- Joined
- May 8, 2017
- Messages
- 1,522
- Reaction score
- 416
- Location
- New York City area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Another problem with so-called 'green energy', A wind farm company admitted killing 150 eagles in the US and was fined $8 million. Almost all died from being hit by the blades. Add to this the article, The Lithium Gold Rush: Inside the Race to Power Electric Vehicles in the far from "denier" New York Times (link), which points out that there is much environmental damage from manufacturing electirc automobiles.and similar threads discuss the dirty little secrets about "clean" energy. At best, "clean" energy makes us feel like we're "doing something."
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies that expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”
Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked. A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article stated:
I read that article shortly after driving to southern Vermont through the previously beautiful Berkshires of Massachusetts. There, wind turbines sullied the ridgeline. Similarly when my wife and I took a hike through a wild part of the Adirondacks, Whetstone Gulf State Park, about 100 yards from the hiking trail, just outside the park boundaries, were similar turbines. Wind power needs massive subsidies to be viable, and causes environmental damage of its own. Isn't it time to stop this madness?
At best we're trading one doubtful environmental issue, climate change, for another definite one, killing of wildlife. This is bad news that the environmental movement is desperate to de-emphasize.
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies that expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”
Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked. A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article stated:
Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems? Another article on this subject, The Not-So-Green Mountains, written by Steve E. Wright, an aquatic biologist and a former commissioner of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. It seems that the incentives for "green" power have trumped not only common sense, but other environmental values. This fanaticism about an unproven problem, anthropogenic global warming ("AGW") is cause an awful lot of damage.Michael Fairneny said:
I read that article shortly after driving to southern Vermont through the previously beautiful Berkshires of Massachusetts. There, wind turbines sullied the ridgeline. Similarly when my wife and I took a hike through a wild part of the Adirondacks, Whetstone Gulf State Park, about 100 yards from the hiking trail, just outside the park boundaries, were similar turbines. Wind power needs massive subsidies to be viable, and causes environmental damage of its own. Isn't it time to stop this madness?
At best we're trading one doubtful environmental issue, climate change, for another definite one, killing of wildlife. This is bad news that the environmental movement is desperate to de-emphasize.
