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?"
hydrocarbons
Provide much less energy than fusion energy from the sun because there is a finite amout of the stuff in the ground. Same for uranium.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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...
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...
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.
Because killing eagles is illegal ...
In fact, even doing things that adversely affect their health is ill eagle.
No left turn unstoned.
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
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
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
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.
Why a cowbell of course.