I’m sure quite a few Warmists would be OK with this. They’re fine with wind turbines killing off endangered birds, as well as just killing off millions and millions of other birds
(Daily Caller) A new clean energy project could wipe out the killer whales off the coast of Washington State, according to an environmental group dedicated to protecting the mammals.
Washington State has decided to build a tidal energy pilot project in Admiralty Inlet in the waters of Puget Sound. It’s a plan that has pitted clean energy advocates against their animal-loving allies in the environmental movement.
While at least a dozen groups have urged federal regulators to thwart the state’s plans, some of the most vocal opponents are environmentalists who say the clean energy project threatens the endangered Southern Resident killer whale population.
The Orca Conservancy — the national nonprofit created to protect the killer whale and its habitat — has urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) not to grant a license to the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) in Washington State for its tidal pilot project.
The group fears that the 386 metric ton turbines and their accompanying noise would seriously harm the orca population which transits and forages in Admiralty Inlet, where the project would be located.
Of course, other enviro groups, and the Department of Energy, are blowing off the concerns of The Orca Conservancy. One of the things they say is that the turbines move so slowly that they’d just push the orcas away. Remember how groups said that wind turbines turned too slowly to harm birds?
The Orca Conservancy — joined by OrcaLab, Naked Whale Research, Fins and Fluke, and Voice of the Orcas — told FERC that the tidal turbines are smack in the middle of the migration and foraging areas of several “pods†of the whales.
The groups warned of turbine collisions resulting in “bruised, discolored, or lacerated animals.†Impacts from noise and vibration are also a concern, the groups wrote.
Many other environmental groups have made their objections known to the project. If this was some sort of oil drilling project, does anyone think that it would not be killed in a minute?
Ahhh yes bird strikes. That was such a hoot. Teach you have to check something besides Rush and teh Daily Caller. about 200,000 birds are killed each year by wind turbines. yes 200,000 is a BIG NUMBER. But 170 million a year are killed by hunters. and 700 million each year by hitting OTHER obstacles, like transmission lines tall buildings windows etc
From Wall Street Journalhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557642351211374.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp
So john’s argument is that more killing of birds is a good thing.
That is really what it boils down to.
But it is not just the number of birds, but the types of birds. Wind turbines are typically located on open ground, which is the hunting grounds for endangered species and predatory birds.
If john had bothered to read below his article, he would have found an actual study and referenced paper (unlike the guy who john quotes) on the damage wind turbines have done on the Scottish bird population to the point where several species are now endangered.
http://www.swlg.org.uk/uploads/6/3/3/8/6338077/spwln_final_small.pdf
(The report is written by a Scottish environmental group.)
Once again, john cherry picks data and articles and ends up with mud on his face. (or in this case, bird poo.)
It is interesting that John essentially says “screw this birds”, we have Green energy projects to build. He also ignores the whole premise of the post, namely that the killer whales could be harmed or killed. Warmists really hate nature.
It’s time to put another enviro lie to rest. Those propellers on a stick aren’t “turbines”, any more than a WWII fighter plane was a “turbine” because it had a propeller on the front end. Turbojet airplanes are powered by a turbine, thus the name. There are aircraft which use propellers driven by a turbine engine, with the propellor being distinct from the real turbine.
Those propellers on a stick aren’t “turbinesâ€, any more than a WWII fighter plane was a “turbine†because it had a propeller on the front end.
Not sure I agree with that.
A turbine is a device that uses fluids over a surface to create mechanical work.
The analogy of a WWII fighter is flawed because a WWII prop plane was not the air flowing over the prop to create mechanical work, but rather the prop being driven by something else causing the prop to rotate.
John: So you’re saying that a small number of additional bird deaths should be considered acceptable if they are outweighed by other benefits, especially if they are a small percentage of total bird deaths? Like, wow, that’s starting to sound like cost/benefit analysis. So by that crazy reasoning, if the amount of oil spilled during off-shore drilling is small compared to other sources — which it is — then there is no valid environmental objection to off-shore drilling. Perhaps the amount of pollution produced by burning coal is acceptable in light of the economic benefits of cheap energy to poor people? Maybe laws protecting endangered species should be reconsidered in light of the burdens that those laws impose on humans. You’re starting too sound like a capitalist, John!