81–90 of 413 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, suggesting that we should slow/stop the transition to alternative fuel sources due to bird deaths in turbines is absolutely fossil fuel propaganda. The real danger to birds (and humans, and all other wildlife) is not flying into turbines, but systemic failure caused by extremely rapid environmental changes. You know, the kind that fossil fuel consumption is causing.
[flagged]
This is broken logic. Working primarily with averages leads directly to repeating the mistakes of the statistician who drown in a lake that was an average of three feet deep. Currently one of the notably large wind farms being operated is in the Altamont Pass in California which also happens to be the preferred spawning site for golden eagles. Does it make sense to assert that since wind farms are generally beneficia…
The problem is that Trump et al. are disingenuously saying that we shouldn't build wind turbines at all because of the birds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> It is well known agriculture (and we really mean animal agriculture) produces more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuel industry. Agriculture is a fossil fuel industry. The fertilizer it depends on comes from fossil fuel, the machines that till the fields run on fossil fuel, etc. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82194/err-224.... "The food system accounts for a large share of fossil fuel consumption i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is well known agriculture (and we really mean animal agriculture) produces more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuel industry. Agriculture is a fossil fuel industry. The fertilizer it depends on comes from fossil fuel, the machines that till the fields run on fossil fuel, etc. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82194/err-224.... "The food system accounts for a large share of fossil fuel consumption i…
[flagged]
[flagged]
OTOH I cannot image how they want to do this with the conrete foundations of wind turbines. The newer ones are up to 300 meters high. With that leverage the foundations must be absolutely massive. I don't think they can ever be revmoved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is well known agriculture (and we really mean animal agriculture) produces more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuel industry. Agriculture is a fossil fuel industry. The fertilizer it depends on comes from fossil fuel, the machines that till the fields run on fossil fuel, etc. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82194/err-224.... "The food system accounts for a large share of fossil fuel consumption i…
[flagged]
The question doesn't even make much sense; the animals raised for eating are a form of human usage of fossil fuels. Even if they didn't, a single human and a single chicken don't have anything like the same carbon footprint. No animal uses fossil fuels independently of human activity; eagles don't eat coal, whales don't drink oil.
(The answer is still "the humans", though; agriculture is about 10% of our emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...)
What a weird comparison. Nobody is saying we should drill oil and gas instead of wind turbines.
The people who are concerned about wind turbines killing birds aren't offering any alternatives, that would be widely accepted, so the result is fossil fuel, because that's what we already have in place.
The anti-nuclear protests in the 60s and 70s also didn't want fossil fuels, but they also didn't understand that an increase in fossil fuel usage was the alternative, because it was the only one that made financial sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there have been campaigns and articles for years attacking wind energy on the basis of protecting birds.
May I introduce you to our lord and saviour nuclear energy.