Slashdot Mirror
US Issues 30-Year Eagle-Killing Permits To Wind Industry
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Lindsay Abrams reports at Salon that the Obama administration is offering wind farms 30 years of leeway to kill and harm bald and golden eagles. The new regulations, which were requested by the wind industry, will provide companies that seek a permit with legal protection, preventing them from having to pay penalties for eagle deaths (PDF). An investigation by the Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. President Obama has championed the pollution-free energy, nearly doubling America's wind power in his first term as a way to tackle global warming. Scientists say wind farms in 10 states have killed at least 85 eagles since 1997, with most deaths occurring between 2008 and 2012, as the industry was greatly expanding. Most deaths — 79 — were golden eagles that struck wind turbines. However the scientists said their figure is likely to be 'substantially' underestimated, since companies report eagle deaths voluntarily and only a fraction of those included in their total were discovered during searches for dead birds by wind-energy companies. The National Audubon Society said it would challenge the decision."
I'm as green as anyone, but lordy that was some one-sided summary Hugh.
Can I at least ask for some other numbers, such as the number of bird kills resulting from pollutants dumped out by the big coal fired plants in Ohio?
Three Squirrels
There is no perfect solution here. I'm not saying companies should erect wind turbines in the middle of nesting areas, but the truth is, there is no risk-free, cost-free, environmental-damage-free answer to the problem of power production. Coal mining is wretched for the environment and coal miners have a nasty habit of dying of black lung. Nuclear power has risks (and I'm a nuclear proponent). The long-term cleanup and environmental repair is very costly if something goes wrong. Solar power is expensive. Wind turbines kill birds.
At a certain point, the question is "What's an acceptable loss ratio?"
Windmills: The Politically Correct way to kill eagles.
The simple rebuttal is that getting people from point A to point B is much more important than your frivolous sensibilities. Now it might be that CO2 is enough of a threat or oil becomes expensive enough to warrant some restructuring of transportation to reduce that.
But to complain because cars weigh only a few dozen times more than the precious cargoes they transport? I can't be bothered to care.
If they need a way to dispose of them after their unfortunate turbine encounter, I suggest to serve them up fried.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
You have no idea how illegal it is to even posses an eagle feather you happen to find while hiking. The only people who get a pass are Native Americans.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
It's crazy.
The environmentalists don't appear to have anyone on their team who understand the amount (or even the magnitude) of the energy consumed globally to make it all work. That, or their desire for renewables is biased by an anti-capitalist desire to collapse the economy. I don't know.
Brass tacks: We need -massive- amounts of energy, we will need even more, and there are two options - hydrocarbons and nuclear.
The governments of the world should all have Manhattan-style projects to solve nuclear fusion, alternative fission reactors, and solve the battery storage problem - be it super-cap technology or something else.
Instead we waste time dicking about with windmill foolishness. Sigh.
Keep it up. Go team.
..don't panic
How about a more balanced view? How many eagles would really die? How does that compare to the dangers from CO2, from other technologies? What about the habitat ruined by oil wells, natural gas wells, fracking, etc.? It's really not at all as simplistic as this posting implies.
When we don't want to burn fossil fuel, and turn to Nuke, we end up having radioactive waste that can last very very long time.
Yes, but that can be reprocessed and reduced down to almost nothing, and what is left can be placed in double sealed barrels, stored on 6 foot thick concrete platforms raised 20 feet in the air, monitored by video cameras 24/7 posted online so everyone in the world can see they aren't leaking (and scream very loudly if they are).
Stick the barrels out in the middle of the West Texas desert and no one will bother them for 10,000 years.
You can't do that with CO2 and other crap released from burning dead dinos.
What about all the eagles killed by trucks, trains, cars and high buildings?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I mean, do we need a VERY HEAVY VEHICLE, even if they are electrically driven, to get us from point A to point B ?
No, we don't "need" it, but frankly, we don't "need" almost anything in our modern world.
So we have to get past the "need" aspect and move on to "want".
My truck weighs 5,700lbs, or about 3 tons. You probably think that is insane. Maybe it is... but it is my right to own it because I like it...
If you took down every single wind mill in the world tomorrow, humanity would not really even notice for most part. At worst, we may have to start using some of the mothballed coal/oil/gas plants to compensate.
And even "I'm so high I think I can walk across oceans" level of babbling would probably not try to claim that wind power is a "question of survival of human civilization".
The *real* simplest solution is to put the stuff that lasts a Very Long Time, into a Very Deep and Stable Place.
THAT is the simplest solution. Not your fantasy of getting a few billion people to live the backwards lifestyle you won't even accede to yourself (oh wait, that was supposed to apply to you and not just the peasants?).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
but the wind-farms are a question of survival of the human civilization.
Hardly. If windfarms dropped off the face of the earth, you might need to find 1-3% from somewhere else, like hydro plants sitting idle, or from nuclear reactors which have been shutdown or furloughed for maintenance. Hell, in Ontario we produce so much electricity that we sell it at a 75% loss to the US, and we're not even at peak generating capacity. In fact, these "green energy" programs are going to drive up our electricity prices by 42% in the next 5 years.
Do you hear that sounds? It's the death of manufacturing and industry where I live.
Om, nomnomnom...
You seem to be a callow individual.
There won't be any left in thirty years.
Energy policy for nerds:
http://www.withouthotair.com/
As xtal points out, the important thing most people don't get about the numbers is the sheer size.
It is, it turns out, actually possible to get usefully large contributions from what are considered green sources. But you need nation-sized installations.
"Do we need to turn our home into a greenhouse every winter ?"
As someone who just spent the last month with stiff joints, various other extremities issues, little sleep, etc., due to a 68 degree house in a 30 degree outside environment and now has no problems with the temperature at 78 F inside while it's minus 5 F with a blizzard going on outside I say YES!!!!!
"A much more simple way is to cut down on our wasteful lifestyle."
When self-torture is in and being wasteful isn't comfortable and fun then maybe. Until then:
Fuck off you politically correct panty waist.
I learned long ago that it's not worth fucking yourself up if you don't have too.
With exactly 10 seconds of thought on this, couldn't you just put giant wire cages around the turbines? It would certainly reduce efficiency but would prevent direct strikes on the blades.
Was this whole slashdot article typed-up by the (Global warming isn't happening) lobby?
I doubt the birds killed vs number of structures ratio is much worse for turbines.
Also the bird kill on structure rate is about the same for human kill driving. The cause is also the same, they where both tweeting while moving at high speed.
Posting as Anonymous Coward for obvious reason.
I can finally open that Kentucky Fried Eagle franchise I've been dreaming of!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Now I see why, as a political group, those people are so annoying. Bullshit headlines like this make me a lot less interested in whatever asshole cause they are championing.
My truck weighs 5,700lbs, or about 3 tons. You probably think that is insane. Maybe it is... but it is my right to own it because I like it...
No, it's your right to own it, because you can afford it, and don't believe in taking any personal responsibility for common resources, even when it would not decrease your quality of life (a more sensible car would actually improve your quality of life, most likely).
Because you want.
The U.S. should invade Afghanistan to make homes for nesting eagles.
Why do we need heavy cars? Who cares? We want them. We're natural and what we want is natural. Our natural desires for comfort and safety trump your irrational desire to "save the planet"...
You, sir, are a complete and utter fucktard. Go eat a bowl of dicks.
if you can get killed by wind turbines? Trot with the turkeys ... and become dinner.
I'm as green as anyone, but lordy that was some one-sided summary Hugh. Can I at least ask for some other numbers, such as the number of bird kills resulting from pollutants dumped out by the big coal fired plants in Ohio?
I'd be fine with the number of deaths as a percentage.
Wikipedia says (with citations) that there's 100,000 Golden Eagles in north America and that large raptorial birds suffer a 5% mortality rate per year.
By my reckoning that's 5,000 dead birds per year, 75,000 since 1997.
85 of those were due to wind turbines? That's statistical noise.
(Just like all other reports of bird deaths due to wind turbines...)
No sig today...
And the eagles that get killed are defective. They should not fly into windmills.
After a few generations, flying into windmills should be bred out of them if it really is a big issue.
Maybe they could paint the windmill blades a more visible colour to the birds.
Why don't they use those instead? Pic: http://cdn1.hssmedia.fi/Newsmedia/2013/06/11/647/VLBLOT_100575.jpg
Obviously everybody needs to submit their temperature preferences to Taco Cowboy for approval before setting their thermostats.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
So why bother with the exemption. If the number is so few, what possible difference can the equally small fine really amount to. If their is concern about wind turbines and bird deaths, couldn't the result of those fines, plus additional funds be put into vertical wind turbines which are far safer and quieter.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The article offers a ray of hope that Europe might establish a process where permits are granted in three and a half years with only one court about to stop the process:
Of course imagine the outrage if this short-circuiting of the right of protest and judicial review were granted for other types of energy projects ...
The wind industry is just making itself look bad by attempting to indemnify itself, but considering the completely nuts figures jurys come up with in America, not entirely surprising.
Bald eagle pop' est 200,000, conservation status is 'least concern'.
Golden eagle pop' est 170,000 to 250,000 conservation status is 'least concern'.
Farmers, game keepers, egg collectors and tourists disturbing feeding areas are the biggest causes of bird death or nest failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Eagle#Threats
'the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute' Perhaps because without intent, there is actually little to prosecute for?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit Bald Eagle sitting in tree (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). "Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment. The fine doubles for an organization. Rewards are provided for information leading to arrest and conviction for violation of the Act.
In other news (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3033412/posts), an Indiana man was charged this week with the unlawful possession of a bald eagle, which the man says he cared for and rescued from the mud pit in which it was trapped. The former Department of Natural Resources employee, Jeffrey Henry, could face up to 60 days of jail time and a $500 fine as part of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Law is the will of the powerful.
In general birds are more likely to fly into the window of a skyscraper than the blade on a large windmill. The most practical thing you can do to help birds is put a bell on your cat's collar.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Okay, I will probably be modded down for this, but it's worth saying. And for the record, I'm opposed to needlessly killing animals.
The first time I heard about eagles being killed by windmills, I imagined one being cut down while flying from point A to point B, not noticing that there was this lethal windmill in its path. Then, I saw a video on a website of an actual eagle death by windmill (and I apologize for not being able to find & post the link here) and was very surprised bu what I saw. Basically, the eagle was "dancing" with the windmill, repeatedly flying around it over and over. Like a moth flying around a flame. Eventually, the two paths intercepted, and the eagle was hit by the blade.
So part of me wanted to scream "stupid eagle!" and make the natural selection comment. But maybe there is something hypnotic going on that makes the bird want to investigate this strange whirling object?
Maybe a solution to the problem isn't to grant power companies "permits" to kill eagles, but to find a way to repel them rather than attract them.
- Mike
So why bother with the exemption. If the number is so few, what possible difference can the equally small fine really amount to.
Because killing eagles is illegal and there's thousands of the lawyers who'll just see "free money" and make people's lives miserable.
No sig today...
... vertical wind turbines which are far safer and quieter.
Turbines aren't noisy. They're not motor-driven propellers, they move *with* the air.
No sig today...
You know, I get associated with right-winged conservatives all the time (probably for good reason), but I found this article stupid, and just another effort to blame the Obama Administration for something else.
Do you have any idea how many wind turbines there are in California alone? Add to that all the wind turbines in Texas, plus all those strung out over the other 37 states that have wind power, and the fact that ONLY 85 eagles have been killed by them over 15 years is a pretty darn low number. I was expecting to read something like 100 per year. (Okay, granted, Texas isn't really the home of bald eagles)
I get it, I am a patriot, and the hearing that any eagle are killed doesn't sit too well with me. But seriously, 85 over 15 years?
How about an article saying how many animals are ALIVE from us going to windpower and reducing the amount of pollutant in the enviornment?
The Obama Administration issuing permits to wind power companies protecting them from prosecution because a bird is stupid enough to fly into a turbine sounds like a logical move to me.
Now if we were talking hundred or more birds killed a year in the same area, the argument could be made to disassemble some turbines in a given area. But these incidents sound pretty remote. The Altaria Wind Farm in California has 490 turbines. (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States ). I am too lazy to go and look at how many turbines there are total near eagle nesting area, but once again, the numbers reported are really low. (The article does state though that not all deaths are reported, so I can accept that hese numbers may be higher).
Now if the poster can think of a way to get clean energy without any side effects, please tell us, and we will consider you for a Nobel Prize.
Thank god that in a free society you don't get to decide what each of us needs, according to your priorities. Let's go through your closet and see which of your clothes you really need (since ugly clothes protect from cold just as well as fashionable clothes - and do you really need more than one pair of pants?), and which car you really need (since even the cheapest car will take you from a to b), and how much do you spend on coffee, sugar, snacks (not needed, comrade - there are hungry people in Africa) etc etc.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Every summer, it warms.
So your claim is incorrect.
If you wish to claim that the trend is zero, you're wrong.
If you wish to claim that the trend proves that there is no AGW, you're wrong.
Both for the same reason: error bars in the trend estimation are huge for 15 years.
Intra-year variability in a stable climate is about 0.5C. That means the trend could be, if that variability were driving things one way, +0.3C per decade, or more than 50% higher than expected from AGW.
Always ignorant of their hypocrisy.
"If you don't like it, move to China" ring a bell?
I wonder if you understand what is needed to maintain a wind farm's equipment? Hint: It's not wind.
Actually, No. I'm indifferent to fracking, because I haven't read any conclusive evidence it's a harmful process, but they don't just use water. Fracking chemicals are trade secrets. In most places, I don't know where they do, fracking companies don't disclose what's in them.
Because killing eagles is illegal ...
In fact, even doing things that adversely affect their health is ill eagle.
No left turn unstoned.
Because, while it may be just "statistical noise" now, what is it going to be when wind power accounts for half (or three quarters) of our electrical need? How many wind turbines do we have now compared to how many we need? How many eagle deaths are you willing to accept?
They still make noise. It's a quiet, but persistent thunk-thunk-thunk. Just because the air moves them doesn't make them silent any more than leaves on a tree are silent in the wind.
Source: I've been around some goddamn wind turbines.
And Al Gore wants a huge mansion, because he wants one ... so you're all over him too, right?
I would be, if I were talking to him. Him being a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether it's moral to own a big truck when you don't really need one.
For what it's worth, my standard on what sized vehicle is in any way justified is the amount of stuff it carries on a regular basis: Landscaper owns a pickup so he can stick all his tools, mowers, leaf blowers, etc in the back? Fine. Software developer owns a pickup so he can feel manly when driving to work? Luxury. Soccer mom owns an SUV to haul around 4 kids all day? Fine. College girl owns SUV because mom and dad think that will make her safer than driving a sedan? Again, luxury. And actually the most virtuous thing for an office worker going to work alone would be a motorcycle, since they can put a Prius to shame in the fuel efficiency department.
So it's not a class thing. What is actually going on is that without carbon taxes, the free market doesn't price the cost of CO2 emissions into pricing, so you don't end up making economic decisions based on it. Of course, if you don't think CO2 emissions matter at all, than nothing I can write about this will move you in any way whatsoever.
I am officially gone from
When we don't want to burn fossil fuel, and turn to Nuke, we end up having radioactive waste that can last very very long time.
Waste that is relatively tiny in volume compared to that generated by fossil fuel burning power plants while at the same time being far far easier to contain. Oh, then there's the potential for the 'waste' to be used again. I'm sure there's also a reliability argument to be made against 'renewables' as well.
I agree with you on efficiency. Using less to get the same effect is never going to be a bad thing. However, efficiency alone will not solve our problems. Coal/oil/gas is still being burned to produce the electricity whether you use it or not.
By the way, about the cars, when did cars in the US start getting so much bigger than in other places?
We are parasites. Humans are parasites. You. You are a parasite. A very stupid, closed minded parasite.
riding motorcycles to work is too dangerous, what with all those college girls in SUVs and software developers in pickups careening about the roads.
If the Fan Industry didn't put guards on fans.......
The solution is so obvious I should not have to spell it out.
You can drive anything you want, as long as you compensate society for the harm it causes. Right now vehicles are not paying fairly for the damage they do, even in areas with more sensible taxes on fuel. I.e. right now I am paying for your choice of car, and that makes me unhappy.
As to Al Gore mentioned later, we live in a capitalistic society. That means that rich people get to do more damage to the environment and consume more resources. If you want to get away from capitalism, by all means fight for that, but fair resource allocation and mitigation of environmental damage are two distinct causes.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
What a glorious rant, guess what. If you're against this then you should also refuse modern medicine, electronics, any cheap reliable form of heating your home, etc. Be realistic before you start of on rants like these.
Why not go after things that are clearly wasteful?
Driving around in a circle at high speeds burning tons of fuel and replacing the tires frequently? (indy 500).
Sitting in your car for hours on end is considered a "sport"?
I'm afraid the SUV does make the college student safer. There was a good Consumer Reports article on it:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/suvs-are-safer-than-cars-in-front-crashes-but-there-is-more-to-the-story/index.htm
You don't think Turbines are noisy? You don't live near a wind farm, do you? A wind farm generates lots of low frequency impulsive sound.
Sure, but to suggest they generate a 1Hz sound that makes people ill from a mile away is ludicrous.
If they were that loud the shockwaves would make your internal organs explode if you went anywhere near them.
No sig today...
...in a head-on collision.
Which is one of the least-frequent types of collision.
Most car accidents are where somebody stops paying attention and drifts into something else. SUVs do worse in that department because they usually flip over.
No sig today...
I'm not sure that would help eagles. I believe they rely on sight more than sound when finding and targeting small mammals as prey.
The most practical thing you can do to help birds is put a bell on your cat's collar.
I doubt that applies to large eagles. Though it might help them find the meal for today, in case you wanted to get rid of your cat anyways.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Preventable in what manner? If both coal power and wind power kill birds as a byproduct, what are humans supposed to do to generate electric power?
Oh really?
If you buy for fuel efficiency, you can put a smug Prius driver to shame. At a very reasonable price. Simple physics explains why: bike+rider is about 700 pounds, car+driver is about 3500 pounds, so you need much less force to move the bike, which more than offsets the less efficient engines and aerodynamics possible on bikes.
I am officially gone from
I took a tour to a wind farm as a kind of fact finding when they were trying to put one in my area (eventually killed by NIMBY's, none of which went on any of the offered tours). Sure they make noise but your example is quite accurate, its about as much as wind through trees. Standing with one looming overhead it was barely perceivable with no traffic, no trees in the area and everyone quite from a just finished speech from one of the guides. Even standing right at the base it was less noise then you would have standing by a maple on a mildly windy fall day. We were told that some atmospheric conditions could significantly increase the noise (humidity, low temperatures) but if it can increase turbine noise it probably increases other local noises as well (traffic, trees, etc).
Great username for that post
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Wouldn't the lawyers need to be already working with the EPA or as a prosecutor? Your average ambulance-chaser can't just drag wind farm operators to court and demand money because the eagle's family they represent suffered greatly, right?
No, that's "Jerry Gallow", with a "G".
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I agree with you on the 1Hz sound being extremely unlikely to harm humans a mile away. BUT, bats flying close to the blades can die from internal injuries WITHOUT being hit by the blades-- apparently flying into the low pressure bubble just behind the turbine blade can cause blood vessels to pop in the bat's lungs.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wind-turbines-kill-bats
First off, it's my wife's cat.
Second, ... uh ... what size bell works the best?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You're right. We'll never get the CO2 out of the air. Once it's in the stratosphere, it's there forever.
Oh, wait a second. I think they did invent something that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Do you have any "CO2-Removal Plants" in your area? You should talk to your village elders about getting some.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Best comment of the post. I award you the interwebz post of the day
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
say what you will about wastefulness, but dont even think about stopping autosports. Autosports put more asses in seats every year than other sports
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Never dropped this on anyone before, but:
[citation needed]
Average fuel economy of US passenger car fleet: 24.9 (a new record!)
Estimated average motorcycle fuel economy: 35 - 40 mpg. Many models get almost double that.
Show your data where "most motorcycles use more fuel than cars", or shut the fuck up.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Believe it or not, you are the first person to see that joke. Beats being "shallow" I suppose.
That is a very accurate and succinct paraphrasing of the GP's post.
Thank you for providing it for the stupid parasites that are too lazy to read three clearly written and logically coherent paragraphs.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
A fuel efficiency numbers on the first link were shockingly bad. I had always thought that because of the 5x difference in weight that they would get a lot higher MPGs. A lot of the numbers on there were in the 30s and 40s. Shockingly bad given they have a ~1/5th of the weight to move around as a car.
So according to the links you provide, a Prius does put a lot of motorcycles to shame.
Why a cowbell of course.
Your numbers are deeply flawed. And your argument is deeply dishonest. This is not about taking down wind-farms, it is about building more.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Really the main advantage of the Prius or other hybrids is their in city mileage, otherwise you should get a small diesel (from europe :( ) which beat pretty much all those bikes.
Two bells.
One bell doesn't make much noise. Two bells bang together loudly. That's the experience with my cats, anyway. Cats sneak when hunting - if you want the bell to be effective when the cat is trying to be quiet, it'll have to be a constant annoyance to anyone around when the cat isn't sneaking.
I've seen a lot of collars come with decorative, silent bells.
But they use water. Lots of it. Which can be a big issue since the water in part comes back out of the ground (along with some of those wizzy secret chemicals), salt and other bits and pieces. Then the water has to be put somewhere (else). All in the milieu of drilling in typically arid regions.
So, water is big deal to frakking. The industry is working on water mitigation systems (reinjection mostly) but that would never have happened unless the weenie greenies complained.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
No. Put the bells on the turbines.
Or, put those "deer whistles" on each and every blade...multiple places. Sure, It'd cost millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours, but what the hell, that's never stopped the EPA before.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Birds are magnificent but also pretty dumb. I have cardinals hitting my windows during the spring, usually just sitting in my study I hear a *thud* and there's a cardinal either shaking off a headache or lying there dead. Eagles are magnificent and protected for a reason. Wind Farms should be able to develop technology that keeps them away from the turbines. This is a Market Opportunity folks, somebody should be able to come up with like the little bird vinyl stickers you can buy to keep birds from hitting your windows.
Maybe train other Eagles to avoid the Wind Mills and chase other Eagles away? I don't know but there should be a better way than saying "Meh, it's okay kill the Eagles."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
when did cars in the US start getting so much bigger than in other places?
Around the time crash safety standards rose, if rally2xs is to be believed. Or when CAFE was instituted and automakers found they could comply by reclassifying their station wagons (called "estate cars" in some markets) as light trucks, creating the minivan and SUV.
No.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Any progress made with wind, wave or solar will be fought by the traditional power industries. We have all seen pictures of bird kills from oil spills. We can not know the chaos caused by coal or nuclear. But how quickly do complaints come after a bird hits a windmill? Also make note that real solutions are always avoided. Loss of our environment is directly related to population. If we install tight birth control regulation we can actually do something about almost all of our intractable environmental difficulties and most social issues as well. Notice how issues can be converted by this example: Right now we have all kinds of conflicts with our borders and migrant farm workers. The farmers claim they can not get American workers. What they really mean is that they feel that they can not pay the needed wages for American workers. If we reduced our population through enforced birth control from 350 million to 80 million we would need about 75% less farm laborers. We could eliminate 75% of agricultural pollution. We could also eliminate 75% of the housing and streets covering our nation. Wildlife would prosper. Our air and water would be far less polluted. And employment would not be an issues as reduction by birth control means that we would have many seniors needing help from the younger folks in society. And it gets even better. Seniors need less food than younger folks. They also purchase less common goods and things like automobiles as well. Any way you look at it our greatest threat is population and our greatest relief is in planned population shrinkage through birth control.
That is comparable MPG with owner areo modified production cars and they have a place to put your tools and lunch. They also can be driven in the northern winter.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
You don't need to breathe as much as you do. FACT.
Reduce your breathing for the benefit of all...
not true. Comparing apples to apples (i.e. no hybrids or electrics), bikes are going to use less gasoline per distance traveled than a car.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
It's a harm that can't be fairly enumerated...
A good sport anyway.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Wind will probably never supply that kind of percentage of any country's energy needs. It's too erratic and localized. If we're going to use renewable energy, it will have to be through a broad mix of complementary technologies (solar and wind are complementary, as when one is low, the other tends to be high). We should be using wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, and nuclear. Not relying too much on a given technology adds resilience to the system, and allows a given community to use whatever balance makes the most sense locally.
Offshore wind rigs would deal with a lot of the eagle problem. Not many eagles over the horizon on the Great Lakes, Hudson's Bay, or the ocean.
It's interesting to see the amount of vitriol heaped upon Taco Cowboy. I don't think he was telling you that you should be forced to change your lifestyle. He was questioning it. Which is pretty much all slashdot does-question things. And keep in mind, I'm not responding only to you but to the whole host of responses above yours as well.
I think many humans assume that they (as a species) are exceptional and exempt from the laws of nature. This belief has been strengthened by our stunning growth, progress, and dominance since the Renaissance and through the Industrial Age. But there are two catalysts for this growth that are important to consider:
The size of the world literally doubled when Columbus discovered the New World. This doubling provided a vital but transitory safety valve for an overpopulated Europe. The planet will likely not double again.
Fossil fuels began to be used and are now burned at a rate greater than 10,000x their rate of formation. This gave the world a temporarily greater carrying capacity that has subsequently been utilized. It allowed for advances in transportation, resource extraction, globalization, and agricultural production that cannot be sustained without an easily transportable, energy dense fuel source.
But in our dominance, we have also changed the environment that allowed such things; we have taken the opportunity of cheap, abundant energy to not only massively increase our population but to increase the amount of energy per capita required to exist. We clothe ourselves, we build houses and insulate them, we install central heating and air conditioning and connect these sort of human-technological adaptations by a vast network of roadways and railroads and airports. Genetic adaptation in some sense becomes unnecessary given the rate at which cultural adaptation can occur to solve the same problems. But what allowed us to so quickly overcome our environment, technology and cultural transmission of adaptation, also allowed us to quickly and massively overshoot any naturally occurring mechanisms of negative feedback and stabilization. The traditional roles and occupations continually become oversaturated and diversification occurs. But because this increased capacity for diversification is dependent on the draw down of nonrenewable sources, they are niches in what can really only be described as “detritus ecosystem.” And the cycle of a detritus ecosystem is a magnificent bloom and crash based on the plentiful but quickly exhausted and finite availability of nutrients. We are functioning in the manner of algae blooms and yeast cells in a vat of wine.
Honestly, man will probably stop changing its environment only when it ceases to exist, no matter what we do. I'm really not making a moral judgment. It's just the circumstances we are in. But to say this guy is a Nazi because he suggests today's current cars are wasteful or to reduce his argument to one arguing for the forced reduction of the human population seems a bit hysterical.
Yeah, I do think we have too many people for the world to sustain. Especially if they all want to live like Americans. The answer is probably not to sterilize them, but maybe Americans can reduce their standard of living.
Like every year, a number of people die getting hit by freight trains. These things are massive, make a lot of noise and oh ya, can only travel along well defined paths. Still, some people seem to get snuck up on by 3000 ton trains and killed.
It really is a case of natural selection.
Shiver in the dark environmentalists deserve what they get.
As for "detritus ecosystem": We're not going back to pre-industrial times (and having the vast majority of the population die off in the process) voluntarily. If you're right, it's going to happen anyway, but there's no reason to start dying off before the resources are exhausted.
What?
Most motorcycles get between 45 and 60 mpg. Almost no cars sold in America get that kind of mileage. I realize that in Europe there are efficient small diesels, we don't have those here. In Japan, efficient and cool mini-cars. We don't have those here. If you want to get 50 mpg, you need to find a 1980s era Honda CRX, or ride a motorcycle, because none of the truly interesting cars are sold in America.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Of course, wind power only provides about 4% of the US electricity supply. And the eagle deaths are only the industry-reported ones. The study also excluded the well known eagle death trap - Altamont Pass in California - because its 60 eagle deaths per year swamp the rest.
The takeaway here is probably "be careful about siting". I doubt the massive wind farms in flat, rural Indiana kill many eagles.
If it was pure H2O you'd have a point. But it's not, and you don't.
You need to take a look at the very long list of hazardous chemicals they put in that H2O.
http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/MotorcycleFuelEconomyGuide/best-motorcycle-MPG-under500cc.htm
Try that one instead. Someone buying for economy (I did) would select something other than a 2l Harley.
Learn to love Alaska
People? Like Soylent Green?
Hint: you're hinting at nothing.
Motorcycles are more efficient than cars if you don't account for the greatly multiplied rate of human injury and sacrifice.
Only in "America", where you are penalized for animals committing suicide ... idiots.
This is no joke. While working at a DOE energy lab, one of my coworkers was riding his motorcycle and put into a vegetative state when a teenage girl was texting and plowed into his motorcycle at speed with her SUV. I've also been onsite at DUI crashes within minutes afterwards.
We can argue all day about driving skills, vehicle weight, etc. In 10 years or so, its going to be self-driving cars for everyone, because no insurance company would ever insure a human over refined software and precision sensor packages.
Most SUV deaths are due to rollovers or loss of control, as people driving an SUV get a false sense of security.
Well, you could get a 1999-2006 Honda Insight, but then you'd have to "settle" for 70-100 MPG.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well, that's a pretty decent point. The only thing I can really offer in response is that learning to do more with less has a number of personal benefits outside of some utopian idea that if everyone does it we'll be able to sustain our existence forever.
It seems that people can put three things toward any problem: time, skill, or money. Most people work so much and with such a specific set of skills that they have neither the time nor the skill to solve anything else.So they throw money at it. Having more time or a wider array of competencies sacrifices efficiency for resiliency, but I would say that in an economy of increasingly scarce resources (which seems like where we're headed) resiliency will probably have a pretty high value. Now whether one, today, can tell themselves that it's more fulfilling (of greater value) to have the time and skill to fix problems on their own rather than throw money at it (or petition the government to throw money at it) is probably pretty variable and likely requires a fair amount of self-reflection.
I will say that spending less money (and I'm conflating this with consuming fewer resources which maybe isn't completely accurate but I think so) does not necessarily entail poverty or a lower standard of living. People have numerous types of capital (social, intellectual) such that the people living below the poverty line (around 11k I think in the US) which I suppose I am one of are not necessarily impoverished. The truly impoverished are probably like that for a greater variety of reasons than the fact that they have less than 11k to spend on things.
And I think you're right. The world as a whole will not voluntarily go back to pre-Industrial times. But the individual can do things today such that when it's forced on them (should it happen in their lifetime) they are potentially less affected or less vulnerable.
Unless your cat is a Savannah cat (the largest, most wild cat legal to keep as a pet in most states) eagles have nothing to worry about. Your cat is food to an eagle.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I would mod this: +1 Punny
Not antique. Still manufactured by Aermotor Windmills right here in the good old USA, and still the best way to get water out of a well in thousands upon thousands of places. http://www.aermotorwindmill.com/
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Or, you seal the waste in basketball sized tungsten spheres, drill as deep into the crust as you can, and drop the sphere in. The radioactive waste heats up the sphere, causing it to melt its way down into the the crust, eventually penetrating into the mantle, never to be seen again. This system has actually been seriously proposed, and in my mind, seems like the best bet. Put it somewhere we can never go, and its no longer a problem. (the original proposal calls for drilling the holes in the sea floor, so that the distance to the mantle is less.)
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Wait what? maybe you mean "produces more C02" than a car. Which *may* be true, because emissions regulations are lest strict on motorcycles in a lot of places, but "Use more fuel"? not a chance. Most motorcycles get around 50-70mpg, while your average SUV gets around 18-20mpg.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
The new Chevy Cruze diesel engine model touts 46 mpg on the highway. (and its mostly american.)
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
...you just need to be aware of the bias. All articles have bias to some degree; writing completely without bias cannot effectively convey ideas--lack of bias reduces an article of writing to nothing but an enumeration of facts. Bias is required to support arguments and formulate ideas, or else you are just making the worlds most boring encyclopaedia.
Thus, it is best to actively seek out and focus on biased articles and apply critical thinking--and look at articles biased on BOTH sides. So, don't b!tch about the bias in an article being against your personal views, go out and seek another article biased towards the opposite side of the argument and evaluate each argument on its merits.
How many birds are killed by coal pollution might be part of a valid counter-argument but it does not invalidate the fact that wind tubines kill eagles and other birds, nor the fact that the government is giving the industry preferrential treatment. Where I live Oil Sands is a major source of energy, and upgrader plants (particularly the oldest ones) have tailings ponds. When countermeasures fail and several dozen birds land on the toxic tailings and die the incident is widely reported and the oil companies are held to account, paying thousands per bird found. If they are held fully liable and are subject to mandated full disclosure of all animal fatalities resulting from their operations then how come wind farms get a free pass?
Wind makes no CO2 and is renewable and that is good, but killing wildlife and destroying habitat is bad no matter who does it, and everyone who does it should be responsible for it. We don't give drivers of hybrid cars a free pass if they are at fault in an accident or let them pour their used oil into a storm drain because their cars have a smaller carbon footprint--that would be asinine! Just because an energy source is renewable doesn't mean it has no impact on the environment (just look at how devestating renewable hydroelectric power has been to the environment in China as an example). ALL energy development must be done sustainably throughout the lifecycle. You could never get a nuclear plant built adjacent to a residential neigbourhood, you couldn't get Keystone XL bulit across an aquifer and you wouldn't give BP a break on the cleanup costs of Deepwater Horizon. You shouldn't give a wind farm of hundreds of turbines covering hundreds of acres a free pass on killing birds, destroying habitats and affecting the health of nearby residents just because it is "carbon free".
FAIRNESS matters.
The oil inudstry where I am kills less birds than the wind farms in the area, and the amount killed by wind farms is already quite small, yet the oil industry is required by law to be fully liable for all bird deaths and must, at their own expense, install countermeadures to drive birds away from hazardous areas (scarecrows, air cannons, supersonic noise makers, etc). Even if only a few dozen birds die in a year, and even though none are endangered they are rightly held fully accountable in that respect, as are all industrial operations in my juristiction.
So, tell me why being "carbon neutral" gives a wind farm a free pass to kill animals and destroy habitat?
No, he's arguing that the fossil fuel industry has been given a de facto permit to kill wildlife (and people) for generations, so it's a little bit dishonest to all of a sudden say, "Oh look! The renewable energy industry is bad for flora and fauna!" and then clutch your pearls as if this wouldn't have happened if they just let the fossil fuel industry continue to turn the world inside-out.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Small diesel? Did you see that there are bikes on his list that get over 100MPG?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Never dropped this on anyone before, but:
[citation needed]
Average fuel economy of US passenger car fleet: 24.9 (a new record!)
Estimated average motorcycle fuel economy: 35 - 40 mpg. Many models get almost double that.
Show your data where "most motorcycles use more fuel than cars", or shut the fuck up.
Interestingly enough, a Prius gets 51/48 est. mpg, which is significantly better than the average for motorcycles, meaning that the Prius uses less gas than most motorcycles. (Simple statistics) For all passenger cars, the average is over 35mpg. It appears that motorcycles on average aren't much better than cars. Sadly.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So why bother with the exemption.
The fines aren't the issue - protection from litigation is. Environmental groups can tie up projects for years by citing environmental concerns. No matter who ultimately prevails in court, the damage to the profitability to the project is damaged to the point that it has a chilling effect on future investment in the industry.
This exemption removes an arrow from their quiver since eagle deaths cannot be used as a basis for litigation.
They can sue on environmental grounds. Not for damages, but to stop the project. This type of litigation makes building nuclear plants, refineries, dams or large water reservoirs almost impossible, since any attempt will be tied up on court for years.
Because he's a real cool cat. The only thing he needs is more cowbell!
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
To get rid of the cat? I think this size should work:
http://www.capecentralhigh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/First-Presbyterian-Church-Bell-11-31-1965-10.jpg
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
to defend it. BP recently got caught paying trolls to send people death threads on the web. Google it. Or what aboit the time they "lost" a laptop containing personal data about tens of thousands of people? If money had a dick, your lips would be around it.
No, no they do not, not even close..
As an example, my 1800cc high performance cruiser (which ignoring race bikes is a real fuel guzzler) does about 20% better than my 3l high efficiency bmw turbo diesel (which is a very efficient engine for its output).
My sports bike does about the same as the diesel, and my race bike is much worse (on the track.. as you would expect).
A steppie I had once upon a time did over 100mpg around town.
A honda CB700x (a very nice commuter/touring bike) does over 60 mpg combined.
Hell, a Yamaha VStar 1300 cruiser gets 78mpg open road.
there used to be an argument against bikes because few had catylytic converters and therefore had higher NOx, etc than small cars, although most these days do so that is pretty much long gone.
Care to try again?
And? Motorcycles can approach and even exceed 100mpg, and without the horrible environmental load of building a prius, making its battery pack, and disposing of it all..
Care to try again?
Find ways to breed them, and not necessarily all in their natural habitat.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I'd be willing to bet that the "horrible environmental load" of building those sub 40mpg motorcycles may not be that much less than the Prius, especially when you add in the 2+ of them you'll need to ferry around the average family of 4, plus the extra cargo arrangement for carting home groceries etc, as AC mentioned. Then tally the human cost of even the most minor wreck on a motorcycle, all of a sudden they don't look so appealing by any metric.
Yes, I'm aware you can get a 100 mpg moped that'll do tops 30-40 mph, and that's great. Once you get out in the real world, and have to work at a real job, that might take you 40+ miles from where you live, 2 wheels just doesn't cut it. Some people require face time, and no, you're not going to move every 6-18 months. Get over yourself. If you want to ride a motorcycle, no one's stopping you, no matter how stupid you might be. Denying facts doesn't change them.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I always thought it was a role playing persona used for some of your odder posts instead of a joke
Cat hearing is extremely sensitive compared to ours, so I think the bells would be more than uncomfortable for the cat, even if they don't necessarily damage its hearing.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
2006. Seven years ago. I think that's just another data point on my suggest that none of the really interesting cars are sold in America.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
It's eagles or arabs. I'll choose eagles.
Play Command HQ online
You don't need to breathe as much as you do. FACT.
Reduce your breathing for the benefit of all...
Are you the one to blame for that 'think about your breathing' meme from a few years back?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Turbines are stopped and the blades fully cleaned at least once a year anyway - bug residue and airborne particulates (mostly carbon based - hmm) adds a surprising amount of drag and reduces efficiency. It's a popular gig with rock climbers since the skills aren't that common, the work is seasonal, and the money is great.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
Have we lost all humanity ??? In many ways we extend care to creatures .. protect the innocent .. those unable to cope with our new world ..
and now we've descended to the pits of depravity .. murdering our national symbol and more .. for what???
So Big Biz wont have to install screening around turbines????
This is disgusting news .. repulsive, vomitous ...
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
Deer whistles don't work. If anything, it means the deer stops in the middle of the road to wonder what the hell that stupid whistling noise is.
What does work is not outdriving your vision.
The other thing that works is driving a lifted pickup with a big bumper. If I were to hit an elk, I would probably lose my radiator, but I wouldn't hurt my truck. My biggest problem would be wondering how to get the elk into the back of my truck.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
To get rid of the cat? I think this size should work:
If your cat is a fully grown lion, maybe.
I'm no fan of Al Gore, but global impact of all the senseless trucks is pretty big, compared to global impact of senseless mansions. Also. the mansion itself might not be a nig deal, unless it is poorly insulated (lot of heating and cooling required), and watering its lawns etc draws from depleting water reserves (depends on location). Also, I happen to think that spending resources on long-lasting things (even mansions, and this assumes it is built to last) is much better than spending money on stuff like cars, which often don't last even a decade.
>You should move to a warmer city where you don't need to be so wasteful.
Typical liberal, tells everyone else how to live.
"[Telling] everyone else how to live" is authoritarianism, not liberalism. Authoritarianism comes in both left and right flavors — neither palatable, in my opinion.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Apparently unless you're a corporation with enough money and influence to buy an exemption.
I saw one, but most appeared to be in the 60-70 range and some of the overseas cars are 80-90 mpg.
46mpg is mediocre at best.
And with carbon taxes, the only people really impacted by the added expense are those who are mostly unable to move to a much more efficient vehicle -- the poor. Mr. Rich can afford to commute in a 7,000 lb SUV with a big V8. Meanwhile Jimmy has a weekend job landscaping so he needs a truck, but the other five days a week he needs it to commute. He can't afford to buy another car (also with the insurance, taxes, etc.) to save gas during the week.
The US doesn't do small diesels. The VW Golf here has a minimum 2l diesel that gets 30 city, 42 highway. But in Germany you can get a 1.6 that gets 62 city, 73 highway.
You can also get a Polo over there, a little smaller than a Golf, with a 1.2l diesel that gets 59 city, 81 highway.
They won't sell these over here partly because of demand, but also because of safety and environmental regs.
Actually private prosecution is allowed, it's not common because criminal cases that public attorneys decline to prosecute are often not winnable or otherwise worthwhile to pursue. Often there is typically no incentive for a private attorney to prosecute someone. Lastly, they would need to show cause to the judge for why they should be allowed to prosecute someone, and presuming there was enough cause, the public attorney would interlope or take the case back.
It's happened in the past, but is very rare today since nearly every jurisdiction elects an officer of the court to handle this. i.e. the state's attorney.
Mot bikes I'm interested in use about 10l 'super' gasoline per 100km, most cars use about 7l-8l and in case of diesel far less.
However I just checked the web site of BMW, seems they improved the bikes previous 5years.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Most motor bikes a few years ago DID use more fuel than a car (a german car).
Produce more CO2? Wow that shows how dumb people ate in our times. If it uses less fuel, how can it produce more CO2? There is a 1:1 relationship between fuel and CO2.
(*facepalm*)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I wouldn't dispute that. I just personally haven't read anything that can prove fracking is harmful, cover up or not, so I'm indifferent to it.
Well I guess indifferent might not be the right term. My preference would be to err on the side of caution and not use fracking until it's proven not to be harmful. I would also prefer we develop and use other energy sources besides oil, so that's kind of another tick against it. I do understand that coal and oil are are primary energy sources at the moment so unfortunately until the other technologies are up to snuff we really have no choice.
All of the ones I've been around have been erected within the past 10 years, most within the past five. They're part of windfarms for electricity along some of the ridges in the area. They're not huge by windmill standards, but they're still several hundred feet tall.
I guess most people dont understand that a SUV only has a 'momentum advantage' if they crash into a smaller/leighter vehicle.
As soon as it is SUV vs. SUV (or any other kind of truck) the SUV only give a slight advantage in case its frame is more rigid and there are more airbags.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The noise can get annoying if you're exposed to it for an extended period of time, such as trying to read a book in a quiet room, but it's no worse than having the guy who lives in the apartment upstairs from you leaving his radio on all the time just loud enough to know it's on but not loud enough to make out what's playing.
I think I've asked this before, but don't remember getting an answer.
I realize people would consider this uglier than existing windmills, but is there a reason something like a chain link fence couldn't be put around windmills as a visual "barrier" to the birds? Seems to me like it would be a visual barrier, yet not actually impede the wind flow much. (Yes, I know small birds can and do fly through chain link fences too.)
All true, but you can't plant enough trees to absorb all the CO2 being released from 100 million years of dead dinos (and dead plants).
You can drive anything you want, as long as you compensate society for the harm it causes.
The trick, of course, is to figure out what that "harm" is, and what the "compensation should be.
Giving you money because I pollute doesn't remove the pollution. If it did, I'd perhaps not mind so much.
If our government was actually dependable in keeping pots of money separate, and could create a carbon reducing pot of money that ONLY reduced carbon and didn't mix with general funds, then I'd be more supportive of such a program.
I'm in Texas, they say "The Texas Lotto supports Texas Education".
Well, it does, all the funds from the Lotto do go to generation education, but the funds that the state tax revenue that used to go there were diverted somewhere else, so no net change to education.
That's the problem...
I could drive my big truck, or not, won't change anything. If you want to change things, then you have to change the rules of society.
It is worth keeping in mind that if we put carbon taxes into place and double the price of fuel, it won't change what I drive, for two reasons. First, I can afford that, second, I actually use the space and abilities of my truck, so a smaller car won't work for me. What you WILL do is hurt the poor, who have no extra money to pay double the fuel prices, even for their small cars.
For what it's worth, my standard on what sized vehicle is in any way justified is the amount of stuff it carries on a regular basis
On that basis of justification, almost nothing in our world is "justified". We don't need any TVs, any computers, or any airplanes. We could revert back to a 19th century style of farm life and be just fine.
Once you move beyond just living to be alive and spending all your time and energy looking for food, then it ALL becomes "want".
I totally believe that CO2 emissions matter, there is no future in the burning of dead dinos. If you have read my other posts on the subject, I'm totally on board with electric cars, clearly it is the future. GM doesn't make an all electric Suburban, or even a "Volt technology" type Suburban. If they did, for a reasonable price, I'd be all over it.
Carbon taxes don't help, because they don't actually cause people who can afford $60K trucks to change their behavior (I can afford gas prices doubling), but what they do is crush the poor who can't afford double gas prices for even small cars.
This is no joke. While working at a DOE energy lab, one of my coworkers was riding his motorcycle and put into a vegetative state when a teenage girl was texting and plowed into his motorcycle at speed with her SUV.
Not trying to be cruel, but frankly the SUV did its job, and it simply proves the point as to why I'll never ride a motorcycle.
I have 3 kids, when they reach driving age, they'll be in trucks, regardless of their cost. No amount of carbon taxes will change that. Hopefully they'll be electric trucks with power produced from non-carbon fuel sources.
It is perfectly OK for society to decide what the compensation should be used for. If that turns out to be lower taxes, then that is fine too. The will of the people and all that.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Well, did the contractor who built the building you live in drive his supplies around in a prius?
Generally they'd drive a company van (usually with a high-mpg diesel engine) full of tools and stuff, or their own small car if someone else brought tools and materials. I think very few owned a van, or especially a pick-up (because those are pretty useless in the climate around here, compared to a tall van).
The will of the people and all that.
While I completely agree with you in principle, in practice it isn't so clear cut.
The average person doesn't understand most things, and tends to vote with their heart and wallet first, both are really poor ways to do it.
The flip side is you end up with a dictatorship where someone else "decides for you", which isn't actually bad when they actually care about you, but REALLY sucks when they don't.
There have been kings (and queens) throughout history who actually did care about their people. And there have been just as many who were horrible beyond belief.
I have no easy answers... but what I will say is that the "will of the people" can easily be "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner".
It's 99.5% water and sand. The other 0.5% includes things like guar gum, alcohol, and various other things that are also in your dinner. Also a few scarier sounding things, mainly petroleum products like propane and hexane. More on these *ane chemicals in paragraph 3. That's not to say that a specific type of fracturing, in some very specific type of circumstance, might not have some undesirable effects, but those effects aren't due to "huge amounts of nasty chemicals".
It may be useful to note there are two major types of fracturing. In the most common, cracks a few inches long are re-created along the bore hole, which had been polished smooth by the drill. This type of fracturing effects only a few inches from the bore. This has been extremely common for many years. The well your tap water comes from is likely fractured.
The second category of fracturing creates much larger fractures. It's not used much for water wells. More often, it's used for wells that take chemicals out of the ground, like petroleum (all of those *ane chemicals we mentioned earlier). They pump in a little bit of propane, petroleum jelly, etc., in order to get a lot more of the same type of products out. On net, they take a lot more *ane out than they put in. That's because they aren't stupid - putting in more than they are going to get out would be a huge waste of money.
Fixing democracy is different from making polluters pay for the damage they do. They are two separate causes. We should not delay one just because the other one is not done yet.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I did indeed make a mistake there. I should have used the word 'polutants' rather than C02. which would have been far more correct.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
I imagine the demand will rise, as the price of fuel continues to rise. We shall see.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Otherwise it just becomes a money grab and the cause is damaged because of it.
I'm actually on-board with the whole idea of cutting fossil fuel consumption, the question is, how do we go about it?
Personally? I think building a hundred new nuclear reactors is a really good start, but a lot of people disagree with that. Mostly people who think with emotions rather than with the facts.
How bad would putting a mesh around the area where the turbines spin impact their input?
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
It does not matter where the money goes. It is a separate problem.
If I make a dent in your car, I have to pay you what it would cost to fix the dent. Whether you choose to fix the dent or scrap the car and buy a helicopter or spend it on Christmas gifts is not my problem.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Deer whistles work fine. Making them freeze in place is the point. You know where they are and can drive around them. If you let them decide which way they are gonna go, they choose the direction your car is in every single time.
Here's a hint. The deer whistles don't paralyze the deer. You go to drive around them, they just run that way. The surest way to not hit a deer is to aim for it, unless you're counting on that. In any case, the deer don't give one shit about deer whistles around here. Presumably, they're used to them. The ones too dumb to get out of the road to begin with are too dumb to learn what a deer whistle means. By the time they figure it out, you've already run them down.
I actually live in deer country and have never hit one (knockonwood) and suspect the primary way I've achieved this is to pay attention. I've only ever seen one hit, though it happens all the time around here. The one I saw hit was hit by a truck right in front of me who wouldn't get the living shit out of my way on Bottle Rock Road, but he thought he was fast so he was outdriving his ability and BLAMO. The deer avoided the trash truck coming the other way, but he nailed it with his right corner, meaning that if he'd simply seen it and slowed a bit, he'd probably have missed it. I guess I won that round, whee.
We need to relax hunting regs to a no bag limit. They're like pigeons around these parts (TN) and everyone is tired of them jumping in front of their cars.
Well, I don't know what it's like where you are, but the general lack of water is playing hell with deer populations here. They seem thick, but illegal poaching is rampant and they're really concentrated around civilization since that's where the water is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It does not matter where the money goes. It is a separate problem.
Except... if you don't use all the "new money" to fix the problem, then what is the point in doing it?
That was my point about the money grab comment, if you don't actually want to fix the dent, then it comes across as money envy... and you'll find you get a lot less support for that...
We have three problems. One, our environmental regs are hostile to diesels. They were practically forbidden in California for years. Two, we tax diesel like gasoline. Those are easily fixable by a rational government if we had one.
But three, most of our refinement is for gasoline, not diesel, so supply and demand kicks in. We have about enough supply to meet commercial demands, but not enough to handle mass personal diesel consumption. It would require a huge, expensive infrastructure change for us to refine as much diesel as the Europeans do.
You cannot fix the dent, in this case. Extracting the various exhaust gases from the air is not economically or practically viable at this point. Therefore we have to go with compensation.
It is not really different from all other cases -- victims of violence do not stop being victims when they are given compensation, the car you know in and out and kept in pristine condition does not go back to being exactly the same after a repair, and so on. We cannot make what is done undone, second law of thermodynamics.
I hope I can get support for fair compensation of victims.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I hope I can get support for fair compensation of victims.
Except in this case, we're all victims... Paying you makes no sense when I breath the same air...
Even worse, you'd harm the economy without actually fixing anything...
If that money was exclusively used to install new solar power, I'd at least feel better about it, but from what you're saying, you just want cash.
The amount of harm done to you personally is a very small proportion of the total harm. But yes, you should obviously get paid that amount as a victim yourself. Reduce the compensation you have to pay accordingly.
I am not harming the economy, I am demanding rightful restitution for harm done.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I am demanding rightful restitution for harm done.
To do that in a court of law, you generally have to be able to show damages.
In this case, the whole thing is still up for debate, so I don't believe you can actually prove damages, at least not to the extent required by law.
The link between vehicle emissions and heart disease is uncontroversial. The link between CO2 and global warming is even better documented. While the harm that is inflicted specifically on me from one particular car is too small to count in a court of law, nothing stops me from using democracy to handle the compensation in aggregate.
I drive a car too, so I will have to pay compensation as well of course.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The link between CO2 and global warming is even better documented.
Actually, I completely and totally disagree with you here, the link is fragile at best. It will be awhile before any link is remotely documented well enough to pass the court of law test.
That being said, the risks of burning all that CO2 and finding out that it is bad is high, so I'm willing to be a bit preemptive and cut it back, even without a real link between the two.
After all, by the time we have real evidence, it may well be too late to do anything about it. Better not chance destroying our only place to live.
But frankly, just taxing people is not the solution.
While the harm that is inflicted specifically on me from one particular car is too small to count in a court of law, nothing stops me from using democracy to handle the compensation in aggregate.
That is true, and nothing stops me from doing the same to stop you.
Isn't it time for us to demand the electric car vehicle manufacturer to TOTALLY RE-DESIGN the electric cars, so that it won't weight so much ?
There is no physics based reason for a car to weigh as much as it does. Take off the body and replace with folding chairs and a flat board and the vehicle will weigh substantially less and mpg will probably quadruple. Of course, when that car moving 40+ mph hits another car, or an inanimate object like a tree, the occupants will all be killed or seriously injured, but that is okay, because we've improved fuel efficiency.</sarcasm>
In all seriousness, if the NHTSA is going to mandate minimum standards for collisions then the car has to be heavy. You can have lightweight, or safe in a high speed collision, but not both.