The Loonie Left strikes again! Solar Power BAD!

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So you don't know what this conservation group's concerns are at all, but you've dismissed it all as nonsense anyway.

Colour me surprised this time.

Umm...

I already quoted their concerns and YOU already quoted their concerns. The death of the migrating grassland desert tortoise, remember? LINK and LINK.

I am asking for some evidence for why they have them. Which I am sure there is none.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

The thing is, Hoz, you've become such a polarizing figure in political threads on this board that even people that might agree with you don't have time for you or your point of view. Never mind the people that don't agree with you, they don't even bother to argue anymore. Your thread immediately devolve into open mockery.

In short despite having some solid points, your argumentative posting style and entrenched viewpoint have cost you all political credibility on CP.

I will try to take criticism to heart.

[Itse]

While I'm theoretically for carefully taking everything into account when building large projects, in practise the process of claims and counterclaims have made many types of investments virtually impossible (due to all the added expenses)... at least impossible if done in a completely transparent and legal way.

There are a whole bunch of people who will always complain about any project on some grounds. They are very good at finding some legitimate sounding grounds to do that, because, well, no project is perfect and you can always find something that sounds like a reasonable thing to study and analyze. But of course mostly it's just a lot of hot air.

It's a typical case where a good idea (the public complaints process) has been turned into a mockery of it's original intent (common good), to the point that limiting people's possibilities (to file claims) is I think an inevitable outcome. At which point of course completely valid (environmental) concerns will be more ignored more often, not less.

If this was a single incident, I would be more inclined to take these people at their word that hey, maybe there is a concern. But I've just heard too many of these stories.

The other side of the matter is, yeah, very propably a large project in the middle of desert will affect some desert wildlife in a negative way. Can't be helped. Build anything anywhere, stuff like that will happen.

Also, you can't study everything. If there are legitimate concerns, they should do their own studies and then argue their case. But the catch is, that's a much faster process. Very typically the aim isn't really to raise concern and have additional info taken into account, the aim is (in basicly every case I've run into) to do anything to stop the project, regardless of possible court rulings, democratic decision processes, administrative processes and basicly any method of decision making that are legitimate parts of a democratic society.

(EDIT: I hope this made sense, it's kind of hard to discuss stuff like this in a foreign language and trying to use words that make sense in a foreign country.)

[CaptainCrunch]

I remember when environmental groups wanted nothing better then to get rid of Nuclear missile subs, and when the American's decided to dump a bunch of them and dissesemble them, the same environmental groups protested their dissessembly.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I remember when environmental groups wanted nothing better then to get rid of Nuclear missile subs, and when the American's decided to dump a bunch of them and dissesemble them, the same environmental groups protested their dissessembly.

It's not just the environmentalists. Many of the same people who wanted Guantanamo closed protested against the prisoners being released anywhere (US or back home (because they would be in danger)).

[amorak]

Is HOZ CP's Glenn Beck, much like stang is CP's Frazer Crane?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by amorak

Is HOZ CP's Glenn Beck, much like stang is CP's Frazer Crane?

There is that guy again. I will try to hold back the tears. Apparently he cries a lot.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Don't try to deflect this to me. I didn't bring the lawsuit..

Hoz was just slandering a political abstraction because he struggles to grasp that two groups he opposes could bicker.

He has nothing to do with this.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Don't try to deflect this to me. I didn't bring the lawsuit.

Please tell me what the conservationists evidence is. They brought the lawsuit.

They did, but they didn't bring the proposal to build the plant. The responsibility for conducting the appropriate dilligence falls on the developer, a contrary policy would be moronic at best.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by valo403

They did, but they didn't bring the proposal to build the plant. The responsibility for conducting the appropriate dilligence falls on the developer, a contrary policy would be moronic at best.

And what evidence do they have that the company has NOT done this?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HOZ

And what evidence do they have that the company has NOT done this?

Developments of this scale are required to go through a fairly standard process of review covering areas including environmental impact, you may have heard of an environmental impact statement before. It's typically a basic administrative procedure, but if it's done in a half assed manner it can open the door to claims such as this. A sound review will see these roadblocks dismissed quite easily in most cases. The duty falls on the developer to go through the process in a thorough manner, it doesn't mean you have to avoid every potential issue, but you can't simply ignore them. If the developer conducted the appropriate reviews, and the federal agencies involved applied the appropriate standards of analysis, this case is out on its ass. If they cut corners, or applied lax standards, there's a legitimate claim to be made.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I posted the original post because it is ironic. A Solar power plant in the middle of a desert. Seems like a great idea! Nobody will be using it for farming anytime soon and it will provide cheap clean power. But....hold on! The conservationists are using the tactics they have used for decades, on one of their own. I guess habits are hard to break. They are NOT scientists, but likely a bunch of anal-retentive lawyers who have NO evidence, none. So now that company will have unnecessarily delay the work, spend millions on a worthless study. All on a feeling that a migrating grassland-desert tortoise may be effected.

Related:
Greenpeace Founder on the (Conservationists)NON-scientific anti-capitalists Watermelons!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6fb_1295720048

What I find ironic is that if you somehow got wind that environmentalists had not complained about a solar power project not being properly environmentally vetted I'm sure you would be up on your soapbox criticizing the hypocrisy of the left in not applying the same standards to their own favorite technologies that they do to such things as oil sands extraction.

The environmentalists/conservationists interests in environmentally sustainable developments don't disappear just because a technology happens to be cleaner...


As others have said, with you HOZ the 'left' will be damned if they do or damned if they don't. Once you start believing all the conspiracy theories I guess it's hard to take a step back and analyze the situation objectively.

[Cheshire_Cat]

Will the amount of birds being disoriented be less than the amount of wildlife killed by drilling for oil? I bet it will be!

Anything is better than what we have right now. Big deal if a few birds die.