generations are far more likely to shake their heads at how we destroyed the climate with CO2 emissions.

I'm sympathetic, I really am, but these small harms need to be weighed against the effects of unchecked climate change!

NIMBY found

What exactly is it about a wind turbine within 1000m of your home that bothers you?

Yes, I am not totally indifferent to where I live. In other contexts, this attitude might be called "activism" and viewed positively.

As to your question: sound and sight. I definitely believe in smarter urban planning that just does not mash power plants and residential building together.

It is absolutely activism. Not all activism is good. Activism is also the reason we have too many single-homes and not enough low-income housing or transportation—because we tend to give too much weight to the few individuals who are vehemently opposed to these changes, and not to the much broader good they can generate for the general public.

Urban planning that mashes together residential, retail, light industry and clean power sounds a lot smarter than American style urban planning that forces you to drive everywhere.

As a normal citizen, you do not really need to drive to your power station, though. Wind turbines operate without personnel and transmission losses from one extra km of cable are negligible. Only maintenance needs to visit them from time to time.

Wind turbines have almost zero footprint, a few square meters per square kilometer. They can either be installed where people are or where people aren't. Far better for the environment if they are installed in populated regions.

What's the pros?

NIMBYISM is activism. Your comments are classic NIMBY - you want these things but in someone elses back yard.

There are 'activists' everywhere, there are even 'activists' who campaign for the age of consent to be lowered because they want to have sex with 12 year olds. Being an activist is only as positive as the cause and the motives.

"Your comments are classic NIMBY - you want these things but in someone elses back yard."

No, I want them in reasonable distance from villages and cities. Say, 1 and more km. I do not want to push them into anyone's backyard.

And that is actually entirely possible, unlike with, say, highways or railways that fundamentally connect human habitation with another human habitation. Even Europe has a lot of empty corners.

People have a very simplistic view of nature vs industrial. That could make sense in some untouched part of the Nevada desert. But a lot of the world it is just more complicated than that. We act like the landscape is untouched, unblemished and static when it is not!

People don't like their view to change and equate that emotional impact with more substantive impact to nature. Landscape does matter, but not very much in comparison to more pressing matters. I think future generations will shake their heads at our willingness to pander to emotion.

Yet you probably have a major road less than a kilometer from your place which is much more polluting and environment damaging than a wind turbine.

Visit a place than mixes industry and residential sensibly, like Japan before condemning it. Heavy industry is segregated, but light industry isn't.

Not really, the next major road is some 4 km from me. I chose my place of residence with regard to that (and I actually mostly travel by train/bus).

Also, if electric cars become a thing, you can at least hope that within 10-15 years, environmental damage from major roads will diminish.

You have not refuted the OPs point. We become so used to the impacts that we've grown up with that they tend to become invisible. Cue the pearl clutching and hysterics when something new comes along.

Your "we" does not include "me". I specifically avoid noisy locations all my life. For me, lack of noise is even more important than clean air, though they tend to come together.