Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 15 May 2001 22:19:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
607 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> However, most windfarms do not have a significant problem with bird
> mortality, as they are located in places that are out of the way of
> threatened species or the birds have 'learned' to avoid them. Also new
> turbine designs have been introduced that have reduced avian mortality
> and are being phased in.
>
> Towers and structures of all kinds to affect birds for a variety of
> reasons most notably light pollution. CHeck http://www.towerkill.com/
> for some references on that subject.
I did do some reading and share your concern. The projected number of birds
killed annually by this is quite high. But birds do die, they died before
towers were first built. In the overall scheme of things, then, will this
lead to a irreversable decline (for the more common species, I admit that
for rare species, they can't handle large population shocks and survive) or
a new steady state with a different mix of deaths?
Presumably the scavengers living near these towers are quite happy, though.
Is that good or bad?
If you read the Leelenau court case, it seems to me that neither side got
what they really wanted. Is the current system of FCC oversight,
environmental impact statements, etc. actually working? I dunno.
Here is a question I don't have an answer to: What's to be done about it?
Can we live without towers? No, or at least not unless the price of
satellites came way down so we all have space based communications and don't
need towers (Iridium failed because it was too expensive, right???)... Can
we live without birds? Also no. Are those the only choices? I dunno.
The LMF(1) answer is that migratory birds ought to have owners, and those
owners ought to go after the tower companies to demand satisfaction. But
even I would tend to say that answer is, well, somewhat *less* than
practical at this point.
I'd love to hear from some of the usual suspects, and if the questioners
actually posted constructive suggestions, even better!
1 - Libertarian Macho Flash
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I don't know if I'm a usual suspect, but I'll share a few brief thoughts: (...) I think that the most reasonable approach that humanity can take when considering environmental impacts is to work hard and sensibly to maintain an equilibrium...a (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Hmm. I'm not sure that migratory species (or non-migratory) could have owners, even in a Libertarian ideal; at least, not until we have a much better understanding of ecosystem interaction. It opens up many difficult questions, among the (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I'll have to respectively disagree. There is the 'famous' case of the Altamont Pass windfarm in your lovely state. Altamont Pass has the highest concentration of nesting pairs of Golden Eagle's anywhere in the world. Golden Eagles are (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
