[Bonsaibirder]

Originally Posted by etudiant

You agree that they are massively destructive and will continue to be so, unless corrupt/inept decision making becomes good.

That's not how I read MJB's post. I think he said that they are largely safe to birds unless they are poorly sited.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Bonsaibirder

That's not how I read MJB's post. I think he said that they are largely safe to birds unless they are poorly sited.

True, he said there is the potential to site wind farms safely.
But he also agreed that:

' It's clear that the siting of some wind farms on migration routes (especially along ridges where the width of the ideal flight-path for a soaring bird can be narrow) or near breeding grounds for larger birds, especially soaring birds, has caused casualties (eg Norway, southern Iberia); early lattice turbine tower designs provided perching posts, and these, too had severe casualty rates in places.

I'm well aware of the cases of corrupt or ignorant decisions made on the siting of new wind farms when these will pose significant risks to birds. However, many wind farms are well-sited, as shown by the lack of bird corpses during surveys by reputable agencies allowed to work on-site without hindrance. I also would agree that there have been surveys commissioned by corrupt agencies, the desired findings being based on the requirement to show that there is no risk. '

So we have corrupt or ignorant decision making and bad siting and bad early designs leading to 'severe casualties'.
Nowhere any mention of corrective action. The killings continue.
The same is true here in the US, where raptor killing by wind farms such as the large complex north of San Francisco is ongoing.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by etudiant

So we have corrupt or ignorant decision making and bad siting and bad early designs leading to 'severe casualties'. Nowhere any mention of corrective action. The killings continue. The same is true here in the US, where raptor killing by wind farms such as the large complex north of San Francisco is ongoing.

My post, which was probably too long in the first place, was about relative risk with respect to the windfarm sites, of which there are many thousands, and not about corrective action. It seems very difficult for the average decent human being to understand relative risk. For example, children have a safe environment at school - that doesn't mean there won't be accidents or offences, but it does mean that school is a lot safer than crossing the road, yet surveys of perceived risk show that parents generally worry more about the perceived dangers to their children at school than when they are crossing the road with them only metres away from a safe crossing point.

It would seem that wind farms pose a relatively small risk to birds overall. Badly sited wind farms (through early ignorance or wilful downplaying of known risks to birds) are a problem for each nation to solve, with the obvious support of people and conservation NGOs from all over the world. It's down to campaigns - the weight of social media action is growing, for example - Arab spring, the Rush Limbaugh case.

Just because I made no mention of corrective action doesn't mean that corrective action isn't being sought - I expect many Bird Forum members are aware of something of the sort. I would guess that a perusal of the RSPB archive on-line would turn up something. Also, just because any campaign might have justice on its side, it doesn't mean it will have instant success, or even be successful at all. Human nature is often contrary, hence TANFL!
MJB

[etudiant]

I recognize that good people are trying to minimize the impact of the disaster that is wind power.
The frustrating thing is that it is hideously expensive, biologically destructive and unreliable. Apart from that, it is bone ugly, but that is just my opinion.
A good read, from a skeptical source, but the numbers look pretty solid:

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/storie...-windpower.pdf

[Imaginos]

The GWPF? Really?

Have you actually read the whole report etudiant? I've had a skim & the assumptions behind the numbers seem skewed. I'm also wary of a 40+ page report that contains only six references - three reports, two white papers and a speech.

Compare with this paper from last year: Pricing Offshore Wind Power Levitt et al, Energy Policy 39.

Which, while only looking at offshore wind power contains 88 references.

I invite you to compare and contrast the "numbers" in the two reports and the basis for the assumptions made in both...

[Trystan]

If people who genuinely care about the environment can't agree on what is good and what is bad, then what chance have the average people who's sole purpose in life is to have 2 to 5 children while holding down a pointless job, if they are lucky enough to live in a country which has pointless jobs?

All these peripheral arguments do not get to the root cause of our problems. New technology can only do so much. We have to find ways to reduce birth rates and get population under control or we may as well be p**sing in the wind instead of harnessing it.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by etudiant

I recognize that good people are trying to minimize the impact of the disaster that is wind power. The frustrating thing is that it is hideously expensive, biologically destructive and unreliable. Apart from that, it is bone ugly, but that is just my opinion.

I would be interested to know the basis of your confident assertion that wind power is biologically destructive? Fossil fuel power stations, even with the latest exhaust scrubbers, still have a biologically destructive component when open-cast mining isn't omitted from consideration for convenience' sake.

Nuclear power is fine until a disaster happens, and then you really could say that is biologically destructive, adversely affecting all organisms from microbe level upwards in every biological community. Nuclear power also remains potentially biologically destructive for thousands of years after a power station is decommissioned.

Regarding your assertion that wind power is hideously expensive, quite apart from the comparison I suggested in my previous post, it isn't anywhere as expensive as maintaining a vast nuclear weapon arsenal, nor is it more expensive than the safe decommissioning of nuclear weapons and storage of the disassembled warheads. This last point remains an inescapable cost for future generations...

Wind power is reliable - the winds continue to blow; the issue is how power from one location can best be absorbed across national grids as one part of overall power generation (as I mentioned in my previous post). It's the kind of large-scale problem that the USA once was so inventive in tackling, and it largely comprises known technology (earlier examples of such innovation can be found in the unbelievably rapid way the USA built up its aircraft design and production and its shipbuilding capability after Pearl Harbor), but now I doubt if there is the will, or even the popular understanding of what can be achieved.

Whether wind power is ugly or not can certainly be classed as opinion, especially if WP farms are at locations generally agreed to be scenes of natural beauty. Nuclear power stations don't exactly qualify automatically as beautiful, either...
MJB

[etudiant]

I see windmills as biologically destructive because they sweep large birds from the sky very effectively.
A Wall Street Journal article on the issue (paywalled unfortunately) is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

One excerpt:
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles are being killed per year by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, about 20 miles east of Oakland, Calif. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks—as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.

I've seen zero evidence that this situation can be ameliorated or even is being addressed. Putting these killing machines out to sea simply hides the evidence of their slaughter.

Apart from that, wind power is too intermittent to rely upon, as the industry admits. So the fossil/nuclear plants will still be needed as standbys.
See:
http://www.wind-power-program.com/intermittency.htm

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by Trystan

... We have to find ways to reduce birth rates and get population under control or we may as well be p**sing in the wind instead of harnessing it.

I assume you are stepping up to volunteer your immediate and extended family for the first few suggestions? Anything "WE" do to others is doing just that- impacting their immediate and extended family forever.

It seems in vogue for the ZPG'ers to look down at those "whose sole purpose is to have 2 to 5 kids and have a pointless job", but I personally have found no greater fulfillment in my life than the relationships and time I have with my family.

[Trystan]

Originally Posted by BrightIdea

I assume you are stepping up to volunteer your immediate and extended family for the first few suggestions? Anything "WE" do to others is doing just that- impacting their immediate and extended family forever.

It seems in vogue for the ZPG'ers to look down at those "whose sole purpose is to have 2 to 5 kids and have a pointless job", but I personally have found no greater fulfillment in my life than the relationships and time I have with my family.

Please don't think I'm being hypocritical on this, I have already made the decision not to have children and would encourage anyone and everyone to do the same, but at the very least, do not have more than 2 children per family because anything more is the most selfish thing you could do against the environment.

I dont know what a ZPGer is but if you have any amount of forsight then you must see the damage human population is going to cause based on the amount of damage it's already causing. The offspring of your nearest and dearest will suffer for your right to have as many children as you like. Taking offence that some people want to tackle the problem is not going to help.

[Minto]

CO2 levels still rising, no warming for fifteen years, thats why its called Climate Change now.
Its called moving the goalposts

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Minto

CO2 levels still rising, no warming for fifteen years, thats why its called Climate Change now.
Its called moving the goalposts

The above quote is an encapsulation of the whole genesis of this thread.

Let's look at that first sentence phrase by phrase:

"CO2 levels still rising" - correct.

"no warming for fifteen years" - incorrect (nb: the selection of 15 years is a common one among certain "commentators" as this makes the data start at 1998 - a peak in the global temperature average. If you look at a 14 year plot this becomes clear. A 20 year or 30 year plot shows this even better - note the peak at 1998.)

"thats why its called Climate Change now" - The IPCC was set up in 1988 - 24 years ago. I leave it to the reader to work out what the CC in the name stands for.

[DMW]

I have very mixed feelings about wind farms, but using tabloid-style language to argue your point makes it difficult to take you seriously.

It may well be true that badly-sited wind farms (sorry, "killing machines") are a major hazard to birds and bats, and should be removed. That doesn't mean that wind farms cannot be sited in areas and configurations that pose minimal threat to birds.

A friend of mine has worked for a number of years studying bird mortality at a wind farm in Scotland, and his research demonstrates extremely low mortality. Apparently most casualties are Red Grouse flying into the towers (rather than blades) during foggy weather.

We have to accept that we consume electricity in huge quantities in western societies, and the power has to come from somewhere and at some cost to the environment.

Wind farms may or may not be a sensible part of the long-term energy mix in the future, but surely it's far better to look at all the available options in a rational way, based on evidence, rather than simply discard some due to uninformed prejudice?

Originally Posted by etudiant

I see windmills as biologically destructive because they sweep large birds from the sky very effectively.
A Wall Street Journal article on the issue (paywalled unfortunately) is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

One excerpt:
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles are being killed per year by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, about 20 miles east of Oakland, Calif. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks—as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.

I've seen zero evidence that this situation can be ameliorated or even is being addressed. Putting these killing machines out to sea simply hides the evidence of their slaughter.

Apart from that, wind power is too intermittent to rely upon, as the industry admits. So the fossil/nuclear plants will still be needed as standbys.
See:
http://www.wind-power-program.com/intermittency.htm

[skylark25]

Originally Posted by Trystan

Please don't think I'm being hypocritical on this, I have already made the decision not to have children and would encourage anyone and everyone to do the same, but at the very least, do not have more than 2 children per family because anything more is the most selfish thing you could do against the environment.

I dont know what a ZPGer is but if you have any amount of forsight then you must see the damage human population is going to cause based on the amount of damage it's already causing. The offspring of your nearest and dearest will suffer for your right to have as many children as you like. Taking offence that some people want to tackle the problem is not going to help.

I agree with Trystan here

The world's population has just reached the 7 billion mark, its projected to reach 9 billion by as early as 2045

There are more people on Facebook today then there people on Earth 200 years ago

Yep the human population has ballooned out of control. We're not talking on a small scale, but look outside the box and see the bigger picture. The world cannot catch up with our development, use of resources and food demands for a growing population. Our problems need new ideas and new way of thinking...we left finger prints all over the place

If anyone disagrees, just think of the birds please....they're bio indicators,and if they are in trouble we soon will be in trouble ourselves

skylark25

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by Trystan

Please don't think I'm being hypocritical on this, I have already made the decision not to have children and would encourage anyone and everyone to do the same, but at the very least, do not have more than 2 children per family because anything more is the most selfish thing you could do against the environment.

I dont know what a ZPGer is but if you have any amount of forsight then you must see the damage human population is going to cause based on the amount of damage it's already causing. The offspring of your nearest and dearest will suffer for your right to have as many children as you like. Taking offence that some people want to tackle the problem is not going to help.

Originally Posted by skylark25

I agree with Trystan here...
If anyone disagrees, just think of the birds please....they're bio indicators,and if they are in trouble we soon will be in trouble ourselves
skylark25

OK, I get it. But here is what really happens.

You make a great case for fewer kids, some hollywood knucklehead grabs ahold of the cause du jour, and they get in the ear of a politician. Said politician finds a focus group that trends towards him or her picking up more of the electorate if they jump on this particular bandwagon.

Legislation goes forward, and within a short time, all of the "normal" folk are limited to their 1 kid and taxed out the arse for any more. The only people who get around this are the pols or the wealthy.

Viewing this from the moral highground of just having "saved the planet", imo, doesnt make up for the fact that the inevitable outcome of this is to prevent poor from breeding, taxing middle class for doing same, and allowing only the trust funders to bloom.

Inevitable in this is further taxing those middle classers in the developed nations (USA) to "offset" the booming populations of the uneducated - er - developing regions. All the while the poorest of the poor in the world (developing regions) are the real source of the worlds increases.

No, I think pushing that agenda results in no real change other than taking money from me, reducing the number of grandkids I'll someday (hope) to have, and sending that $ to some fat pols bank account. Token $Scraps to the developing world.

Raising my family is a fundamental right, whether by the law of my country or a god or God. While your argument makes sense, the realistic outcome is
entirely unacceptable.

I am not against ZPG. If someone decides not to have children for ecological reasons, and i have known well 3 such couples, then that is respectable. I am just not for anyone pushing it as an agenda unless they are willing to remove themselves from the population first. Not just removing as a breeder, but from the actual population. Make a statement, and stand for what you espouse.

(FYI ZPG = zero population growth)

[DMW]

Originally Posted by BrightIdea

I am not against ZPG. If someone decides not to have children for ecological reasons, and i have known well 3 such couples, then that is respectable. I am just not for anyone pushing it as an agenda unless they are willing to remove themselves from the population first. Not just removing as a breeder, but from the actual population. Make a statement, and stand for what you espouse.

I've read some daft things in my time, but this takes the prize. So anybody who has an agenda of zero population growth should kill themselves?

I would actually like to see the world's human population decline, so should I go out and kill a few random strangers before topping myself - just to make a statement?

[Trystan]

Originally Posted by BrightIdea

OK, I get it. But here is what really happens.

You make a great case for fewer kids, some hollywood knucklehead grabs ahold of the cause du jour, and they get in the ear of a politician. Said politician finds a focus group that trends towards him or her picking up more of the electorate if they jump on this particular bandwagon.

Legislation goes forward, and within a short time, all of the "normal" folk are limited to their 1 kid and taxed out the arse for any more. The only people who get around this are the pols or the wealthy.

Viewing this from the moral highground of just having "saved the planet", imo, doesnt make up for the fact that the inevitable outcome of this is to prevent poor from breeding, taxing middle class for doing same, and allowing only the trust funders to bloom.

Ok, firstly, I didn't realise that legislation changes in the US were dependent on Hollywood, but that aside, we are talking about something which has to be implemented across the world, like meeting carbon emmission targets except everyone has to play the game.

Secondly, in the western world I think a two children cap would be more realistic followed by financial penalties, then the poor of whom you speak can still have their family. In the rest of the world, its trickier because people already have no money. I've seen Sri Lankan schools in operation and they actively encourage smaller families, citing the poverty in neighbouring India as a very good reason for this. I think this is a starting point, along with readily available contraceptives. (Here the catholic church is helping to cause abject poverty and destroy the planet with its stance. This needs sorting out).

Originally Posted by BrightIdea

No, I think pushing that agenda results in no real change other than taking money from me, reducing the number of grandkids I'll someday (hope) to have, and sending that $ to some fat pols bank account. Token $Scraps to the developing world.

Raising my family is a fundamental right, whether by the law of my country or a god or God. While your argument makes sense, the realistic outcome is
entirely unacceptable.

Remember that as an American you are consuming 4 times the worlds resources than a person in the developing world. It's more urgent for your population to be under control first, lead by example but if your God given right to breed is more important than saving the planet then so be it, we are doomed.

Originally Posted by BrightIdea

I am not against ZPG. If someone decides not to have children for ecological reasons, and i have known well 3 such couples, then that is respectable. I am just not for anyone pushing it as an agenda unless they are willing to remove themselves from the population first. Not just removing as a breeder, but from the actual population. Make a statement, and stand for what you espouse.

What can I say...

If I could push a button and save the planet at the cost of my own life, I reckon I would do it, but topping myself and leaving you (generic) behind, what would be the point?

Originally Posted by BrightIdea

(FYI ZPG = zero population growth)

Thank you

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by Trystan

Please don't think I'm being hypocritical on this, I have already made the decision not to have children and would encourage anyone and everyone to do the same, but at the very least, do not have more than 2 children per family because anything more is the most selfish thing you could do against the environment.

I dont know what a ZPGer is but if you have any amount of forsight then you must see the damage human population is going to cause based on the amount of damage it's already causing. The offspring of your nearest and dearest will suffer for your right to have as many children as you like. Taking offence that some people want to tackle the problem is not going to help.

Actually this 2 child or less family policy has been happening in the West, especially in Europe, for quite some time now if demographic studies are accurate. This will cause serious financial problems for their rapidly aging populations and affect old age pensions severely.

It was unplanned and had nothing to do with saving the environment and it will ultimately do nothing to save it. The world will be left to other nations and cultures who are more concerned about their own survival than nature's survival.

Please read this recent bleak essay by a columnist at Asia Times who writes under the pen name, "Spengler." His name is David Goldman and you can access his articles at the web site.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_.../MG15Dj01.html

Bob

[fugl]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Actually this 2 child or less family policy has been happening in the West, especially in Europe, for quite some time now if demographic studies are accurate. This will cause serious financial problems for their rapidly aging populations and affect old age pensions severely.

It was unplanned and had nothing to do with saving the environment and it will ultimately do nothing to save it. The world will be left to other nations and cultures who are more concerned about their own survival than nature's survival.

Indeed, in a nutshell. I wonder what the prospects are of China's one child policy being adopted elsewhere in the third world? Or for that matter of it continuing to work in China, assuming that is that it's working now? The U.S. I believe is already at or near zero population growth, recent increases being mostly or entirely the result of immigration.

What really depresses me about all this is that given the current state of the world I don't see any way out. Does anyone? What should we in the developed world do, just seal our borders--& good luck with that over any kind of long term--& hope for the best? ???

[lashinala]

Originally Posted by fugl

What really depresses me about all this is that given the current state of the world I don't see any way out. Does anyone? What should we in the developed world do, just seal our borders--& good luck with that over any kind of long term--& hope for the best? ???

(not to anyone in particular)
Do? a way out? 'Attrition' will inevitably force it's hand, regardless of the path we take. It's just a matter of whether we admit that our lives are a struggle, or whether we see our lives as a series of attempts to get others to 'do our struggling for us'. In the end, your only descendants are your only descendants....no avoiding it. Sure, we can all have a 'right to breed', but only for our current (or maybe 1 or 2 future) generations...unless we teach our posterity the same skills, they are on their own to be easily convinced that ZPG is a noble cause (it's not) or some other mindgame.
The problem with Americans...(and Canadians and Mexicans and Caribbeans, etc.) isn't just comsumption, it's that there is no foward looking plan due to our system of electing and following an ethic that sees consumption as morally right. (Fasting every now and then would be a good start...no TV another one)
Remember, 7 billion mouths feed 7 billion minds that may have solutions. A tribe of 20 celebrates a birth like no other, while a city of 20 million sees the same baby as taking up space and resources. Same kid. JMHO

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by DMW

I would actually like to see the world's human population decline, so should I go out and kill a few random strangers before topping myself - just to make a statement?

Of course not, no. Dont be silly. You should not have control over those people, their lives. You can only have control over you.

So, yes, if one TRULY seeks a population decrease for the betterment of future ecosystems (and not for selfish reasons) then one should be prepared to step up.

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by DMW

I've read some daft things in my time, but this takes the prize. So anybody who has an agenda of zero population growth should kill themselves?

A desire for it to occur? No. An actual agenda to effect change in others for this purpose? Yes

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by Trystan

...It's more urgent for your population to be under control first, lead by example but if your God given right to breed is more important than saving the planet then so be it, we are doomed.

Nah. The planet isnt doomed by any internal force. Biological diversity well may be , I think we are seeing that.

We may well be doomed regardless. But I am not typically a fatalist. I do think you (or maybe others?) misunderstand my position. I think its laudable to educate others, or to decide not to have children for ecological reasons (or any other reason). A few of my very best friends have done just that. I just dont think anyone should be in that position to MAKE it happen. It's a personal choice. MANY choices are, and should be. It should be that way.

It may come across poorly as I scribble away during my lunch break, or because I am not a terrific writer. Basically anyone else imposing anything on others is what I am fully against.

And I think its OK to disagree too.

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by Trystan

Ok, firstly, I didn't realise that legislation changes in the US were dependent on Hollywood,

OK, I skipped a few steps and took some liberties, but special interest groups disguised as news outlets and popularity contests disguised as elections are not uncommon.

Originally Posted by Trystan

but that aside, we are talking about something which has to be implemented across the world, like meeting carbon emmission targets except everyone has to play the game.

Nope. We wont see eye to eye on that. I see any group powerful enough to implement that policy as being too powerful and too ripe for the inevitable human corruption.

Originally Posted by Trystan

...I've seen Sri Lankan schools in operation and they actively encourage smaller families, citing the poverty in neighbouring India as a very good reason for this. I think this is a starting point, along with readily available contraceptives. (Here the catholic church is helping to cause abject poverty and destroy the planet with its stance. This needs sorting out).

Sure the pope and the church officially has this position. However in practice, I dont believe it is 1% the issue that is made of it. At elast in the NE USA developed world I am very familiar with, its a better news article or talking point that reality. I have known a heck of a lot of RCatholics, including a fair portion of my extended family. I can assure you that despite what the pope preaches, Roman Catholics are fully aware of and use BC- condoms, and especially the pill. They even get abortions. Remember they feel that to sin is human. Dont worry, they are human.

I dont know for sure, but I bet that the RC statistic is either playing off of old sterotypes (Irish catholics @ turn of the century) or new ones (poorer latino RC's with high birth rates.)

Originally Posted by Trystan

What can I say...

If I could push a button and save the planet at the cost of my own life, I reckon I would do it, but topping myself and leaving you (generic) behind, what would be the point?

Thank you

Indeed, The world is more interesting discussing such things, right? I am not promoting suicide. I am rejecting others making such decisions for me.

And you are welcome. I appreciate others being able to disagree without things getting ugly.

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by lashinala

(not to anyone in particular)
...
...(Fasting every now and then would be a good start...no TV another one)
...

Great idea! Because you "can" shouldnt mean you "will" or "should", right?

We've gone for over a year without a TV (currently have one) and close to a year without a refrgerator... in suburbia no less.

Add to this teaching others about sustainable agriculture, the benefits of eating from the bottom of the food chain, easy access to BC and, if they choose, even abortions.