Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 May 2001 16:41:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
647 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> 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.
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 what you mean by "need". If you mean a need to
make ever increasing amounts of money for the sake of it, then I'd say that
is not a "need" at all.
Worrying about "towerkills" is not entirely sensible. We should 1st be
looking at the sustainability of the supply chain used to build towers and
the function the constructed tower provides.
> 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.
Indeed, but that is libertarianism for you! One of the bigger criticisms of
the globalisation is the impact it has on the global environment. I have not
seen an argument which even suggests to me that the libertarian model would
be any better. Sure, people say that the morals of "the market" will demand
high environmental standards. Right now market morals demand prostitution,
child prostitution and paedophilia! Just as with these issues, I feel that
legislation is the answer where the environment is concerned.
Scott A
> 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
|
| (...) A problem that I have with allowing "market morals" to uphold standards is that one only has to look at what unregulated industry has wrought at every opportunity that its been given. IMO, free market (im)morals produce the kinds of (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
