3 ms·
That's what I was saying. But I'm sure we'll find a lot of people suddenly very emotionally invested in lobsters living within 10m of power lines, just like the
by adhesive_wombat 5y ago
That's what I was saying. But I'm sure we'll find a lot of people suddenly very emotionally invested in lobsters living within 10m of power lines, just like there are people who have a sudden overwhelming love for birds near wind turbines, but conveniently don't really rate other birds being killed by windows, cats, fossil fuel emissions, vehicles, farming, habitat destruction, etc.
And I'm sure if you looked, you wouldn't find any of them happen to be astroturfing for fossil energy companies (not saying this study necessarily is, but it'll be gleefully seized on forever after by those who are).
- belorn 5y agoThere is always nuclear which don't kill birds, don't put their emissions into the air, don't destroy the habitat for animals, and in general has proven to be fairly safe for animals even in the case of catastrophic accidents. Wind power need to consider endangered birds. Hydro power need to consider migrating fish (many which are currently on the brink of extinction), and now offshore wind need to consider the impact on animals living in the ocean. And we still need to solve the issue of storage for countries depending primarily on a combination of fossil fuels and wind and is located too far north to survive on solar during low wind conditions. We can't just sweep the problems under the rug and present it as the perfect solution without any issues.
- adolph 5y ago> suddenly very emotionally invested in lobsters Maybe for the 1%, for everyone else it is emotional labor. Unlike turbine-chum, lobsters are delicious. http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf