Environmental programs that do more harm than good
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
SAM2
Member Offline
Member Offline
Good post. I like it when people do the research to put data in perspective. Thank you. |
Anonymous
| It's not an environmental program but those church "mission" programs where church members go to a foreign country and build something for a poor community are a waste. It's not like the target community lacks the skills needed but the church members have them. No, those communities lack the financial resources the church group has. If they were really interested in maximizing what they could do for poor communities, they'd take the money they spend on air fare/lodging and send it to the community. The community could hire the workers to do whatever work needed to be done (putting more money into the local economy) or, if labor was donated by the community, they could increase the size of the project budget and build something bigger, something better, buy furnishings or needed supplies. These people that go on the "missions" are really doing it for themselves, not the target community. Now, if you're a doctor, dentist or engineer, that's different. Those skills are usually in short supply but for Joe Blow Churchgoer, you're not adding value. |
Anonymous
Note that the source of most of these numbers is AWEA (the American Wind Energy Association). I think the other point is that the "millions" of birds supposedly killed by windows etc are small, common birds. Windmills are placed at ridge lines and other sources of high wind, which are common areas for large endangered raptors to congregate (and get whacked by turbine blades). If any other source of energy was killing tens of thousands of large birds, they'd be shut down in a heartbeat. |
Anonymous
Yea the perspective is that those "sources" are agenda driven and will present numbers any way that is favorable to them. Unimpressed. |
Anonymous
| All solar companies born after Obama came to office. |
Anonymous
|
Let's focus on the big picture. Either we get this issue somewhat under control and slow the warming down, or there won't be an inhabitable world forany eagles, much less our grandchildren. It's just that simple.
They've now discovered that in addition to sea ice melting MUCH faster than originally thought, the melting and thawing releases tons more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which will accelerate warming even further. Most of us are parents on this board. This is a calamity for future generations -- and not in the distant future, but our kids and our kids' kids. The measures that we ultimately have to take are going to be a lot more serious than the current effects of wind turbines. |
Anonymous
Thank you for posting this. |
Anonymous
That was greenwashing at its best - it was the program to support corn growers. More corn than we need, so we turn it into "healthy" things like ethanol, cow feed and high fructose corn syrup. 
|
Anonymous
If you think the AWEA data is false, then I encourage you to find and post alternative data on the number and/or type of bird deaths caused by different structures. In the absence of credible counter data, the AWEA data wins. |
Anonymous
 Now back to more Fox News....
|
Anonymous
Luck no studies were done and if they were done why should we pay attention to them. We have a clear experts here with you. Google scholar
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3356/JRR-08-63.1 |
Anonymous
|
When one is trying to solve a problem, one must take into account the various merits and drawbacks to any solution. No solution is ever perfect. The fact that some environmental programs have drawbacks does not render them meritless.
Simply doing nothing about the known and extremely scientifically well-established effects of climate change has significant drawbacks, too - like the continued warming of the planet, melting of the polar ice caps, rising of the seas and increased frequency of destructive weather events. Like Sandy, the tornadoes that leveled Joplin, MO and Tuscaloosa, AL, wildfires, the 10+ year drought in the Southwest, not to mention many, many international events we rarely hear about, are a major threat to ALL life on the planet, human and otherwise. You are not getting thoughtful responses from the environmentalists on this board because you are engaging in a false argument - holding up one drawback as evidence that the entire premise behind alternative energy is flawed. This, to me, is evidence that you do not want a thoughtful discussion, you want to fight and you want to be right. And you clearly have not done enough research and study on the complexity and scientific underpinnings of these problems to suggest that you are capable of a thoughtful discussion. |
Anonymous
I've been to Alaska twice. The first time was ten years ago and the second was this year. I badly wanted to take my 8 year old because I was afraid to wait until he became a teen. I am so glad. There was a noticeable difference between the glaciers of ten years ago and today. The glaciers were much smaller. Small towns in Alaska are depend on the tourist industry. If the ships stop coming to port, the townspeople would pack up and leave. At least that is what the tourguides repeated. I would think that Alaskans would be at the forefront of climate change, but they are not. Mind boggling. |
Anonymous
As opposed to what unbiased data that you are presenting? It's easy to be unimpressed when you have no evidence or data to present for your own argument. |
Anonymous
It is very scary to contemplate, but if we don't start thinking about it, it will be too late. The really sad thing is that scientists are starting to say that it's too late already. The world we change and not everyone will survive. |