Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 May 2001 14:38:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
621 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
I don't know if I'm a usual suspect, but I'll share a few brief thoughts:
> > 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?
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 balance between our needs and theirs. It is arguably in the
whole planet's best interests for humans to wean ourselves from fossil fuel
dependence (less air polution, environmental degradation, etc., etc.) Is there
any form of clean energy, that, when applied on a scale sufficient to accomodate
the reasonable needs of humanity, will not cause some sort of harm to the well-
being of xyz species? We just don't know, because we've yet to apply clean
energy on the scale necessary to run global commerce (how many species might be
displaced by the massive amounts of acreage that solar and wind farms must by
necessity cover?) If wind farms are a viable option for energy production, then
the Earth, when thought of in terms of a functioning "organism" or as a
symbiotic system of mutual interdependence, really does benefit on a balance
sheet--even if some species must suffer.
That said, I'd argue that it would be morally irresponsible to build a wind farm
in an area that endangered species are imminently dependent upon. However...
I'd also say that we also must honestly assess exactly why said species are
endangered, and try to figure out which parties have the lion's share of
responsibility for remedying [and footing the bill for] their recovery. In
other words, its no good to just shout at the wind-farm developer that a farm
can't be built on a certain plot of ground because it is environmentally
sensitive. Who exactly is responsible for the pre-existing condition of
endangerment? Are other industries to blame? Did that real-estate developer
put down one too many "master planned communities?" Was it too heavily logged?
Was an exotic species introduced into the ecosystem that is now threatening the
survival of native species? We all depend on *somebody* to develop and make
useful energy for our consumption. I'm having a bit of trouble coming round to
the crux of my point, but what I'm getting at is that we can't make a scapegoat
of the wind-farm energy when plenty of other parties are to blame for the fact
that a species territory is so limited to a particular area. Were it not for
sprawling regional development, then, though many birds would indeed die from
the blades, the populations of the species in question (if only on a regional
level) would keep their integrity. If companies x, y, and z have somehow
contributed to the endangered status of a bird population, then they must be
required to pay higher energy costs when the wind farm cannot be built on an
advantageous locale due to concerns for said species' survival.
> Presumably the scavengers living near these towers are quite happy, though.
> Is that good or bad?
I'd say that its bad only if mortality rates are so high as to tip the
ecological balance in favor of the scavengers in such a way as to cause the
ecosystem to lose its equilibrium.
> 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.
LMF(1) isn't a reasonable idea, for one thing. Just imagine the litigation over
competing claims when development projects bring species' owners' interests into
conflict.
>
> I'd love to hear from some of the usual suspects, and if the questioners
> actually posted constructive suggestions, even better!
Constructive or not, I can't tell. I may be all wet.
james
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I do not view it as a "our needs" versus "theirs". Humanity & the environment are one. We need to stop viewing "the environment" as a luxury which is great when it is affordable. It should be viewed as a necessity. Further, I have to question (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
