Golden eagles fall prey to wind industry

I can't find anything stating if the company running these turbines are paying the fines for killing these endangered species birds? If not why aren't they? They nailed an oil company for a leak in a pipeline for every penny of the environmental damage and rightfully so. However, wind energy companies and solar thermal shouldn't be given a pass on slaughtering endangered species birds. In solar thermal the birds that fly into the path of the light concentrating on the tower are fricasseed in mid air. The Eagles and other birds of prey are protected species for a reason. The wind and solar power companies should pay their fair share of insuring the various species of endangered birds are not wiped out by their actions. The fines they pay per bird can go to hatcheries to replace the ones slaughtered on their environmentally friendly form of energy.

 

haha. A bird that dumb should probably be extinct. Darwin those jokers.

 

It's not just fines, it's imprisonment for killing bald eagles. It's bad enough that our once pristine skyline is now plagued by these eyesores, but we're now finding that all the claims made by the wind industry are false. This http://www.wind-watch.org/ is one of a few groups that have cropped up to oppose the endless expansion of these monstrosities.

 

We progressives love Darwin and we love evolution, but we hate human evolution, social Darwinism, and the survival of humans over the weaker species.

I've never eaten a golden eagle, so it doesn't much matter to me.

Pats self on back for discovering the 123rd progressive hypocrisy.

 

Geez....what is it that right wing fat cats always advocate? We're supposed to halt progress for a few birds?

 

Tell me again why they stopped the Keystone Pipeline?

 

Something to do with poisoning the fresh water supply, I thought?? I was mocking corporate industry, in case you didn't pick up on it the first time around...

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

And from the wikipedia page:

Huh. Looks like every action that could be taken to deal with this, other than completely removing wind power as an option or shutting down the Altamont energy farm (a privately-owned business) has been made, and this one wind farm amounts for up to 33% of all bird fatalities in any given year. Also, most of the wind farm is privately owned. So I'm wondering, are you proposing extending environmental regulation in a retroactive way that would squash a private business? And this is a special case because... um...

Seriously, what the (*)(*)(*)(*)? I don't get it. I seriously don't get it. Piddling complaints such a bird deaths never register for anything else. Conservatives generally don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about conservation or environmentalism. But when it comes to wind power, a renewable, in-land energy source, something that will work essentially forever, that will not run out, that causes no atmospheric pollution and nowhere near as significant a detriment to habitat as things like fracking and strip mining, that makes us stronger as a nation by reducing our reliance on foreign oil... Then, all of a sudden, the environment is the most important thing ever. No, sorry, not the global environment, a few dead birds. OH MY GOD THOUSANDS OF BIRDS ARE DYING EACH YEAR. WE MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE DRASTIC ACTION! Yes, now get back to me once you have dealt with things like radio towers, that kill far more birds, and which seem to have no such regulation in terms of where they may be placed relative to bird migratory paths.

Why? Where does this come from? How are you guys falling for this (*)(*)(*)(*)? I mean, I know this is the Coal/Oil/Natural Gas industry's prerogative, to make green energy look bad so that they look less awful by comparison, but why are you shilling for them? Or did you just buy into the talking points, hook, line, and sinker, without a single look at the background of your argument? Might wanna start looking into that, because this happens a lot. Remember climategate? Yeah.

Although it is nice to see conservatives worried about the environment for once.

 

Conservatives aren't worried for a second about endangered anything, unless it's money-related. No, the only reason for whining about this minor issue is that they can take a dig at 'liberals' and their hippie green energy schemes. What a sad bunch of throwbacks.

 

Hence my question.


Seriously. Peabody, SMDT, NetworkCitizen... That's what it looks like, when you look from the outside. It looks like this is not about bald eagles, or environmentalism. Why? Why are you so quick to fall for the talking points?

 

Conservatives are consistant if anything. We believe in the free market as the ultimate arbiter of what should and shouldn't survive. When an industry that would otherwise go the way of the dinosaur is artificially propped up through government grants, credits, and deductions, it becomes a prevailing injustice in the market. Look at the monsterous failure that ethynol has become, and yet now there is a constituency of farmers with lobbyists in Washington to make sure that taxpayers keep funding this horrible idea. In keeping with this simply philosophy, we'll point out the detrimental effects of wind turbines that by all right should never have been erected.

Oh, and by the way, you don't have to hang this all on conservatives. There are plenty of Left wing interests who also oppose wind turbines because of how it affects the environment and wildlife. So this really isn't a Left Right issue, it's a stupidity vs good sense issue. Guess which side you're on?

 

I SWEAR this looks just like the bird who killed one of my roosters last month. BIG birds! I saw it flying away, then a day later found one of my roosters with eaten brain right in that area from where it lifted off.

 

These Golden Eagles....they all look the same. You can't tell if that was the offending bird or his uncle or cousin.

 

Hardly. Do you understand the principle behind the government subsidizing new technology? On one hand, wind power has the potential, once it becomes more effective (and it has been becoming more effective at a good clip) to be a ridiculously useful power source - one that is completely independent of foreign resources, and which is entirely renewable. Yes, wind is not profitable right now. It's quickly getting to the point where it will be, though - very quickly. And that's kind of the idea - when a new technology comes out which cannot stand on its own and cannot compete, but shows great promise for development, government subsidies are a good way to make sure that it actually happens. Remember solar panels? How they used to be unprofitable? Now everyone in Germany has them because they're essentially free power, with a ridiculously high return on investment. And Germany isn't exactly on the equator.

But of course, there's a second element to this - wind turbines ought to be subsidized not just because they are new technology with a ton of potential, but because that potential is incredible beneficial. If we could replace all coal power with wind power in a technically feasible, economically viable way, it would make a gigantic difference in terms of the climatological outlook of our planet.

But what the hell does this have to do with bird killings? The thread started with you guys moaning about how terrible wind turbines are for birds. I rightfully pointed out that that is a really, really dumb talking point. Your response is that... Wind can't survive without government intervention? That's a completely different debate altogether, but I suppose this graph may be somewhat telling.

The good sense side. As pointed out, wind farms kill a number of birds orders of magnitude lower than things like house cats and telecommunication masts. The conservationists on the left I can at least believe have an honest motive; I simply disagree with them. But those on the right? Given the stance of most republicans with regards to the environment, and the way they seem to support coal regardless of the situation, that's a really, really hard sell. Hell, you admitted in this very post that there was an ulterior motive!

Speciesist bastard. That bird had a family!

 

Wind turbines CAN'T survive without government. Nothing you said here refutes what I said, that the market is best at determining what has long term viability and what doesn't. If wind turbines and ethanol are profitable, private investors would make it happen. Because government cannot go bankrupt, is not all that much affected by bad investments, and is not accountable to shareholders, it can throw money down the toilet on technologies that won't last. How many Obama solar companies went bankrupt even WITH the unfair advantage of government propping them up? I don't care how good you think it is for people, to force people to pay for your pet social engineering projects is repugnant to our constitutional republic.

What a load of crap! You really think you have to be on the Left to support animal life and habitat? Conservatives are strong conservationsists and the strongest advocates for birds of prey and adversaries of poaching are hunters themselves. Republicans and conservatives are adamate defenders of having a clean environment. We just don't believe in the global warming myth or that radical socialist programs need to be implemented to protect environmental concerns. You couldn't get us more wrong if you tried. No wonder you're such a hack when you purposely mischaracterize those on our side.



Speciesist bastard. That bird had a family![/QUOTE]

 

And solar panels? Again, look at the graph. Wind has been temporarily unprofitable. It's getting to the point now where it will become profitable. Beforehand, were it not for the government, it may very well have never gotten a second look. And I know that the government got flack years ago for supporting solar power before it was profitable... Well, guess what? Now it's really profitable.

Yes. You also line up behind the coal industry whenever the problems of strip mining are brought up. You immediately deny any studies that portray fracking in a less-than-positive light. Huh, almost seems like you don't believe in a lot of ecological issues, huh? Let's not mince words; your acceptance of the climate denalist movement makes any attempt at environmentalism pathetic. But okay, fine, let's assume you really care about the eagles. Deal with the telecommunication masts, then get back to me.

 

Yes, solar power is profitable. You're confusing the production of solar panels with the production of solar power, and in the process missing why these companies went under: Chinese companies made a breakthrough with slightly different technology that let them produce panels at a far lower cost, essentially driving Solyndra and co. from the market. Someone's profiting from the production, make no mistake, and those who have solar panels are seeing an up to 18% return on investment - and I don't mean in the Bahamas.

Which one are you talking about? Yes, there's more than one.

...I still call it both anthropogenic global warming and climate change. The latter being more technically correct; the former being more precise.

It's what you call those who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change and anthropogenic global warming.

 

but you have no problem with oil companies blotting the landscape with giant oil rigs?

 

I'm a truck driver. I drive all over the country. It's clear that you don't. To think that oil rigs dot the horizon to the same degree as wind turbines is just assinine. You haven't driven through areas where they are all over the landscape like a biblical plague of locusts. There is no other comparison, not with oil rigs, not with anything.

 

In a way, I think you're right.









Really not much comparison.

 

Uh oh, two liberal policies coming into conflict with each other. Which one will win out?

 

The relationship between renewable energy and conservation/preservation should not be a zero-sum game. There are means to developing wind farms in a strategic manner to minimize the risk posed to wildlife. Building wind turbines in bodies of water is one solution.

 

There's no reason why they can't both win. All the wind companies have to do to ward off the eagles is put strips of reflective tape on the blades. Then the eagles will go out of their way to avoid the windmills. The n we can have clean energy and keep these majestic bird safe.

 

It's hard to take you seriously when you overlook nuance for simpleminded arguments.

Oil companies have far more mechanisms at their disposal of preventing disaster than wind companies have at preventing birds from flying into their turbines. Moreover, harvesting wind is far less risky/aggressive than digging into the sea to harvest oil. These activities are not even remotely comparable.

In short, oil companies can prevent leaks; wind companies can't control birds.