Left Hand, Meet . . . the Other Left Hand
Recently, the Department of the Interior announced it was granting “green energy” producers operating wind farms 30-year permits to kill eagles. In essence, it was a recognition of the fact that such “green energy” programs are not free of significant detrimental environmental effects despite the claims to the contrary.
The permits are likely essential. There’s really no good way to keep birds from flying into such wind farms. For this form of “green energy” to be viable the companies operating wind farms need legal protection.
So, all is good, right? Um, well . . . not exactly.
It seems that an environmental group – the American Bird Conservancy – takes exception to this new rule. They’ve announced their intent to file a Federal lawsuit over this new rule. They’re alleging it’s a violation of three major environmental laws: the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
I think this one is gonna be fun to watch. (smile)
Category: Legal, Liberals suck, Who knows
Sounds like some shades of green are more equal than others. Whatever. Let ’em stand on each others’ necks for awhile, and get off of ours.
I recently took a new job working for a eagle aviary and we have to renew permits every 2 years to save eagles. The idea that these “green energy” companies can get a 30 year take permit is beyond sickening.
Whatever happened to Hydroelectric Power, y’know, zero-emissions,.. *OOP!*, that’s right, those racist dams impede fish from traveling as they please, so thus these bird-mashers *whoops!* wind farms hafta go, don’t they? Wind farms are a proven failure vs. hudroelectric dams which have been successes, I second the motion to let the lefties have a free-for-all on each others’ throats, lemme know when it starts, I’m stocking up on beer, chips, & popcorn!!
I don’t support hydroelectric because of the enormous damage it often does to river ecosystems, but damn if you ain’t right about the hypocrisy of wind advocates who don’t support hydroelectric dams. They want something that’s just as destructive to fauna, is far more land intensive, and will produce little to no actual power, while decrying hydroelectric, an about equally destructive thing that can actually produce significant amounts of power! There really is no rhyme or reason to these people.
HS, about the dams causing problems, it’s mostly hogwash. Raceways for fish migration and fish hatcheries have taken care of that, but liberal crusaders never let truth and facts get in the way of indoctrinating people!!
HS the river ecosystems here are both beautiful and thriving. Fish, birds and all manner of natural wildlife. The “damage” of ruined river ecosystems, I am sorry to say, is a myth of gigantic proportions. The flora and fauna in the local rivers as well as the far outlying areas affected, which are huge, are both thriving and vibrant.
HS – how do you feel about “Restore Hetch Hetchy”?
For those that don’t know, this reservoir in Yosemite National Park provides the majority of San Francisco’s water supply (and minimal hydro power). Background info at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy
If anyone wants to research an environmental shit storm, this is one of the most debated in N. California.
I’m torn between keeping the dam and tearing it down. Keep it because the environment (flora & fauna) has adjusted and is flourishing. Tear it down so SF has to find another water supply…
Proud…As a not so proud resident of the liberal, leftist state of Washington where there are many, hydroelectric dams your point is right on. The left side of the state in all there wisdom have tried repeatedly to completely, tear down the dams. That’s how far they want to go. From the ones on the Snake Rive to all the ones up the Columbia including the Grand Coulee Dam itself. You know the engineering marvel finished in 1942. These dams have turned the arid wasteland that was the Mid Columbia region into a green, prosperous agricultural center. Not just here but Oregon and Idaho as well. Why? All because the Indian tribes singing in harmony with the “green” people on the left side, say it is hurting the little fishies. Now let’s not forget that fish ladders have been installed on every dam so as not to impede their spawning migration. No let’s completely tear them down and let the rivers run their original natural course. Oh and by the way, they want the Energy Northwest Nuclear Reactor shut down as well. Even though these dams and this reactor supply the lion’s share of power to the left side of the state. Without them we go back to a desert. A skunk and snake infested shit hole with no jobs, no need for homes because no one will live here and well I guess the left side will be hooking their bicycles up to the power panel for a little juice at night. This has been a sore subject up here since I came in 1979 and it continues today. As for wind power, Energy Northwest owns most of them here because the tax incentives are enormous. They are inefficient at producing power because well, first the wind has to be blowing and the maintenance on them is through the roof expensive. They put very little power onto the grid and are by all accounts money losers unless you own the land they lease from you to put them on. This information from the Chief Counsel for the company. I’m… Read more »
Additionally if they want to tear something down. Tear down the inefficient, money losing wind turbines. They are both an eyesore and a harm to anything flying nearby.
Just go on you tube, and there are plenty of videos highlighting the problems they cause, one of which is noise.
If those dams in Washington and Oregon prevent fish migration like they say, then how is it that while visiting family up there I have pulled some bigass salmon out of the Snake River in freakin’ IDAHO??!!!
Nothing like giant propeller blades rumbling along to disrupt flight patterns and make a nasty mess of any birds unlucky enough to misunderstand the technology….
The irony here about green energy not hurting the environment is almost too interesting to ignore though….the folks who promote this stuff now have the permits needed to kill the symbol of American freedom and excellence on a daily basis.
Base load.
Until coal can be replaced with another high density fuel these exotics will not fill the base load requirement.
Nuke or some seriously large natural gas systems.
IMO nuclear would be the ticket, H1. Reliable, steady, and the fuel is effectively renewable (with reprocessing/breeding and use of mixed oxide). Once fuel has been used in a power plant it’s generally not suitable for use in weapons (too high a PU-240/241 fraction), and the waste problem is manageable (glassification and Yucca Mountain, Reid be damned).
Hell, if we built enough nuclear capacity, we could also produce hydrogen (via electrolysis or hi-temp disassociation of water) to replace a sh!tload of our natural gas/petroleum needs – and between the two, that would produce effectively a ZERO carbon dioxide.
However, environmentalists seem to hate nuclear power too. Go figure.
Hondo…Thank you. The Energy Northwest Reactor here has been putting out lots of great power for decades. The Columbia River’s flow rate will support several more but again, the left side of the state and the national anti-nuke folks will never let it happen.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
68W58: Thanks for that link. I’d never heard of liquid thorium reactors. I learn more good stuff reading at TAH.
Hondo: Watching the greenies square off is like watching two worthless brother-in-laws pound on each other. Heh…
68W58…Thanks for the link. I learned something as well.
Wired Magazine article about Thorium reactors….. the first time I had ever heard of them was when I read this article. It is a good one.
http://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
On another note, what should you do if you see an endangered animal eating and endangered plant?
68W58: liquid-metal-salt reactors using the thorium cycle (often misnamed as “thorium fueled” reactors – they’re not; thorium is used to breed U233, which is the fissile isotope that is “burned) have some advantages, especially if you’re looking at end-uses that also require a source of high temperature. However, they have one huge drawback: designs that are efficient in breeding the fuel are also susceptible to being modified to produce weapons-grade U233. Designs that aren’t as efficient in producing U233 avoid that problem by producing an unacceptably high fraction of U232 – which later greatly complicates fuel reprocessing and handling. Without going into the details (which get a bit complicated), a thorium cycle reactor produces U233 indirectly – e.g., by producing an intermediate by-product which decays to U233. (Plutonium is produced in much the same manner, using an intermediate by-product). However, like in plutonium production (but through a different nuclear process), it also produces a less-desirable uranium isotope – U232. U232 is fissile, but also decays with an moderately short half-life to a series of other elements that are intensely radioactive. If one uses what is called a 2-fluid design in a molten-metal-salt reactor – which is the most efficient design for producing U233 – one fluid loop (the blanket) can be operated to use only thorium salts in order to breed U233. Because the intermediate product that decays to U233 has a half-life of nearly 30 days, if some or all of this “blanket” fluid is continuously replaced and reprocessed immediately, nearly pure U233 (e.g., with on the order of 1-5 parts per million) can be produced. U233 at that purity is literally the “best of both worlds” (or worst, depending on your perspective) for making what we today would call “crude” nuclear bombs. It will work with reasonable efficiency in implosion designs, has a critical mass much closer to plutonium than to that of HEU, and (unlike plutonium) will also work in gun designs. It’s thus not something you want a rogue state looking to produce a crude bomb to acquire. U233 produced in a single-fluid reactor will have… Read more »
One eagle feather. Just one. Doesn’t matter that you just found it. Doesn’t matter if you took it from the decaying carcas of an eagle. It’s your ass, at $25,000 per feather–certain Indian tribes excepted.
2/17 Air Cav…”Excepting certain Indian tribes”. No hypocrisy there huh. No one has the balls to tell the tribes to live in the twenty first century and let’s not even mention in whispered tones to get off those dilapidated reservations and get a job in the real world. OR, great idea here, just use the money the federal government pours on them and make the reservations a decent place to live. I did volunteer work for two weeks on the Navaho reservation a few years back. All we did was clean up houses and trailers the Indians lived in. If they wanted to shit and throw it out the window, cool, they did and I watched it. The “leaders” of the tribe lived off reservation in larger nearby cities and lived very, VERY well off. The regular old guy on the reservation had no power, no septic, a well for water and that was it. But did they take the chiefs and leaders to task about where all the federal money was going that was suppose to improve the standards of living for the run of the mill tribe member? Never. There seemed to be a real advantage to the “leaders” to keep the rank and file, illiterate and uniformed. Just MHO and observations.
Sparks: Yeah, well, there is that 14th Amendment thingy that requires equal protection under the law. That’s the issue that jumps off the page whenever one group of Americans is treated differently under the law than is another group. There are ways around but I’m not looking into it. I figure it’s a fair trade: They got disease, war, and lost their traditional lands–but they get the occaional feather. (Oh, I’ll be taking sensitivity training as soon as I complete anger management.)
2/17 Air Cav…I see your points. Well said. Now I do not disagree the Indians have had a tough row to hoe. I’m just saying we as a nation have tried to do everything possible to make up for past mistakes. I just don’t see as many Indians taking advantage of the benefits available to them as I would like or making the best use of those benefits.
The term you’re looking for is “Apple Indian.” That’s the term a res Indian uses to describe another Indian who attempts to make it in modern society, off the res. An Apple Indian is one who’s red on the outside — and white on the inside. And yes, it’s meant to be derogatory.
Pinto Nag…I do hope I did not sound racist. It was not my intention. I had never heard the term “Apple Indian”. I have heard “Oreo” from blacks referring to other blacks, also meant as a derogatory term. In either case, I don’t understand the “within one’s own race” racism. Simply because a person chooses to work and strive for a better or different life in what they perceive and describe as a “white world”.
No, you didn’t sound racist. At least, not to me. But we live in world where just speaking an inconvenient truth will get you branded as a racist. Because you seem to be as prone to speaking inconvenient truths as I am, we may have to join hands and skip down that “racist” road together.
IN our group we call then fish fry NDN.That is the only you will see the apples
Just remember that it’s perfectly fine to be racist — as long as you’re not white.
And that was SARCASM, for anybody who had questions.
I’m going to put in my 3 cents about this.
1 – Eagles, ospreys and some of the other predator birds are kind of stupid critters. They are also large, beautiful and necessary to a healthy ecosystem. They scavenge garbage dumps in Alaska just as much as they go salmon-fishing in the rivers.
2 – It’s not okay to hunt them and kill them, but it’s okay to kill them to protect corporate greed. This is a conundrum. And it’s stupid.
3 – I’m with the American Bird Conservancy on this. And I’m truly tired of the effing lack of effing common sense I see everywhere.
And while I’m at it, the so-called ‘greenies’ don’t really want to ‘enjoy nature’ per se. They don’t actually like it. They avoid it as much as possible. They want the hiking trails groomed to meet their needs and the horse flies sprayed and killed; they think the birds should be fed at feeders and not allowed to be ‘just anywhere’; and if they decide to live in a flood zone, they don’t understand why the river is flooding and filling up their basements.
Yes, they are that stupid. I’ve run into them regularly when hiking. They complain about tree branches that fell across hiking paths during a thunderstorm, but instead of using the trail side, they trample wildflowers to keep their feet dry. They also complain about not being allowed to pick the wildflowers, and want to know why there aren’t any refreshment stands on the trails or in the parking lots. They also want to keep chickens and ducks as pets in the city. (These are real people.)
I said eagles are stupid. ‘Greenies’ beat eagles all hollow for sheer stupidity. Substitute ‘yuppie’ for ‘greenie’, if you like – same difference.
I wish they’d go back to their own barren, ugly planet and leave mine alone.
Ex-PH2 Excellent point about the “green” folks and the “real” outdoors. They want the hiking trails in my state to look like what you see at a zoo. If there is a fallen branch they may have to walk around or step over, they are on the horn to the State Park Service pronto. They never really get to see raw nature at its best. Sad to me. They could just as easily stay home and watch National Geographic for what small enjoyment they get from hiking a pristine (often blacktopped) trail. I have also seen them emerge at the trail heads with BASKETS full of wildflowers. All illegal to pick.
Ex-PH2, that sounds like some people I know who CANNOT go anywhere without a power source, disconnect them from their smart phones, pads & pods for more than five minutes and their heads will implode!! I’m also a “Railnerd’, I like trains, and it gets to me anytime I hear spandex-clad granola-munchers screeching for useful railroad right of ways to be torn out and turned into trails when they could be rehabbed and used as say, commuter rail lines or used for freight to take more trucks off the road. BUT NO, every time they propose a new commuter rail line, etc, it’s always bogged down with NIMBY lawsuits, but they’re also constantly bawling about highway congestion as well, I guess some people ought to sport “BORN TO BITCH AND BAWL” tattoos!
Reading this discussion is why I know we will never have a real workable energy discussion.
Not a slam against anyone, just the fact that no matter what is done someone will not like it.
Nuclear? All that radiation man
hydro Electric? The fish, the ruined landscapes
Wind? The birds
Coal/Diesel? The air man!!
Natural Gas? Fracking is killing the earth!!
Well thing is we all need the power, regardless of how we get it something else will suffer. No power, no lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. We can live without it, just not all of us…
So something has to give, and it has to give somewhere soon. Infrastructure is aging fast, replacing it is not keeping up with increased demands.
I love nature, I love wildlife, I love that Eagles are making a comeback here in Mass….
I love having heat, lights, cooking on a stove not outside over a fire… Television, computers, phones, games, all manner of modern conveniences. I could live without them, but would rather not have to.
Having both.. now there we coming to a screeching standstill. NIMBY’s and GREENIEs.
An engineering professor of mine 35+ years ago put it best:
“Most environmentalists aren’t really anti-pollution. They’re anti-progress.”
Most of them couldn’t handle a week in the backcountry – much less living life as it was lived in the 1600s, before the advent of modern technology.
Or anti-capitalist:
http://spectator.org/articles/58755/greens-are-reds
Or very bright.
Up here they buy hybrid Prius’s to run on the interstate.
H1…Every time I see a Prius I wonder, “who blew who at the dealership?”