• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Eco-Fiasco - A wind farm company admitted killing 150 eagles in the US

Good question. I have only seen two reliable examples outside of blogger lies. Oil spills, and marker posts of PVC pipe where birds crawl in and cannot get out. Regulations have been adopted to require capping marker pipes, so old numbers here are no longer valid. Oil spills are few and far between.

To add, these are not endangered species.
I'd say that you're vastly underestimating the impact of fossil fuels, but that could be the name of this subforum. In fact, that subforum label would probably be more accurate than the current one.
 
I'd say that you're vastly underestimating the impact of fossil fuels, but that could be the name of this subforum. In fact, that subforum label would probably be more accurate than the current one.
I do understand that fossil fuels have a damaging impact. Over the years, we have mitigated the harm dramatically. We have started caring about the environment as a nation starting back in the 70's, maybe the 60's. It flat out pisses me off that as we do more an more to mitigate our damage, suddenly it's OK to do harm by killing endangered species for unreliable and expensive green energy.
 
I do understand that fossil fuels have a damaging impact. Over the years, we have mitigated the harm dramatically. We have started caring about the environment as a nation starting back in the 70's, maybe the 60's. It flat out pisses me off that as we do more an more to mitigate our damage, suddenly it's OK to do harm by killing endangered species for unreliable and expensive green energy.
Who said it was okay? The company responsible for the death of the eagles was fined for not following environmental rules meant to protect an endangered species.
 
I do understand that fossil fuels have a damaging impact. Over the years, we have mitigated the harm dramatically. We have started caring about the environment as a nation starting back in the 70's, maybe the 60's. It flat out pisses me off that as we do more an more to mitigate our damage, suddenly it's OK to do harm by killing endangered species for unreliable and expensive green energy.
Wind farms are not comparable to fossil fuels in the extent of their destructive force. It's not even an argument worth wasting time on. I'm sure that you probably believe the opposite, but a lot of people believe wrong things.
 
Wind farms are not comparable to fossil fuels in the extent of their destructive force. It's not even an argument worth wasting time on. I'm sure that you probably believe the opposite, but a lot of people believe wrong things.
If one were to attempt to replace all the energy we currently get from fossil fuels with wind and solar,
it would require a lot more wind and solar farms.
 
If one were to attempt to replace all the energy we currently get from fossil fuels with wind and solar,
it would require a lot more wind and solar farms.
I'd like to see more nuclear, especially thorium. We're going to have to get over our "OH NOEZ TEH NUKE" thing. Likewise, I've seen a bunch of people who oppose solar farms mostly just to bitch about something. They need to be ignored, as well. Energy is a national security issue.
 
I'd like to see more nuclear, especially thorium. We're going to have to get over our "OH NOEZ TEH NUKE" thing. Likewise, I've seen a bunch of people who oppose solar farms mostly just to bitch about something. They need to be ignored, as well. Energy is a national security issue.
Agreed, Solar and Wind need massive energy storage to be viable. But a solid nuclear base load would help.
 
Wind farms are not comparable to fossil fuels in the extent of their destructive force. It's not even an argument worth wasting time on. I'm sure that you probably believe the opposite, but a lot of people believe wrong things.
Are you saying the annual death of protected species are greater by the oil companies than the wind industry and concentrated solar industry?

Please note, I almost always specify the "protected" aspect.
 
Are you saying the annual death of protected species are greater by the oil companies than the wind industry and concentrated solar industry?

Please note, I almost always specify the "protected" aspect.
I'm saying that the effect of fossil fuels on all species is much greater than windmills. We both know that's true. One of us won't admit it no matter how many posts this discussion entails.
 
I'm saying that the effect of fossil fuels on all species is much greater than windmills. We both know that's true. One of us won't admit it no matter how many posts this discussion entails.
We have had serious devastation from oil spills. These are necessary risks we take, and sometimes the risks bite us. Windmills are not a necessary risk. We can use solar panels covering desert areas instead.

We didn't have a cleaner viable option when we started using fossil fuels, and it will be some time to get weaned off of them. We do have clean ways other than wind power. Wind is not a necessary evil.
 
Are you saying the annual death of protected species are greater by the oil companies than the wind industry and concentrated solar industry?

Please note, I almost always specify the "protected" aspect.

See my posts #9 and #10 in this thread. 200,000 protected sea turtles were killed in the Deepwater Horizon spill, and over 1 million protected, migratory birds were killed annually between 1997 and 2012, with greater numbers killed prior to 1997, mainly in oil field skim pits.
 
Make ground hogs our national animal.
 
See my posts #9 and #10 in this thread. 200,000 protected sea turtles were killed in the Deepwater Horizon spill, and over 1 million protected, migratory birds were killed annually between 1997 and 2012, with greater numbers killed prior to 1997, mainly in oil field skim pits.
Do two wrongs make a right?

Oil is a necessary evil that cannot at this time be replaced. Wind power is not a necessary evil to produce power. We should focus on nuclear and solar instead. And not concentrated solar.
 
See my posts #9 and #10 in this thread. 200,000 protected sea turtles were killed in the Deepwater Horizon spill, and over 1 million protected, migratory birds were killed annually between 1997 and 2012, with greater numbers killed prior to 1997, mainly in oil field skim pits.

So youre saying that animals only die during oil spills (which are unintentional) then. Meanwhile windfarms kill lots of birds during normal operations.
 
So youre saying that animals only die during oil spills (which are unintentional) then. Meanwhile windfarms kill lots of birds during normal operations.

No. Oil field skim pits kill millions of protected, migratory birds. Skim pits are part of regular oil field production.
 
Do two wrongs make a right?

Oil is a necessary evil that cannot at this time be replaced. Wind power is not a necessary evil to produce power. We should focus on nuclear and solar instead. And not concentrated solar.

Those goal posts are shifting. My point, and your post that I was responding to, is simply the death of protected species from fossil fuels is greater than that from renewables.
 
About the only time some conservatives are interested in environmental concerns is when they're complaining about the things that are trying to and are improving the environment.

Have you ever seen one talk about the embedded energy of F-950s when they're complaining about Toyota Pious owners and the smug problem? They're probably "rolling coal" like trolls.

How about coal mining when complaining about lithium mining?

How about the wildlife that oil spills kill when complaining about eagles killed by windmills?

Absolutely industrialized humans have and are causing excessive destruction. But are these conservatives only doing something for the environment when they're shooting animals and hacking up partisan pap, or are their environmental concerns legitimate?
 
I'd like to see more nuclear, especially thorium. We're going to have to get over our "OH NOEZ TEH NUKE" thing. .... Energy is a national security issue.

Chuckle.
 
So youre saying that animals only die during oil spills (which are unintentional) then. Meanwhile windfarms kill lots of birds during normal operations.

Well, you tried to conflate normal operations and intentional.
 
No. Oil field skim pits kill millions of protected, migratory birds. Skim pits are part of regular oil field production.

These things are regulated by EPA laws, so they are legal.

Well, you tried to conflate normal operations and intentional.
Duh, and I succeeded. Stop wasting people's time.
 
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:

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.

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.
150 eagles? About a week supply at the Vancouver city dump.

download (8).jpeg
 
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:

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.

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.
Seems like a bunch of people in the third world would love to have a bunch of free solar panels at 85% of their original capacity.

( most electric stuff that fades like batteries and solar panels have a “useful life” of down to 85% capacity. But they still have 85% left.)
 
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:

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.

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.
It also seems like there would be tasty money in devising a way to keep the birds away from the blades of windmills.
 
Back
Top Bottom