3 ms·

> and the documented bird deaths are awful[2]. Stop quoting this bullshit "fact." It is a meme made up by conservative think tanks to discredit wind farms. As

by sedachv 10y ago

> and the documented bird deaths are awful[2]. Stop quoting this bullshit "fact." It is a meme made up by conservative think tanks to discredit wind farms. As other posters have already pointed out, other human-related factors such as domestic cats, buildings and towers, and most importantly pollution and loss of habitat are far more significant dangers to birds. If you actually care about birds, take your cats to the vet and put them down (this will also help save the oceans: a large part of fish in cat food comes from massive and illegal trawling in South-east Asia often done with slave labor), and donate any rural/suburban property you own to a land trust, to be given back to natural habitat.

djrogers 10y ago
'Conservative think tanks' like the Audobon Society? It's not necessarily the raw numbers of birds killed, it's the type and the impact on their population. If your cat kills 1000 pigeons, the pigeon population won't notice. A handful of golden eagles every year or two though, and we get closer to losing another species. [1]http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-...
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  And yet the Audubon society, after considering all the various risks to birds, is pro-wind turbines, as you can tell from the angry commenters attacking them for this stance in the article you linked.
  - detaro 10y ago
    As is the original commenter, who nevertheless got attacked for quoting a "bullshit fact".
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      It is a bullshit fact, just like "80% fat free" is a bullshit fact that plays on human bias. Just because one side is talking about bird deaths doesn't mean it has the moral high ground on that issue. It is in fact a standard political move to attack your opponent on your weak point. And the less motivated listener just says "well they're both bad", even if one is clearly better.
      - detaro 10y ago
        It's not a bullshit fact. Admittedly it can be used to bullshit by blowing it out of proportion, but it is something that happens. Calling actual issues "bullshit" and demanding they are not talked about is not a very good way of getting people on your side. At least over here in Germany the organisations working to get more renewables deployed and studying these things massively overlap (e.g. nature clubs lobbying/advertising for renewables, and at the same time providing the boots on the ground counting dead birds). It has been recognized as a problem and is now managed, just as other environmental influences of new construction projects are (e.g. evaluating a new location includes a comparison with known migratory patterns/populations and restrictions and monitoring requirements can be set accordingly)

by sedachv 10y ago

djrogers 10y ago

'Conservative think tanks' like the Audobon Society? It's not necessarily the raw numbers of birds killed, it's the type and the impact on their population. If your cat kills 1000 pigeons, the pigeon population won't notice. A handful of golden eagles every year or two though, and we get closer to losing another species. [1]http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-...

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
And yet the Audubon society, after considering all the various risks to birds, is pro-wind turbines, as you can tell from the angry commenters attacking them for this stance in the article you linked.
- detaro 10y ago
  As is the original commenter, who nevertheless got attacked for quoting a "bullshit fact".
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    It is a bullshit fact, just like "80% fat free" is a bullshit fact that plays on human bias. Just because one side is talking about bird deaths doesn't mean it has the moral high ground on that issue. It is in fact a standard political move to attack your opponent on your weak point. And the less motivated listener just says "well they're both bad", even if one is clearly better.
    - detaro 10y ago
      It's not a bullshit fact. Admittedly it can be used to bullshit by blowing it out of proportion, but it is something that happens. Calling actual issues "bullshit" and demanding they are not talked about is not a very good way of getting people on your side. At least over here in Germany the organisations working to get more renewables deployed and studying these things massively overlap (e.g. nature clubs lobbying/advertising for renewables, and at the same time providing the boots on the ground counting dead birds). It has been recognized as a problem and is now managed, just as other environmental influences of new construction projects are (e.g. evaluating a new location includes a comparison with known migratory patterns/populations and restrictions and monitoring requirements can be set accordingly)