161–170 of 413 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elaborate. Haven’t stood next to either. My curiosity is piqued. What should I be expecting when I find myself so lucky?
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQksc1-5Zoc imagine living with that 12 hours a day. like a drop of water hitting your forehead every few seconds. forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does it make sense to assert that since wind farms are generally beneficial that we should not worry about drastically reducing or even eliminating golden eagles in California? Yes. Boiling our atmosphere will harm bald eagles in addition to everything else. Bald eagles are cool birds, unless you live somewhere that they’re as common as seagulls and 20x as annoying. If forced to choose, I’d rather have a healthy wo…
If you honestly believe installing any number of wind turbines is going to stop our "atmosphere from boiling" I've got a couple of bridges to sell you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. Usually it doesn't blow up but sometimes does. When it does, all of the squirrels in the area get 3 eyes and 5 legs.
More accurately they suffer defects and die. Then there is Chernobyl which now has healthier and more diverse wildlife than much of the world because humans have evacuated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a cat owner but probably will never get another one. Definitely not if I move back to Australia.
An indoor-only cat kills no birds. Bonus points for spaying/neutering.
Clearly nobody in the responses has stood next to an oil well or a wind turbine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Affordable" could also be taken as "doable". Which broadens the scope largely but misses the main problem: sustainability. This take is not just not helpful but, i would argue, actively harmful to the debate. By definition, sustainability is a waste management, that allows recycling rates of 90% or higher. CO2 is just one of our waste products we totally didnt care about.
The United States spent 6% of its GDP putting human beings on the moon. And this was done during a time that historians don't generally consider to be a time of vast deprivation for the populace; it turns out investing in and inventing rocketry and aerospace technologies the likes of which humanity has never seen before is great for job creation. How much of the GDP should we be willing to spend to actively replace p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May I introduce you to our lord and saviour nuclear energy.
That's a "yes, and" kind of thing. We can't build nuclear fast enough yet. So we need both. I'd argue that wind and solar is much more important at this point since the growth of those is now faster than nuclear has ever been. And fast growth of non-fossil energy sources is priority #1 right now. We can free up some land later with nuclear. Wind and solar isn't going to push any species to extinction, so any damage i…
The local birds killed by oil drilling aren't even what we should be comparing to. Even if that number were zero, bird populations world still be better off in a world powered by wind turbines than oil and gas. Global warning is coming for birds too. Global warming poses an "existential threat for two thirds of North American bird species" [1] and obviously a similar proportion of bird species around the globe. 1. ht…
> Birds of prey in Africa experiencing population collapse, study finds > new research used road surveys to find that nearly 90% of the 42 raptor species studied had experienced declines, with more than two-thirds showing evidence of being globally threatened.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/04/birds-of...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah... Could you explain why any oil company would pay to install and maintain "daylight level" lighting equipment at every oil rig, then pay the electric bills to run it all night, 365 nights per year?
Security? Maintenance? 24/7 ops? It's not a crazy claim; here's a NASA article on fracking wells being very visible from space at night. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87725/shale-revolut...