261–270 of 413 posts
What a weird comparison. Nobody is saying we should drill oil and gas instead of wind turbines.
The Canadian province of Alberta has more or less this exact policy.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_Canada
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That shouldn't stop us from trying to limit their growth. "The cat is out of the bag" so to speak, but a lot of the growth comes from runaway cats, or cats that have been abandoned by their owners (happens more often than you think) We could start by requiring all domestic cats to be sterilized, so that they don't breed. Then the cat population would be limited to certified breeders and wild cats. We could also have…
That's my take. I like animals, so I decided to not own any of them. I wonder how people manage to love their animals and remove them from their natural environment. I know that we've come a long way and pets have had humans around them for ages, but to me it still feels like we're doing them harm. I know that nature is even harder, but it's not like pets decided to live that way. It's also hard to understand why peo…
We have feral cats in our neighborhood. One of them moved into our house and had a litter in the study. (We kept one, and found homes for the other 3). One of her daughters from an earlier litter moved in and fed the same.
All have been sterilised now obviously, but we stoll get regular visits from a local Tom, likely a brother to the first one. The all get along fine, and he's used to us but basically comes in for food or shelter and doesn't socialise with us like the others do.
I don't think we "own" them. They all come and go as they please. But I'd say 3 of them definitely live here, and tolerate us.
Interestingly none of them seem interested in birds. The occasional mole, otherwise the occasional lizard - mostly for sport.
I'm not negating your ethics at all, but it seems some cats like being part of the family, and others are aloof. They all have distinct personalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Chernobyl was good then?
In the macro, it created a nature preserve that humans will barely visit, won't hunt in, won't deforest; and requires no active enforcement to keep that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Canadian province of Alberta has more or less this exact policy.
The province with the most solar (1511mw to #2-Ontario's 944mw[0]), and most wind power (4431mw to #2-Ontario's 3822mw [1]) in the country? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_Canada
https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/canadas-oil-rich-alberta-...
Hackernews. The pseudo politics portal of the new age. Came here for computers..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Agree 100%. Wind turbines killing birds is a disingenuous argument when it comes to climate change. If the people involved in this conversation actually cared about birds, they wouldn't be worried about either. They'd be worried about cats. Cats kill about 20-55% of the entire US bird population every single year. Somewhere between 1.3B and 4B birds per year in the US alone. [1] And an order of magnitude more small…
You've convinced me: we should replace all cats in the US with wind turbines.
UK December wind generation: Generation: 2.6 TWh Subsidy/MWh : £86.68 Market Price/MWh: £75.00
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…
Are you unconsciously keeping nuclear energy out of the equation, or why is nuclear not an option in your mind - where then bird populations will be better off, and where solar also isn't destroying the surface environment where life and forests could otherwise thrive [if we're talking about having energy generated locally, then most of the world doesn't have convenient desserts nearby, which arguably we could also t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apollo project is generally considered to have cost $25 billion, not $5 billion. Still, if we consider 0.007 of GDP in modern numbers, that's 2.65 trillion (2023) * 0.007 --> $18 billion. The fossil fuel industry receives $760 billion in subsidy. We're already spending more on energy; we're just spending it on the wrong energy.
You need to just admit error, not pivot. 5B is for 1965 alone, the peak year. As I said. 25B is the total over all years.
Now about the point, which is "How much should we be willing to spend on something that may be life-or-death for much of humanity?"
Because, again, $760 billion in fossil fuel subsidy. A tenth of that for renewables.
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…
Are you unconsciously keeping nuclear energy out of the equation, or why is nuclear not an option in your mind - where then bird populations will be better off, and where solar also isn't destroying the surface environment where life and forests could otherwise thrive [if we're talking about having energy generated locally, then most of the world doesn't have convenient desserts nearby, which arguably we could also t…