Chris Huhne, the Climate Change & Energy Secretary, has vowed to make Britain the "wind capital" of Europe - and not just during the week of the Liberal Democrat conference.
Me? I'd tear down every single wind turbine that doesn't produce power for more than 50% of the time. That'd be very single one then, because most turbines are only operative for around 25% of the time.
They are also a blot on the landscape of many areas of beautiful countryside. If they produced huge amounts of power I could see an argument for retaining existing windfarms and building new ones. But they don't.
In today's Sunday Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan has written a feature exposing the way money grows on wind farms, through the enormous subsidies paid to the companies who build them. And for what?
Both Germany and Denmark are moving away from wind power because they have not been able to get the amount of power from them they had thought. And yet we continue to move in the opposite direction.
I am all in favour of renewable energy. I'd far rather get our energy from clean sources in preference to carbon belching power stations. But wind power has been proved not to work, so why do we persist with the fallacy that it is the answer to our problems? If we are going to invest money in renewables I'd far rather spend it on researching how we can properly harness wave power around our coastlines.
Andrew Gilligan suggests that it is because wind turbines are visible examples of green energy and the very sight of them makes politicians feel that they are "doing something". He may well have a point.
The cleanest form of power in terms of carbon emissions is undoubtedly nuclear power.
I predict that within a very short time, even a committed environmentalist Liberal like Chris Huhne will undergo a damascene conversion to the benefits of nuclear power.
And perhaps then we can stop this spread of unspeakable ugliness across our countryside and start dismantling this infestation of wind turbines.