Just checked another website that said hunting kills 15,000,000 waterfowl birds a year in North America. But don't worry it's okay because there are extensive and well managed conservation policies in place to ensure numbers are secure.
Ok... so why the press on the oilsands for 2,000 birds then? Doesn't sound like they're going extinct.
edit:Also house cats an feral cats kill 500,000,000.
So basically articles that cry about energy efforts killing birds are total BS.
edit edit: also they do cite that oil and wastewater pits MAY kill up to 2,000,000 birds..................... maybe... we're not sure. But we wanted a big number in there.
This particular KIND of solar plant could be killing 28,000 birds. But to the "LETS BURN THE OIL AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX" crowd this is just incredibly awesome news as this is just one more opportunity to muddy the waters.
This new type of plant employs towers of mirrors. They look something like this:
This isn't the typical panels in a farmers field. But, nay, let's tar and, uhm, feather the whole solar industry so we can feel justified in ignoring climate change.
That's not what I'm arguing at all actually, if you're referring to me. I'm saying that if the problem is that birds are dying, which is the implicit point of a news article citing birds are dying, then the key sources of bird deaths should be researched before writing said articles.
You know, perspective.
People defending the oilsands on this one have not commented on climate change at all. They are saying the oilsands unfairly get targeted for bird deaths when cats and hunters are a much more lethal recipe for birds.
The oil sands bird issue was in a contained tailings pond not a spill
This is not to downplay other environment affects of the oil sands, burning fossil fuels or spills that occur, it was focused purely on the collateral damage to birds and the disparity in press coverage between the different energy producing technologies.
As the rest of this thread has shown, bird deaths are probably not a key point to evaluate any of these technologies on. If the entire oil sands changed to SAGD there would be next to no collateral bird damage (no tailings ponds) but that doesn't still make it an environmental champion.
This particular KIND of solar plant could be killing 28,000 birds. But to the "LETS BURN THE OIL AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX" crowd this is just incredibly awesome news as this is just one more opportunity to muddy the waters.
This new type of plant employs towers of mirrors. They look something like this:
This isn't the typical panels in a farmers field. But, nay, let's tar and, uhm, feather the whole solar industry so we can feel justified in ignoring climate change.
Hmm what thread are you referring to as nothing like that was brought up in this thread until your post.
It was heavily implied. The OP put "green" in quotation marks, others are comparing the damage to oil/gas....
But beyond that, you look up this story on Google and it is popping up all over the place on right wing climate change denying sites. The deniers are LOVING this story.
It was heavily implied. The OP put "green" in quotation marks, others are comparing the damage to oil/gas....
But beyond that, you look up this story on Google and it is popping up all over the place on right wing climate change denying sites. The deniers are LOVING this story.
Probably because denying climate change is a sign of a lack of intelligence, and it is human nature to be frustrated by someone publicly flaunting their lack of knowledge.
EDIT: Perhaps lack of intelligence is unfair. Wilful ignorance may be better suited to what I mean.
Last edited by Chill Cosby; 08-21-2014 at 10:14 AM.
I think it's important to consider the costs associated with all energy development and alternative sources, which are often ignored or swept under the carpet in order to vilify and persecute oil sand development and the petroleum industry in general.
The 'green' crowd certainly cheered when oil sands companies were charged for the death of a few thousand ducks, but the apparent lack of concern for birds killed in these cases suggests that they don't really care much about the health of animals but are more focused on attacking oilsands development.
The plain truth is that replacing current energy production on a large scale with this technology would lead to incredible amounts of bird deaths and likely unknown huge scale impacts upon the entire biosphere. We would simply be trading one problem for another... we need better solutions if we are to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel dependence.
It was heavily implied. The OP put "green" in quotation marks, others are comparing the damage to oil/gas....
But beyond that, you look up this story on Google and it is popping up all over the place on right wing climate change denying sites. The deniers are LOVING this story.
Unintended consequences stemming from people trying to do something good is pretty much the history of environmental damage everywhere.
I'm not saying 28,000 birds per year isn't offset by the polution savings of this solar plant, but trying to say this isn't a problem is a lot like denying that climate change is a problem, imo.
I think it's important to consider the costs associated with all energy development and alternative sources, which are often ignored or swept under the carpet in order to vilify and persecute oil sand development and the petroleum industry in general.
The 'green' crowd certainly cheered when oil sands companies were charged for the death of a few thousand ducks, but the apparent lack of concern for birds killed in these cases suggests that they don't really care much about the health of animals but are more focused on attacking oilsands development.
The plain truth is that replacing current energy production on a large scale with this technology would lead to incredible amounts of bird deaths and likely unknown huge scale impacts upon the entire biosphere. We would simply be trading one problem for another... we need better solutions if we are to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel dependence.
Right, we would be trading one problem for another. One huge, enormously impactful problem that damages animals, the environment, the atmosphere, and the health of human beings, for a much smaller, much more manageable problem that can then have focus put on it specifically instead of focus spread out over a dozen different major problems.
It's a great trade.
Saying otherwise is like saying you don't want cancer treatment because you're going to be left with an infection that needs medical attention. Fix the major problem, then shift the focus to the new, much less significant problem.
The plain truth is that replacing current energy production on a large scale with this technology would lead to incredible amounts of bird deaths and likely unknown huge scale impacts upon the entire biosphere. We would simply be trading one problem for another... we need better solutions if we are to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel dependence.
You're assuming that, now that the problem of bird deaths has been identified, absolutely nothing will be done to remedy it. Why do you think this solar plant (and others built in the future) won't install noise-makers and/or other devices to discourage birds from flying into the kill zone?
