• 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!

Which in your opinion does more damage to this country?

EdwinWillers said:
Did neither of you actually bother to read the OP and the comparison he was making?

Spare me your snarks and lame insults.
Click to expand...

If you have a point to make then make it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Mining doesn't kill raptors.
Click to expand...

Spare us the faux concern with this birdwatcher enthusiast. No one said wind farms are perfect. They are still a thousand times better for the environment than mountaintop mining.
 
mike2810 said:
(Side note: When the SC and others were fighting in the Pacific Northwest over old growth forest logging to protect the spotted owl. One old logger asked a good question. Where did the spotted owl live before there was old growth? think about it.
Click to expand...

When I was a park ranger, I went to several of those hearings for our dept. The loggers were exceedingly short-sighted in general. I'll avoid observations of intelligence level.
 
Lursa said:
When I was a park ranger, I went to several of those hearings for our dept. The loggers were exceedingly short-sighted in general. I'll avoid observations of intelligence level.
Click to expand...

Yet, that does not answer the question of where the owl lived before old growth. :LOL:

Of course, loggers want to cut trees. Environmentalist don't want certain trees cut down. Both can be short sighted at times.
In some cases Foresters have to think in terms of 100's of years.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Wind energy kills a tiny fraction of the birds that coal mining kills: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148112000857
Click to expand...
When I mentioned birds, I specified Raptors. Common birds the article speaks of are not rare, and much less of a concern.

If you read that paper, you will find they speak of bird death from various pollution from dumping as part of the deaths. Practices that no longer happen. A 2009 paper using data older yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
mike2810 said:
Yet, that does not answer the question of where the owl lived before old growth. :LOL:

Of course, loggers want to cut trees. Environmentalist don't want certain trees cut down. Both can be short sighted at times.
In some cases Foresters have to think in terms of 100's of years.
Click to expand...
We once had a well managed forest here in Oregon. Now a single careless cigarette the right time of year can devastate countless acres, where we once had firebreaks, fuel debris removed, etc.
 
Lord of Planar said:
When I mentioned birds, I specified Raptors. Common birds the article speaks of are not rare, and much less of a concern.

If you read that paper, you will find they speak of bird death from various pollution from dumping as part of the deaths. Practices that no longer happen. A 2009 paper using data older yet.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that regulations regarding mountaintop removal mining have changed considerably since 2009? Come on.

Here is why no one takes you guys seriously on conservation issues, because you have no where you draw a line. I am convinced that if a industry was generating electricity by burning tires, you would find some way of rationalizing it.

In the case of mountaintop removal coal mining, it has worse environmental impacts than any other form of human activity we engage in. Yet that is still not bad enough for you to say "You know, in a country that is awash in natural gas, why on earth are we blowing mountains up to get coal?"

Point being, if you don't give a shit about our environment, why argue in here about it?
 
Lord of Planar said:
We once had a well managed forest here in Oregon. Now a single careless cigarette the right time of year can devastate countless acres, where we once had firebreaks, fuel debris removed, etc.
Click to expand...
Properly done forest harvesting can improve forest health, provide material for forest products, and reduce the potential for large stand replacement fires.
Much of our forest in the US are overgrown (way to many trees per acre), prone to insect and disease, and large wildfires.

Congress needs to rethink their policies and funding for our natural resource management. When a large wildfire occurs, I would ask some of the environmental groups is that what they had in mind with locking out forest management?
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Which in your opinion does more damage to this country, environmental groups like The Sierra Club, or the companies that do this?

mtr_ovec_800.jpg
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no question about it. The Sierra Club is without a doubt far more damaging to the nation.

Mining benefits the country with new resources, whereas the Sierra Club seeks to harm the nation by preventing development.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Wind energy kills a tiny fraction of the birds that coal mining kills: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148112000857
Click to expand...
ROFL! What a load of bullshit.

The Usibelli coal mine in Alaska has been in continuous operation since 1943 and has not killed a single bird. The mine is located just outside of Denali National Park, and if you didn't know it was there, you would never notice it. Millions visit the National Park completely unaware that there is an active coal mine at the park's entrance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Glitch said:
ROFL! What a load of bullshit.

The Usibelli coal mine in Alaska has been in continuous operation since 1943 and has not killed a single bird. The mine is located just outside of Denali National Park, and if you didn't know it was there, you would never notice it. Millions visit the National Park completely unaware that there is an active coal mine at the park's entrance.
Click to expand...
Your evidence of this in contrary to peer reviewed science is what? It must be strange going through life rejecting science simply because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Your evidence of this in contrary to peer reviewed science is what? It must be strange going through life rejecting science simply because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.
Click to expand...
Is it your claim, that a science paper of 2009 and the older ones it references are an accurate representation of today?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Is it your claim, that a science paper of 2009 and the older ones it references are an accurate representation of today?
Click to expand...
Of course. Have we developed a different way of blowing up mountains in the last 10 years in order to get to coal deposits? If only Putin were against mountaintop removal coal mining, perhaps that would change your mind.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Your evidence of this in contrary to peer reviewed science is what? It must be strange going through life rejecting science simply because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.
Click to expand...
Your study doesn't say a damn thing about mines, coal or otherwise, and you know it. Your attempts at deception have failed once again.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Is it your claim, that a science paper of 2009 and the older ones it references are an accurate representation of today?
Click to expand...
The so-called study that he posted used the amount of energy generated to determine the number of birds killed. Since there are such little power generated by wind generators, the paper determined that generating energy from nuclear and fossil fuels kills more birds per kW. Therefore, they conclude that wind generators are somehow more beneficial to birds.

Which is complete lunacy of course, but expected from the mentally deranged left. The paper completely ignores the proportional number of wind generators with all other power generated sources. If they had bothered to include the relevant facts, they would have determined that wind generators kill an order of magnitude more birds than all other sources of generated power. Either they are stupid, or deliberately deceptive. Since we are talking about people with degrees here, it is obviously the latter.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Here you go: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds
Click to expand...
That doesn't work for me. The media lies, and there is no valid source link.

What I have read in searches, and regulations were put in place over a decade ago is the largest quantity of bird deaths were cause by marker posts that were nothing more than PVC pipes pounded in the ground. Cavity nesting birds would crawl in them, and die because the inside walls were too smooth for them to crawl back out. It is now regulated that these openings be capped, so birds cannot get inside.

The only number I found to support the million number was a one time oil spill incident. Not an annual number.

If you have some actual data, instead of what a reporter claims who's reliability is unknown, then please show us.
 
Glitch said:
So now you think US News is a peer-reviewed study? Seriously? :rolleyes:

What complete bullshit are you going to manufacture next?
Click to expand...
Precisely.

The POS story is a concocted amalgam of hastily gathered "data" by some urinalist sitting at this computer, quaffing energy drinks and munching on Hot Pockets.

Moreover, the story (more like "tale") itself concedes the information gathered lacks consistent agreement from all concerned as to what constitutes relevant data. Plus - read it once and then you're denied access to the story again. Classy.

But you gotta absolutely love this fabricated metric: # of birds killed per gigawatt hour of energy produced. (Someone has waaaay too much time on their hands).

This is pure unadulterated bullcrap. 8.9 million birds killed by coal mining? How? How in the world are that many birds being killed each year by coal mines? We're not told of course - for THAT would actually be news. What kind of birds were they? Native dwellers or migratory birds? How were they killed? Poisoning their water supply? Perhaps (we're not told). Destroying their environment? Maybe (we're not told). That many birds lived in areas that are now coal mines? Who counted them? How? Birds in my area that lived in areas relegated to other uses did the obvious - they flew next door.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Why do ya'll consistently argue from ignorance?

Wind mills kill between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year.

Coal mining kills an estimated 8.9 million birds a year.


It seems you hate birds.
Click to expand...
What about the cobalt mined to make the batteries for your Tesla?
What's the effect of cobalt mining on the environment and humans?
Especially in places like the DRC (china-owned mines). It seems you hate blacks and love Chicoms.
That's how the argument goes ... right?
BTW, the pic in your thread op looks a lot like what a cobalt mining operation looks like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom