V
Valke2
Guest
That’s a joke, right? I’m supposed to look at a report about the effects of wind power and then decide that coal and oil are the enviornmentally safe way to go???
- Status
That is what the article indicated.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
I think the point is that greenies don’t look before they leap.
They just give nasty looks to those of us who don’t want to leap with them.
Come to think of it, there is a great deal of support out there to be had if they changed the official name to ‘bird killing machine’
V
Valke2
Guest
Let’s stick to a point that is worth pursuing. Either wind energy is less harmful to the enviornment and biodiversity than coal and oil, or it isn’t.
Don’t think I want to use the same terminology, but there are a number of people (not necessarily environmentalist) that want to react before taking in all of the information.
And that is a real problem.
V
Valke2
Guest
Ok. Let’s look at the report in your link.
Right off the bat the report states that it does not address off shore wind power, which from what I have read is one of the likliest sources of wind power expansion in the near future.
The reports states that wind energy’s ability to generate electricity without many of the
environmental impacts associated with other energy sources (air pollution, water pollution,
mercury emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with global climate
change) can significantly benefit birds, bats, and many other plant and animal species.
However, the direct and indirect local and cumulative impacts of wind plants on birds
and bats continue to be an issue. The populations of many bird and bat species are
experiencing long-term declines, due not only to the effects of energy use, but many
other human activities.
On the studies of the effects on birds and bats:
Some impacts to birds and bats have been demonstrated,
but these impacts appear to varyfrom wind plant to wind plant.
How do we address this concern? The report tells us how:
As indicated by experience at more recent projects, a pre-development site
evaluation conducted at a potential wind site can help determine whether wind
power development at that site is likely to cause avian and bat impacts at levels
of concern.
Finally, the fact that this report exists at all and the fact that there continue to be studies on this issue disprove the baseless allegation that “greenies” don’t look before they leap.
M
Michaelo
Guest
But why should we feed our addiction to an unsustainable resource? Diverting time and money away from the development of renewable energies is completely myopic.
V
Valke2
Guest
That quacked me up.Ready for this…
Not from the birds-eye point of view.
M
Monty_Arch
Guest
An old and controversial theory on the origins of oil and gas may be gaining a foothold, suggesting limitless supplies.
abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/s…d=421532&page=1
View attachment 5337
M
Michaelo
Guest
The link directed me to a page that does not exist.
V
Valke2
Guest
which makes sense, as limitless oil does not exist either.
C
Calliso
Guest
Exactly and while I understand we can;t just stop using oil at this point. We have to plan and research for a future when we can. Cause sooner or later we will have no choice.
C
Calliso
Guest
Exactly!
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
No it isn’t- it is pragmatic.
I’m not telling anyone they can’t go and pursue other technologies.
I just don’t want political forces to pressure people to use inferior developing technology when better technologies are already available.
Here’s a good example-
Currently, I own a VW Jetta TDI, which gets about 45 mpg, and has extremely low emissions. In many ways, my car is far superior to Hybrids because it doesn’t have the hybrid battery which adds a tremendous amount of weight to the vehicle, poses serious and unique risks in car accidents, and disposal.
However, thanks to the influence of political lobbyists, the tax credit for hybrid owners is more than double the tax credit for a clean burning diesel like mine.
The “green” movement is a political movement- nothing less, nothing more.
V
Valke2
Guest
Excellent.
That’s a shame. But it does not prove the assertion that climate change isn’t real or that the government has a real interest in adopting measures to reduce greenhousse emissions.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Don’t get too exited- I bought it for financial reasons only- less gas is less money.
I had no “green” motivations whatsoever.
That’s the market at work.
If the green movement cared at all about teh environment, the would figure that out and support the best “green” products, instead of the most politically expedient “green” products.
What it demonstrates is how the environmental movement, who lobbied for those tax credits, shows a distinct preference for particular green technologies over competing green technologies for reasons that have nothing at all to do with “the good of the environment.”
If the environmental movement was anything more than the result of a very elaborate viral marketing campaign for “green” products, then it would evaluate every “green” technology on its own merits- instead, politicians are bought by lobbyists to legislate tax funded marketing campaigns for things like ethanol based fuels, hybrid cars, and compact fluorescent bulbs- all of which have been shown to be environmentally unfriendly- while they ignore the merits of other green technologies that didn’t generate the same lobbyist dollars.
I personally don’t care if new technology is “green” or not, because I know better- but I am all for new technologies that will continue to lower the cost of living and increase the standard of living…unfortunately, those opportunities are being swept under the rug by greenies who are blindly and blissfully telling their parents and babysitters to buy products they saw being used by their favorite actors and actresses on NBC’s green week.
M
Michaelo
Guest
It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy:
We reject currently inferior technology, so there’s less impetus to develop it because nobody is willing to use it, and therefore it never actually becomes superior–which we once again use as an excuse to reject it.
A
a_burger
Guest
For Valke2 Jesus said let no man deceive you. It’s pretty embarrasing to let Al Gore deceive you. At least you could pick someone intelligent. Oh, I forgot Al invented the internet. Of course that is only in his mind and his followers minds. Even a head of Greenpeace has now advocated building coal plants in S. America. It’s not carbon footprints, it’s sunspots, stupid.
- Status