So, the Obama admin is going to allow wind turbines to kill upwards of 4200 eagles every year
- Thread starter Airport
- Start date
Was talking with a First Energy exec a while back about them. He did not like them one bit.
Link? Are you saying that traditional electric companies aren't causing significant environmental damage, in particular coal fired power plants? Why do you consider the killing of eagles a "luxury"? What are the top problems that wind power is causing outside of killing some birds? What are the top problems that solar power is causing?
Last edited:
I'll bet you can't provide a link to show a statistic that supports your claim that wind turbines kill 4200 eagles every year. You were the one bitching about the ban of DDT. [laughing]
First, I still get a paper and it was in today's Roanoke Times. I said they were proposing a permit that would allow Wind Turbine farms to kill upwards of 4200 eagles without having to do any modification of the turbines. Can I link anything about the story? I went to the paper but I can't find the story on the internet paper. If you haven't had your head in the sand, we've had this discussion before where elcectrical power companies, that weren't part of the chosen ones, had to pay fines and retrofit power lines for killing bird of prey. I just say, make everybody play on the a level field. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.
Have you lived near a wind turbine? There's one town that got a free one, now everybody wants it gone due to the noise and headaches it has caused. The problem, the town can't afford to dismantle it. Liberals talk the talk but when their chosen form of electricity has problems, it's ok. Kinda like Animal Farm. Every form of energy pollutes in one form or another. Just don't make exceptions for one, when it isn't called for.
Like what? Eagles? I agree. We need to change our national animal! Something more inclusive of other nations.
How about pigs that self identify as bald eagles. They don't last too long around cliffs, though.
I have tried to post a link, the crazy thing is the proposal is for 30 years killing up to 4200 eagles per year without any repercussions. The same isn't true for other companies and other forms of energy. Wonder what the liberals would do if a conservative became President and said it was ok for every company that wasn't "green" to kill up to 4200 eagles per year for 30 years, just getting a permit?
Yes, do you do root canal therapies, extract teeth, biopsy lesions, treat TMD, treat periodontal disease? You sound like my wife when it comes to the computer. I'm paid handsomely to do things few people are licensed to do, I can't link articles. I tried, so I apologize. Do me a favor, look it up and link for me. Be a Boy Scout and help your elder!
You make a list of the downside of wind energy and I'll make a list of the downside of electricity generated from a coal fired power plant for example and we'll compare them. That is why I was bailing on your thread. My list will be a whole lot longer. To use your language, why aren't wind energy plants allowed the "luxury" of mountain top removal? Why aren't wind energy plants allowed the "luxury" of polluting streams with low pH water and excess heavy metals in perpetuity? Why aren't wind energy farms allowed the "luxury" of polluting the air with mercury, SOx, NOx, etc.? Why aren't wind energy farms allowed the "luxury" of creating large fly ash impoundments that leak heavy metals into the groundwater and maybe someday having their dams fail so that all that grey sludge can be discharged into local rivers and onto local property? I could go on. We're yet to find the perfect energy source but we are developing cost effective, less environmentally damaging alternatives to fossil fuels and yes, some birds will pay the ultimate price along the way.
The banning of DDT, while not harmful to humans, has caused the deaths or 800,000-2,000,000 humans every year due to malaria. If it's ok for wind turbines to kill many eagles, why isn't ok to use DDT? DDT has been banned since 1970 so take 40 and multiply that by 1,000,000.
So, why the biased and slanted commentary on just one side? And what is even more hypocritical, you don't give one **** about the environment so your fake outrage is even that much more disingenuous.
As I have said to you, I do care about the environment but I'm not a whacko. I wouldn't ever put somebody out of business, like liberals want to do, over a type of business that they do. I believe we should all be good stewarts of the land. I do not believe that a whole region of California should be turned to dust because of some little fish. My outrage is the completely different treatment of one type of energy over another.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130_2.html
You have to do more than spray chemicals for malaria control.
http://www.pan-germany.org/download/ddt/Control_malaria_without_DDT.pdf
I appreciate the honest response but your support of fossil fuels in the manner you support it is contradictory to your assertion of caring about the environment. You are unable to self analyze your position.
Fossil fuel use is fine and always will be. Your thoughts about the effects of fossil fuels remind me a henny penny. Every energy form has problems. Battery disposal, air pollution to noise pollution to non dependable wind. Use them all, just don't favor one over the other. If govt had favored the black dial up phone over the cell, like it has in many things, where would we be? Many people claim cell phones cause brain cancer.
Perhaps you should read the provided links or do your own research on the topic. Mosquitoes develop a resistance to DDT to render it non effective in some circumstances. Non-chemical vector control methods should also be employed. Also non-DDT chemical alternatives may also be employed. The U.S. banned its use in 1972 exempting public health uses under some conditions. I think that was the proper action to take in our country. DDT is still used in many countries with malaria problems and by employing indoor residual spraying, environmental impacts are reduced.
I have no clue on your comment about me as i have not expressed an opinion on the subject and so far your assumption is indeed making you look like an ***. Point is I and all others can recognize an incorrect and hypocritical comment about fossil fuels. Very typical of a wingnut.
My point is, all energy have problems. Just don't bend over backward to support one form, ignoring it's flaws, while bending the other form over and giving it the ole butthole dance. Could you imagine a president saying we are giving a 30 years break for coal mining industry to pollute the water?
Why should anyone believe you have any appreciation at all about any benefits derived from fossil fuels. You now live in Atlanta and have become an expert on all things. Just exactly when did you garner all the expertise on fuels to make the analysis. Were you hypocritical when you received benefits from fossil fuels? Or do you want to be hypocritical about the season change and tell us what a good friend of environment you have always been. You refuse to utilize fuel so you have adapted to all seasons and don't rely on the benefits of burning the fossil fuel? Would Bull **** be a possible response to the hypocritical stuff you offer? Bull ****.
Actually the coal industry has always been able to legally pollute surface waters to a degree. That is why regulatory limits for certain contaminants were established. Mining permits allow mines to discharge low levels of iron, manganese, aluminum, sulfates, etc. to surface waters but at levels that fish and other wildlife can tolerate. In a similar fashion, wind farm permits are allowing some low numbers of birds to be killed during the operation of the wind turbines. It's a compromise and a similar circumstance.
Then allow the electrical grid companies the same latitude. Same with the oil companies. Oil companies have been fined millions for blowout oil spills that they certainly didn't want to happen. The wind farm companies are allowed to kill up to 4200 eagles per year for the next 30, is that acceptable to you? Especially since this power is heavily subsidized by the tax payers. If you want to see the scale of the fines levied you can find it on the internet.
Just because a major oil spill wasn't intentional (but it was negligent) doesn't mean the company isn't liable for the destruction of the environment and for negatively impacting people's lives and businesses. Do you think the courts were just being mean (or unfair) to BP? I just equated your incidental bird kill to allowing some pollution to go on, did you read it? We've already covered this ground. No matter what I or anyone else posts on this or other topic, you seem to be oblivious to it. I realize it's a big world and it's hard to understand. Hang in there.
The new wind turbine farm/bird rule is in a comment period but assuming it goes into affect, companies that exceed some bird kill number will get fined. So in both cases, you f'up, you get fined and that's not liberal crap.
Check the map out in the link then tell me that drillers aren't being allowed to drill close to the coast of the gulf. Do you just make stuff up? It seems so. Secondly, if you choose to drill in deep water, you better be able to handle any problem that comes up. The technology exists to safely drill in deep water, BP and its subs were at fault for the gulf oil spill.