Slashdot Mirror

The reclassification proposal came on January 7, 2017 - before Trump was inaugurated. This is the Obama US Fish and Wildlife Administration's proposal, not Trump's. It simply was approved now.

This took two seconds to Google. Not everything in the world needs to be seen through the lens of Trump.

The accepted or legal definition of "endangered" doesn't count for much. The actual list of endangered species is much larger than the official one. The listing is a complicated and political process: https://www.fws.gov/endangered...

I don't know about companies, but from the other perspective Americans are in fact subject to some laws in other countries. I know that some countries have laws regarding fish and wildlife that you can actually run afoul of without ever setting foot outside the US.

https://www.fws.gov/internatio...

You can buy things in the US which are technically prohibited from trade or sale in other countries, and if caught here you'll face penalties based on the laws in those countries. It's very convoluted to say the least, and you can "break" these laws without any intent.

As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.

Sorry, no. The long term trend line over the past 2000 years is generally down until you hit the recent warming. You might be talking about the "little ice age" but the recovery from that ended before the recent warming.

As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.

Some of the observed populations are increasing and some are decreasing. The populations that are increasing are recovery from hunting during the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, the populations that would be worst hit by warming are also the ones we have the least information about, because they are the furthest north. The primary conservation concerns for polar bears are habitat loss and reduce access to their primary prey due to climate change.

As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.

Actually, I was thinking of crops in particular. The majority of the world's food supply comes from a handful of species adapted to our current temperature ranges, increase the temperature too much and their yields decline. For example, warmer temperatures are cause grain seeds to mature faster but at a smaller size reducing the yields of those crops and that's before we consider other climate change factors like increased flooding or increased droughts.

As to the oceans being stable prior to the modern period. http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Chang...

Yes, the oceans rose after the land glaciers melted at the end of the last glacial period.

You can see from that and this: http://academics.eckerd.edu/in... That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time. The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years. And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases. So... my point is sustained.

The second link says:

While sea levels have varied by over 120m during glacial/interglacial cycles, there has been little net rise over the past several millennia until the 19th century and early 20th century, when geolog-ical and tide-gauge data indicate an increase in the rate of sea-level rise.

That's almost exactly what I quoted from the NOAA, so no, you were wrong.

Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations.

As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.

As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.

As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.

As to the oceans being stable prior to the modern period.
http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Chang...

You can see from that and this:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/in...

That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time.

The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years.

And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases.

So... my point is sustained.

As to taxes having to go to build sea walls... Or people relocate. Its happened before and will happen again. Presuming that a city that has stood on a given shore for a thousand years will always stand there is presumptuous. If that city wants to spend its own money to secure it from whatever that is its own business and problem. However, it is not the responsibility of people in cities that are not threatened by long term climate change to make unsustainable cities affordable.

Either sustain your city or abandon it. A great many places are unsustainable. How many times does Florida have to be bailed out because they build stupidly on parts of land you shouldn't build on?

First off, don't build right next to the fucking ocean in storm zones. In South America they are much better about this in that they put parks near the ocean so when the storm comes it messes with trees or something and doesn't destroy buildings.

Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations. That means you either have to build seawalls or put your structures on stilts or something. Whatever you do... don't build the same way as someone might in a non-storm zone and then complain when the obvious happens.

Third, do not subsidize flood and hurricane insurance. This encourages people to build and live in places they cannot afford to live because they are asking other people to assume the liability when their property is destroyed. If you can't handle the liability it means you're either building in a place where you cannot afford to build or you're building in a manner that will not survive a storm. Either way... you're basically abusing the generosity of the rest of the country to subsidize an unaffordable life style.

As to how I would know what they're doing... Bullshit. Lets put up Leonardo DiCaprio's homes... he's been going on and on and on about climate change.

This is his house ap

It may not seem like a big deal, but things like this are used more and more to justify land closures.

Well, just about anything justifies a land closure now. The balcones canyonlands was created for the express purpose of preservation and recreation which didn't infringe on the preservation goals. Yet, it has _NEVER_ been open for recreation even though the two species its intended to preserve are _MIGRATORY_ and only spend a few months a year in the preserve. The place is surrounded by fences and no trespassing signs, and the web page talks about the recreation opportunities, and then lists all _SEVEN_ miles of trails in 23,000 acres of preserve. There is actually something like 10x as many miles of public roads running through it.

Worse yet, a lot (possibly most) of the studies seem to suggest that human presence (in the form of hiking and biking trails) actually helps the birds because it scares their main predators away.

Targeting specific birds, how many top of the food chain birds do cats kill? I have doubts that cats or glass panes are killing as many eagles as windmills.

67 eagles have been verified as killed by wind turbines in the last 5 years (source).

That's out of a population of about 20,000 bald eagles (source) and 30,000 golden eagles (source).

So, are wind turbines a significant problem for eagles? Well, they do kill an estimated 0.13% of eagles, so they aren't completely harmless. On the other hand, the American Eagle Society's threats to eagle survival page lists the primary threats to eagles as: DDT, Lead shot poisoning, secondary poisoning, electrocution, poaching, habitat destruction, and other predators. Wind turbines are not mentioned at all.

Therefore, we can conclude that "wind turbines kill eagles" is a not a valid criticism of wind power.

Targeting specific birds, how many top of the food chain birds do cats kill? I have doubts that cats or glass panes are killing as many eagles as windmills.

67 eagles have been verified as killed by wind turbines in the last 5 years (source).

That's out of a population of about 20,000 bald eagles (source) and 30,000 golden eagles (source).

So, are wind turbines a significant problem for eagles? Well, they do kill an estimated 0.13% of eagles, so they aren't completely harmless. On the other hand, the American Eagle Society's threats to eagle survival page lists the primary threats to eagles as: DDT, Lead shot poisoning, secondary poisoning, electrocution, poaching, habitat destruction, and other predators. Wind turbines are not mentioned at all.

Therefore, we can conclude that "wind turbines kill eagles" is a not a valid criticism of wind power.

I wonder if these environmentalists have ever been to Florida. Where they launch lots of rockets. Where they launch rockets right next to a wildlife preserve.

Pretty sure quite a few of them go there to watch and cheer, then go home and say "not here!"

I wonder if these environmentalists have ever been to Florida. Where they launch lots of rockets. Where they launch rockets right next to a wildlife preserve.

You are technically correct, but only until very recently, that was not the case.

On August 9, 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species. After nearly disappearing from most of the United States decades ago, the bald eagle is now flourishing across the nation and no longer needs the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/

There are actual endangered birds that the writers could have used to make the point that turbines might cause some population problems among birds. Whooping Cranes in the Central Flyway (Texas) for example. Or the proposed listing for Red Knot in the Atlantic Flyway (Maryland).

I'm not aware of any whoopers colliding with a turbine yet. Beside the birds that are listed. there are still several species of birds that are declining.

And lots of songbirds migrate at night. I know winds seem to die down at night, but if there is enough of a breeze, especially along a coast, a slow-turning turbine might possibly be quite harmful.

I'm not arguing your bigger point about other sources killing birds. I'm writing more about why worry about eagles, when they're not listed or declining as quickly?

Although bees are endangered, they aren't the only ones pollinating.

Celebrate National Pollinator Week, June 17 - 23, 2013!

These hard-working animals help pollinate over 75% of our flowering plants, and nearly 75% of our crops. Often we may not notice the hummingbirds, bats, bees, beetles, butterflies, and flies that carry pollen from one plant to another as they collect nectar. Yet without them, wildlife would have fewer nutritious berries and seeds, and we would miss many fruits, vegetables, and nuts, like blueberries, squash, and almonds . . . not to mention chocolate and coffeeall of which depend on pollinators. . .

Pollinators, such as most bees and some birds, bats, and other insects, play a crucial role in flowering plant reproduction and in the production of most fruits and vegetables.

Examples of crops that are pollinated include apples, squash, and almonds. Without the assistance of pollinators, most plants cannot produce fruits and seeds. The fruits and seeds of flowering plants are an important food source for people and wildlife. Some of the seeds that are not eaten will eventually produce new plants, helping to maintain the plant population.

In the United States pollination by honey bees directly or indirectly (e.g., pollination required to produce seeds for the crop) contributed to over $19 billion of crops in 2010. Pollination by other insect pollinators contributed to nearly $10 billion of crops in 2010. . . more

Wild Bees Are Good For Crops, But Crops Are Bad For Bees

Although bees are endangered, they aren't the only ones pollinating.

Celebrate National Pollinator Week, June 17 - 23, 2013!

These hard-working animals help pollinate over 75% of our flowering plants, and nearly 75% of our crops. Often we may not notice the hummingbirds, bats, bees, beetles, butterflies, and flies that carry pollen from one plant to another as they collect nectar. Yet without them, wildlife would have fewer nutritious berries and seeds, and we would miss many fruits, vegetables, and nuts, like blueberries, squash, and almonds . . . not to mention chocolate and coffeeall of which depend on pollinators. . .

Pollinators, such as most bees and some birds, bats, and other insects, play a crucial role in flowering plant reproduction and in the production of most fruits and vegetables.

Examples of crops that are pollinated include apples, squash, and almonds. Without the assistance of pollinators, most plants cannot produce fruits and seeds. The fruits and seeds of flowering plants are an important food source for people and wildlife. Some of the seeds that are not eaten will eventually produce new plants, helping to maintain the plant population.

In the United States pollination by honey bees directly or indirectly (e.g., pollination required to produce seeds for the crop) contributed to over $19 billion of crops in 2010. Pollination by other insect pollinators contributed to nearly $10 billion of crops in 2010. . . more

Wild Bees Are Good For Crops, But Crops Are Bad For Bees

> Government builds capital on swamp ...

It's not, actually.

I suppose the confusion arises because of G. Washington's investments in trying to drain the Great Dismal Swamp, but this on the Virginia-NC border, not the site of Washington DC.

Oh and it's a national wildlife refuge.

Oddly enough, so is Cape Canaveral (more or less)

Sorry - I didn't realize you assumed a reality where corruption and mismanagement were unheard of in a giant project.

As usual most of our problems have little to do with global warming. It makes no sense to me to engage in expensive restructuring of society when the problems are more of this sort, like inability to manage a large project.

The project would be an order of magnitude bigger than the Big Dig and I scaled appropriately - from real-world numbers.

The Big Dig is vastly overpriced and more expensive for its size due to management issues and institutional corruption that have nothing to do with global warming.

The reason I called it $100+ billion is we are dealing with transforming miles of coastline.

For a port? I'd have to disagree.

I also like the hand-waving "we'll drain it!" Draining thousands of square miles and making it ready for farming may be beyond our ability.

That's what happened in the US over the past couple of centuries (link claims wetlands loss in the US of roughly 2-3 square miles per day for the last two centuries). Most of that was done without heavy machinery.

Making a single road to the fields was a nightmare and you want to transform the entire landscape.

Well, if the climate changes, then so does the terrain.

You are also off by orders of magnitude for your migration stats. Moving within a city, or even the next city over is not a migration.

I disagree again. The move itself is the expensive part. Moving considerable distances doesn't actually add that much in cost. Also keep in mind that most such movement for dealing with rising sea levels, would be very short moves which you discount.

Good luck with your hand-waving away of big problems - I hope you live somewhere away from the coast and pack heat to protect what's yours from those who don't have anything and are starving.

Why would that happen? This leads us full cycle to my original complaint. Namely, that there are a number of people claiming without evidence that AGW is going to cause massive disasters and famine for everyone while simultaneously ignoring the actual predictions for AGW and humanity's incredible ability to adapt and modify the landscape.

(Also: Read up on the Dust Bowl - it caused hundreds of thousands of people to move and was one of the most horrible times in our nation's history.)

One of the key factors in the Dust Bowl was poor land-use practices. That's not a factor now. We know how to anchor dirt now and keep this sort of disaster from growing.

When did the final S fall off the Marianas Trench and associated Islands?

Even this site http://www.fws.gov/marianastrenchmarinemonument/ seems to lose its S part way through.

Not to mention the other question arising - What is the world is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doing in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?
--
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard

As someone who has studied energy policy (from the geological/environmental perspective) there are significant issues with most fuel sources:

- Solar power is expensive (currently) and current proposals in the Mojave threaten the California Desert Tortoise. Likewise it does not provide consistent electricity in most locations, and therefore requires expensive infrastructure to even out the electrical supply.
- Geothermal power has been shown to trigger up to 5.0Mw Earthquakes in areas not known for earthquakes. In areas with significant known faults (e.g. California), this could result in triggering much more dramatic problems.
- Nuke power has large start up costs, has problems with long-term storage of radioactive waste as well as mining issues. Likewise there is the threat of radioactive release due to problems with the reactor, as we most recently saw in Japan. Finally, nuclear energy has been a stepping stone to nuclear weapons in countries such as Isreal, South Africa, and India. Finally this has extensive political ill-will in the US.
- Wind power has problems with being deadly to birds and killer to heavily reduced bat populations. Since these are often built tall, these often dominate the landscape (which many people object to). Finally, they only work when the wind is blowing, meaning that it, like solar, requires extensive storage.
- Hydroelectric (as dams) has been extensively done in the western US, and is hard to expand in the US. While this does do some things like stop flooding, and provide recreational, and consistent sources of water downstream, there are problems. Primarily rivers, which Salmon need to spawn, cannot be passed. Beautiful canyons (e.g. Hetch Hetchy) are no longer accessible. Finally running water through lakes, results in changing the water temperature (cooling it) and chemistry (removing silt).
- Hydroelectric (as energy storage) is fairly inefficient, and completely screws up the local aquatic ecosystem.
- Fuel cells are not an energy source. They are a way of storing energy.
- Biofuels, currently are 10x the expense of conventional energy, have the side effect of reducing the amount of food available, and increasing the price, which according to some at the UN is a crime against humanity. Many of the current biofules (e.g. Corn ethanol) do not actually result in a net energy gain.

"Fossil Fuels" (which use carbon)

- Coal releases more carbon per amount of energy than petroleum, and has the problem with killing thousands per year (mostly in China), releasing dangerous H2S* (although less in recent years due to international agreement), and other nasty combustion by-products. In addition accessing it results in destruction of mountains.
- Methane Hydrates/Clathrates are a possibility, but currently there is not a feasible way to liberate them from the ocean floor. However, there is enough there to fuel us for centuries, if we figure this one out. (Also methane (CH4) is ~14x more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.)
- Tight natural gases (e.g. Marseilles Shale) are increasingly being used, however there has been significant controversy over the various chemical and physical techniques ("fracking") used to increase porosity.
- Oil Sands (e.g. in Alberta) are highly energy inefficient, as they are highly biodegraded low-quality heavy oils, and require significant amounts of energy to access them.
- Conventional (shallow water/on the continent) Petroleum is rapidly running out. Easy-to-pump oil is significantly harder to get to, and as a result "enhanced" oil recovery using things like surfactants (soap) and fracking is needed. But this has the problems with being more expensive, as well as issues with environmental contamination.
-Unconventional

Just to cut off this dead birds argument before it starts... I know a guy that runs some wind farms in Cali here (the livermore ones) and as a test they decided to shut off one half of their farm for a month and see the difference in birds killed.

They found like 4 dead birds in the field where they were off and around 8 dead birds where they were on. So each half of the farm might kill an extra 4 birds a month versus having standing towers. That's 96 birds a year for a very large windfarm.

You know what kills WAY more birds than that per year? Housecats. Example quote from some government study in the UK:

"In 1990, researchers estimated that "outdoor" house cats and feral cats were responsible for killing nearly 78 million small mammals and birds annually in the United Kingdom."

full link: http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/songbrd.html

My mom's house also has a large window that kills a few birds a year, I'm sure for every house and building that adds up.

Point being, winds farms have effectively NO impact on birds! Thanks

-Taylor

A simple drive across I-75 will help you realize they are not endangered. They can be seen about every 25-50 yards on the side of the highway in the canals. They are EVERYWHERE.

"What color is a firetruck?"

Not sure, you tell me!

Yes, this is a problem. Take a look at any of the information available online about nutrient contamination of the Chesapeake Bay.

http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/nutrient.htm

I think we have a lot of unused land on Earth, and the faster we can cover it, the faster we can have surplus energy.

Great attitude. I am no environmentalist or anything, but even I realize that humans have already had a HUGE impact on Earth. The Fish and Wildlife Service reports 1238 endangered species in the US alone.

I agree that solar power is great, but how about we try to use existing surfaces such as high rise buildings, as someone else mentioned. How about those hybrids use solar car sun shades to charge the battery while your at work? I think a little thought would be better than just sucking the earth dry.

Get a clue. The drillable sections of ANWR are artic tundra. This is ANWR. And so is this. And also this. The environmental impact of clear cutting forests on Crete is irrelevant, to say the least.

People like you reinforce my opinion that people against drilling in ANWR are idiots.

Why not invest? If wild alligators are endangered, a farm is a GREAT thing to invest in. Figure out how to breed them, release some back into the wild (they're never going to be "tame"), and boom, you have the experience and outlay to start making products from your farmed animals.

BTW, they haven't been on the endangered list for 20 years. And, guess what? alligator farms do exist (have since 2 years BEFORE they were delisted), and guess what, you can buy real alligator skin boots as well as alligator steaks.

How in the hell do completely moronic posts like this get modded up?

If a "professional" IT department is going to choose software based on who has the best name, they're already gored in the posterior by a longhorn .

Yes, folks, the same government nannies will have your neighbors throwing mercury into the trash. Never mind that it will get into the ground and your water supplies, costs more, is inferior light and sends money to the Chinese communists.

Never mind that the same thinking banned DDT which meant millions of Africans have died from malaria or that liberated prisoners from the Nazi death camps were bathed in DDT to kill the bugs living on them or that "Silent Spring" has been shown to be a work of fiction.

Never mind that banning asbestos created more danger because removing asbestos is more dangerous than using it properly, automobile brakes are nowhere near as capable, costs increased and, oh, yeah, the WTC would have stood longer because it was designed to survive airplane hits provided the guts were protected by asbestos so it would have stood a few more hours.

Like, why are polar bears suddenly on the endangered species list?

The "Endangered species" list is a man made artifact.

Moses cam down from the mountain with the 10 commandments, not the endangered species list [that was given to Noah, much earlier].

But seriously, why are there different "endangered species" list ?? http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html The Mexican bobcat is listed in the US, but not for Canada, so it's regional thing. Shouldn't the whole world feel the same about all animals? They don't? Should that get us to hating them because their concerns are not the same as ours?

Anyway, there are a lot of species that have been thru the last Ice Age, what makes on think that there won't be as many after the next ice age???
wb

The federal government has a national wildlife refuge a few miles from where I site (Union Slough) - it is a 3000 acre (not terribly big) swampy grassland. It takes 6 people to administer and costs the feds more than $600K/year. 15 years ago, it was run with a staff of 2. Is there room to cut there?

The federal government is so big, that I think that there is plenty of things that can get cut and very few would notice.

There is this thing called American Buffalo, species name Bison Bison. I think the US Fish and Wildlife Services is a bit more authoritative then some group with axes to grind. Your link for Buffalo is listed as an Indonesia Bull. That is known as a water buffalo.

A politician once campaigned that a few jobs were a lot more important than some minor species living in a field... This seems so damn funny in light of this news. If it turns out that crocodiles can provide the next penicillin-like leap and a years later the last crocodiles die off, that politician will have some fun.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/C0U.html

Unfortunately the red lights confuse the migrating birds.

from
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/beason .html

"Two aspects of tower lighting that can attract birds are its color (white lights, ultraviolet, or specific wavelengths) and the duration of light (strobes, flashing lights, or steady lights) as pointed out previously. Both these aspects remain unresearched. Unfortunately, there have been no controlled experiments as to which colors birds find most or least attractive. Anecdotal reports, again as Al has pointed out earlier, are that white lights seem less attractive that red lights, and strobes might even be less attractive, but we really don't know."

Assume you're right and that deer populations are exploding. So, yes.. I guess something has to replace the natural predators of deer and elk - wolves and mountain lions - that have been hunted to near extinction.

Congratulations, your near annihilation of species has made hunters relevant. I suppose the majority would prefer hunters in the woods instead of wolves (the gun industry and the NRA especially - they have to sell products to someone now that the US isn't the wild west) - but it's a slightly sad state of affairs when you try to justify actions that were made necesary by your predecessors causing the situation in the first place.

Quick! Thin out their numbers!!!

Assume you're right and that deer populations are exploding. So, yes.. I guess something has to replace the natural predators of deer and elk - wolves and mountain lions - that have been hunted to near extinction.

Congratulations, your near annihilation of species has made hunters relevant. I suppose the majority would prefer hunters in the woods instead of wolves (the gun industry and the NRA especially - they have to sell products to someone now that the US isn't the wild west) - but it's a slightly sad state of affairs when you try to justify actions that were made necesary by your predecessors causing the situation in the first place.

Quick! Thin out their numbers!!!

I got another one for you... not everyone who hunts is as economically endowed as the average computer geek. Most of the guys I know who hunt, save massive amounts on their grocery bills. You say "buy it at the store!"... you know what venison (or any other meat) goes for by the pound? You know how many pounds of meat can be had for the price of a bullet and a hunting tag?

Repeat after me: In many (but not all) cases, hunting is an economic affair.

(the bold was mine)

You'd said you had a hard time believing the "many" part, based upon your "on the road" observations, so I just thought I might be able to offer an explanation of why the two might not match.

I guess the sticking point would be what the original poster meant by "many". I'm not sure it implies a majority, but I'd guess it means at least it's not the least likely reason that people hunt.

It's funny, apparently neither the original poster, you, nor I actually hunt and none of us bothered to go and try to find some hunting demographics studies! Gotta love /.

Here's a survey (granted, at the grounds of a US military base, so possibly biased) that would suggest "meat" hunting is behind recreational, but sizable.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (you think they might know something about this!) does lots of hunting and fishing surveys, there's an index here. There are some interesting things in there, but after plowing through some of it, I doubt it comes out and give any clear answers on this. We can tell that "avid hunters" are most likely rural, and most likely "below median" income, but it'd be a stretch to draw "they hunt for economic reasons" from that. I'd wager that the "casual hunter" category that is split between urban and rural and is more frequently "above median" income is where you see your mega-SUV drivers. Maybe you can wade through the study if you're curious.

The US certainly has the military power to take over a lot of countries, but it hasn't done it. Sure, the US invades countries from time to time when there's a perceived threat, or to stop genocide, or to prevent civil war, etc. But in the end, the US never "takes" anything even though it could. The last thing the US took was Kingman Reef in 1922. There wasn't a war over it. It's an unpopulated 1 sq km land mass in the Pacific Ocean. Most of it is under water.

To elaborate, KSC is also a wildlife preserve...one of the largest in the area, iirc. So keeping things cleaned up is very important.

Great. I'm all for clean sources of power, but I really think lumping hydropower in with solar and wind generation is uninformed at best. Even a basic Google Search will turn up pages like this, this, and this (note the tld on this last one). And here I'm only addressing a single issue - there are a lot of changes made when a dam is introduced into a wild river, not the least of which is that the river isn't there anymore for a few miles.

Fact is, central power generation is only "cleaner" if the source is truly renewable - and even there, I can only think of wind as a good example of appropriate clean power generation. I'd like to see a convincing argument that it's more efficient to mass a bunch of solar cells in a single location rather than, say, making roofs out of the stuff. Yes, solar cells are expensive now, but that seems to be more a matter of will, or rather the lack thereof. (As an interesting aside, I am led to understand that the large solar plant near Barstow, California, sometimes produces a bizarre reflection in the sky, making it appear that there are two suns. Does anyone have information on this?)

I'm not saying I prefer coal or (gag) nookleyear, but hydro is definately down on my list of preferences for power generation. IMHO, the best solutions are almost always local, adapting to climate, terrain, and resources.

Here's a list for the upper midwest, for starters.
Extinct

The employers I've known have deliberately removed sound equipment; radios, speakers, access to music - from their line workers' stations. Even IT departments I've visited in my recent work experience have been hard pressed to be allowed music in their offices. The secretaries are not allowed screensavers (which, well I agree with - their 486 "dedicated word processor" can't really handle them without making them think the machine has crashed after the TV commercials they've seen recently) and their calls and other communications are often randomly monitored - and this is explained to them in their employee handbook when they go to work there; along the lines of "nothing you do in the office may be considered personal or privileged", etc. One of my friends has been instructed that their office does not allow music because they do not want to be targetted in the event there is a 'copyright issue' - their words, not mine. So, if you're a higher-echelon, PHB, or own your own; maybe Surround Sound is in your future. Otherwise it will be a gimmick at your National Training Center - which is how the government usually does their conferencing and distance learning .

[q]Certainly ugly, and probably has an impact on the native wildlife as well. Now multiply that by 100x or so to get enough windmills to actually power California, and you'll have most of the state covered in ugly white towers...[/q]
Um. I've driven past these same areas your talking about everytime my family and I go to Disneyland (we live in the Bay Area) and I think that's one of the coolest parts of the trip. Me and my siblings love seeing those windmills, especially when you think "Think of all the money, labor and pollution you save!".

Wildlife (birds) and Nature a risk from Windmillls? Give me a break. The area which you are talking about there is hardly no wildlife, except bugs maybe. The birds know not to run into Windmills, I've never heard any startling statistics because the drop in population of birds.

Besides, the area which you are talking about is nothing but a freeway, desert hills. Maybe if there were communities over there or something. Do you really think the Danish are going to put these things in your backyard??

If anything is killing the birds, it's tall buildings at night in the direct path for migrating birds. There are a number of factors which cause birds to die every year because of humans, but Windmills is really not one of them.

What do I owe Africa?

Really?

"Fruits of the 21st Century?"

How about if Africa gets itself out of the 6th century by producing something the world wants?

And this time, try not to make it slaves, terrorists, virus es, endangered species, or diamonds to raise money to hack people to death.

--Blair
"You are only as free, happy, smart, and rich as you think you are."

What an interesting question! I am not a lawyer, but this seems like it might fall under the Freedom of Information act.

The right of the public to obtain information held by the Federal Government is summarized in a report published by the U.S. House of Representatives, entitled "A Citizens Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government Records" (H.Rpt. 102-146), as follows:

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes a presumption that records in the possession of agencies and departments of the Executive Branch of the United States government are accessible to the people. This was not always the approach to federal information disclosure policy. Before enactment of the FOIA in 1966, the burden was on the individual to establish a right to examine these government records. There were no statutory guidelines or procedures to help a person seeking information. There were no judicial remedies for those denied access. With the passage of the FOIA, the burden of proof shifted from the individual to the government. Those seeking information are no longer required to show a need for information. Instead, the "need to know" standard has been replaced by a "right to know" doctrine. The government now has to justify the need for secrecy.

The FOIA sets standards for determining which records must be disclosed and which records can be withheld. The law also provides administrative and judicial remedies for those denied access to records. Above all, the statute requires federal agencies to provide the fullest possible disclosure of information to the public.