Environmentalists Blocking Wind Farms? And Solar? And Geothermal?
Kansas is ranked second in the nation behind Montana for wind energy potential, a fact which should have environmentalists jumping for joy. Instead, they’re trying to block the construction of transmission lines to wind farms in south central Kansas and north central Oklahoma.
Why? Well it all has to do with the lesser prairie chicken. According to a story by the Hutchinson News in February of this year, ranchers and wildlife officials in the area are teaming up with groups like the Sierra Club to block the construction of the lines, which would apparently run through prime breeding territory for the bird. Studies by Kansas State University show the birds will not nest within 400 yards of a power line, and the counties through which the lines would run are where the largest concentrations of the birds remain. Indeed, Kansas is the last state in the nation with a hunting season for lesser prairie Chicken.
The problem developers ITC Great Plains (a Kansas subsidiary of a Michigan company) and Prairie Wind Transmission (a joint venture between Westar Energy and Electric Transmission America) are facing: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is saying if more habitat is lost — and 60 percent of it has been lost in western Kansas alone — they’ll have to list the bird as “threatened.” In that case, the developers may find themselves with wind farms to nowhere.
The developers find themselves under deadlines of a sort. Kansas has mandates to produce 10 percent of its power from so-called “green sources” by this year, and 20 percent by 2020. Additionally, the energy companies would like to cash in on the demand nationwide for “renewable energy,” and that means being able to transmit the power from Kansas wind farms outside the state before other companies get there — so they need these lines built, and built fast.
Environmental groups, which are as quick to fang each other as they are dirty polluters, are lining up in opposition to the lines and to wind farms in general. In fact, they’re lining up against most current sources of renewable power: the Audubon Society hates wind farms because the blades kill birds and bats; hydroelectric covers up large swaths of land and releases “greenhouse gasses” when decaying material is exposed to the air; the Sierra Club has opposed solar plants in the Mohave. Apparently, even geothermal creates toxic waste no one wants.
So what’s the solution?
There isn’t one. The power companies involved in the Kansas program are still trying to get the approval they need. Lawsuits have already been filed to stop the construction. The lesser prairie chicken is still doing its mating dance, and environmental groups still continue to oppose all types of power generation.
At some point, there has to be a compromise between what would be perfect and what is possible. There is no perfectly “clean” source of electricity. But electricity we must have, unless we’d all like to squat in mud huts trying to read by the light of a stinking tallow candle. And this, ultimately, is the route the radical environmental left is taking us. They prevent all construction, while demand increases past the capacity to generate. California’s rolling blackouts on a national scale, anyone?
No one wants a dirty environment. No one I know wishes to return to the days when the Ohio River caught on fire. But we must temper the zeal for a cleaner environment with common sense.
This falls into the “should come as no surprise” category. But a few innocent souls will be surprised…because the true nature of environmentalism isn’t yet perfectly clear to all.
Traditionally, we placed human rights and human welfare above all other concerns on our moral scales. The environmental movement doesn’t just deny that proposition; it inverts it completely. To the “green bigots” (Thomas Sowell), human rights and human welfare come below all other concerns, including such fantastically important matters as the exact shape and distribution of sand and sand dunes in the Mojave Desert. (Yes, I actually heard an environmentalist make that claim.)
I can only conclude that environmentalism is anti-human — that the environmentalist, when he’s being truest to his faith, actively hates Mankind and hopes it will soon become extinct.
But this is merely truth, and so receives little attention from those who vend us news and opinion. Can’t take a chance on hurting anyone’s feelings, don’t y’know…especially the members of some death cult that regards 90% of the world population as fat, human biomass that will inevitably be cleansed from the planet.
“But electricity we must have, unless we’d all like to squat in mud huts trying to read by the light of a stinking tallow candle.”
Which is exactly what the environmental movement dreams of. As one of their gurus said back in the Eighties, “How we wish for a simplification, so we could live in our valleys with our home-made religion, our appropriate arts, our simple needs- happy at last!”
Of course, while most of us (who survived the Great Simplification- about 5% of the present total) were living in those mud huts and spreading night soil (don’t ask) in the rice paddies, our “enlightened ones” would be lording it over us from their castles. Protected by their armed retainers (clubs and axes- all that they’d need in world without- gasp!- guns), and served hand and foot by their personal retinue of slaves while they spent their time being entertained by troubadours, dining on tofu by the glory of wax candles, sipping their cappuccino, and doing the very important work of civilization. Namely, arguing over which of them is the One Most Perfect Socialist.
Their “dream world” is the horror our ancestors clawed their way up from. Anyone who thinks that life in the Middle Ages, or worse yet in the Bronze Age or Neolithic, was “romantic” should be required to live in a place where people still live at that sort of tech level by necessity, rather than choice; Sub-Saharan Africa comes to mind. I hear Darfur is nice this time of year; Somalia by comparison is a garden spot. (/sarc, in case you can’t tell.)
Of course, the “enlightened ones” always see themselves as the nobility. Who traditionally don’t care about the serfs. Since they don’t like the human race very much (see “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement”), this should come as no surprise to anyone with more than two synapses in their brain that are firing consistently.
BTW, the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York state had to shut down early this morning. It seems one of their transformers that sends generated power onto the main lines blew up. Oddly, it is one of the two that are outside the plant’s security fence. Considering that IPNPP has been the bete’ noire of the deep-ecos since Jane Fonda made “The China Syndrome”, I’m wondering just how “accidental” that explosion was.
(Yes, I have a nasty, suspicious mind. It has served me well for many years.)
clear ether
eon
And we think that we only have to worry about homegrown, islamist terrorists? Eco freaks are the terrorists. There is no appeasing them sop long as a one inch fish can make them assert that food production has to be eliminated over a fish.
Give them California. Let them live is putrid, diseased mud huts costing over 500k.
Sad thing is… there really aren’t that many of ‘them’…. just the Bay area would work fine.
Great piece EON. You speak for many.
Somewhere, Walt kelly is splitting his sides.
In the end, what will probably kill all of these “green” jobs is the cost, especially for wind farms. Ironically, in today’s New York Times there is an article about how the cost of these wind farms is killing them because the cost of conventional power plants (especially those powered by natural gas) is a lot, lot, cheaper. You can read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/science/earth/08fossil.html?ref=business
Wow, so if the New York Times, hardly a right-wing publication, says that wind power is an inefficient and costly way to produce energy, do you think wind energy still has a future? Only with the liberals.
Drill, baby, drill!
You appear to be quoting an article you have clearly not read. Apparently you did not get past the headline. Maybe you should read things before quoting them. Also, newspapers only say thing in their editorials. The other articles simple state facts and quotes from different parties. I know this idea is confusing to you because you are used to fox news.
From the NYT article
Electricity generated from wind or sun still generally costs more — and sometimes a lot more — than the power squeezed from coal or natural gas. Prices for fossil fuels have dropped in part because the recession has reduced demand. In the case of natural gas, newer drilling techniques have opened the possibility of vast new supplies for years to come.
——————–
Deals to buy renewable power have been scuttled or slowed in states including Florida, Idaho and Kentucky as well as Virginia. By the end of the third quarter, year-to-date installations of new wind power dropped 72 percent from 2009 levels, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group.
————-
In April, for example, the state public utilities commission in Rhode Island rejected a power-purchase deal for an offshore wind project that would have cost 24.4 cents a kilowatt-hour. The utility now pays about 9.5 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity from fossil fuels.
The end of the article states that renewable will become more competitive as fossil fuel prices rises. Big problem with that claim.. solar panels, wind turbines components take a whole hell of a lot of fossil fuels to build and maintain.
Twit! I read the NYT article. What is the basis for your bogus claim that he didn’t “know” what he was talking about? It seems that someone else should actually READ before opining, troll!
My statement is based on three things. First, the article is about the price of buying the energy not producing it. There is a huge difference, and the poster implied that the article is about the cost of making wind farms, but the article is about the currently lower cost of natural gas in coal. Second, the article does not come out negatively against the renewable energy. It just correctly points out that in today’s market it is cheaper to buy natural gas or coal than to buy wind produced energy. It also notes that this will likely change in the future, and have quotes stating that it is a narrow minded short term view to think otherwise. Third nothing in the article talks about efficiency and the poster did. Wind is not inefficient, just currently more expensive. We have a giant wind farm in Indiana, and they are able to sell the energy. Not only that, but the farmers, who have the turbines in their fields get paid. It is a win win for the state. It is not like there is natural gas under those farms.
Factor in the theme of Mr. Richardson’s article…. and remove the enormous litigation costs these firms are paying fighting these redundant, EPA sponsored suites… and I’ll bet the numbers look substantially better
Back in the early 70′s, 80′s when Kalifornia starting the Wind Farm industry, there were about 80% if not more of those Wind MIlls were not producing Energy rather they were just for show to let the people of Kalifornia think they were producing !!! How can a Wind Farm or Solar Farm be more cost efficient when the Sun goes Down the solar panels produce no electricity nor do those Turbines produce wind Energy and when you factor this into the equation of over all productivity of either Wind/Solar energy the rate of which is the total sum of energy that is usable is a mere 25%-30% total capacity. Mind you my numbers are just form memory of past articles but there close !! Now this doesn’t factor in the Court cost that all these entities are bound to include in the final cost of Energy and the cost will never go down and if you’ve been reading the past article here on the Wind/Solar energy and lawsuits by the EPA and there wing groups who in most instances are always included in the suits to make more money you know nothing about how these Environmentalist operate !!!!
Now after saying all that we haven’t begun to talk about the cost of which is driven up by subsides form our Beloved Gov’t to manufactures who can’t start a Wind Farm without cause no one would buy the energy, same for Solar but they always want to tout how great these companies are doing but take away the subsidies and they would be out of business, and when these subsidies dry up they will be out of business believe me !!! I believe that all stories reported on or around Nuclear PLants are no accidents, nor are any accidents that may have happened in or around Refineries accidents IMO, these people that tout and defend Wind/Solar will do anything to further there agenda’s, just look at Bill Ayer’s in what he did !!!
You bet windmills are inefficient. Especially when there is no wind, idiot. I haven’t even read the article and I know that.
You do not understand the term efficiency. They are inefficient compared to what? What other kind of energy would you be getting out of the those unused pieces of land in norther Indiana? Ethanol? The base of the turbine does not take that much space. What would you put in the middle of the air to get more energy??????? They put wind farms in areas where there is high wind. They do not just stick them anywhere. The turbines are always moving when I drive by. That is not to imply they are always going, but clearly they are often going. The wind farm is able to sell the energy. It is an efficient use of the land.
Actually Brian, it’s anything BUT an efficient use of the land. Wind is not viable unless it is heavily subsidized. It was billed as a way to have dual use of the land. Supposedly you could graze cattle on the same land as the wind farms.
However, the cattle don’t care for the noise of the blades and tend to lose weight rather than gain it. Which of course is a bit of a problem when you’re trying to fatten them up.
It seems it also is off-putting to the amorous intentions of the herd bulls. And since ranchers need an increase in the number of cattle they own each year. When the bulls aren’t doing their thing that doesn’t’ happen either.
But you miss the point. Environmentalists have pushed us to put up windfarms that are inefficient and uneconomic, and then block the lines which would at least allow the investors to recoup some of their money.
The point, Brian, is that radical environmentalists aren’t satisfied with ANY method of power generation. They aren’t interested in minimizing damage, but insist there must be NO damage. Which is patently impossible.
Patrick
Name an energy source and there’s at least one environmental group against it. If environmentalsts want the environmental movement to succeed, someone has to be FOR something once in a while.
Unfortunately, environmentalists, collectively, look like they are against everything, everywhere, all the time. As a result, they look suspiciously like those who are using the environemntalism to advance a political agenda of anti-Americanism and income redistribution.
We really do need a robust environmental movement, but we need one that is science-based, not politics-based.
Name ANYTHING and there is at least one “environmental” group against it.
Name anything and there is someone against it. What is your point? Environmentalist are not all the same person, they have different goals. This is true of anything you label as a group. That is not truly one group.
The author says at some point there needs to be compromise. This is wrong. At some point the Marxists who operate the environmental lobbies, like Sierra Club, need to be evicted from their roles of any influence. The legislation that permits unelected regulators to use phony input from these groups to supersede the normal rules of free enterprise and private property need to be ended. There is no compromise with authoritarians. They simply have to be defeated.
If they build the transmission lines some of these birds will build within the so called limits and they will not have to compete with the birds who won’t. A new species will evolve similar to the original except that it won’t limit itself to areas away from man’s projects. What everyone seems to forget is that about 90 percent or better of all the species that ever existed are extinct. Evolution is an ongoing process.
It’s about time someone said the Emperor has no clothes. The environmental damage from wind and solar farms is unconscionable. The answer is nuclear power, and the sooner we get there the better.
Don’t hold your breath! You would not look good blue!!!
It looks like a trap. People are the source of all problems. The animals will have dominion over people. As the Sierra club keeps looking stupid, one day it will fall on it’s face. Of course they hire lawyers and not scientists.
I said this ever since these Wacko’s started eating there own, like is said “The proof is in the pudding” ehhhh ? Though I can remember the author of the latest article on these Environmental groups who team up with the EPA that was written within the last few weeks said also that there biggest weapon is the treat of a lawsuit, where the Energy Co. pays a modest fee while the original plan(s) remain untouched but is allowed to proceed forward……. Business as usual or mission accomplished what ever you wish to call it in the end the only thing these groups want more than anything is Money. But we all know Animals are able to adopt very well in fact ever better than most humans are able to adapt to change, and the lines will be run the Energy Co will have to pay alittle extra but I’m hoping now they take a stand against these Wacko’s and actually fight them in court cause as I’ve mentioned these groups that threaten progress of any kinds not that I’m a fan of Wind or solar, but they always settle out of court there’s never a court ruling that orders a Energy Co. to pay X amount of money.
There never forced to alter there plans form the original copy once a deal is made, and this is something that these Energy Co. need to take a serious look at and us it to there advantage in fighting these idiots IMO !! Case Law is not on the side of the Sierra Club, or any other Environmental Group because of these mostly unknown facts of 99% of suits filed are settled out of court leaving in its wake no case law to defend them as it usually would be in a typical lawsuit has. I hope they in the end decide to fight them tooth & Nail and force there hands, cause in the end it’s only about how much one is willing to pay to do what others feel is not or should not be allowed for some animal.
sounds like they got their training from Jesse Jackson and Rev Sharpton
It has never been about the environment. It has always been about defeating the USA. There is no blood thirsty killer as bad as an environmentalist.
Trying to defeat the USA? Where do you come up with this hyperbole? As Brian N said, environmentalists are not all of one mind. They are a diverse group of people with a diverse group of opinions. They will not all agree. You’ll find the same disagreement arises over any topic in any group whether it be liberal or conservative, religious or secular, etc. There is nothing wrong with diversity of opinion, in fact, it often breeds creative, more effective solutions. While I’m certain some extreme environmentalists are looking to get back to the mud hut days (which doesn’t sound that bad to me) and some are living high on the hog like Gore, most of them/us are living in normal dwellings living our every day lives and just trying to do it with as little impact as possible. Conserving resources benefits everyone, and there is even a growing conservative environmental movement that recognizes not only the intrinsic value of the environment but (of course) the undeniable economic benefits of environmental protection (http://www.rep.org/, . The problem is also that corporations are latching onto the “green movement” and throwing wind farms up everywhere, putting solar panels on the GROUND (which is ridiculous given the amount of usable roof space in this country), and are doing it in the name of clean energy and “environmentalism.” No one is anti-American or anti-human, but we are anti-entitlement. Simply by being human you are not granted the right to destroy as you see fit, and that sentiment often applies to these so-called environmental endeavors as well.
This has nothing to do with Prairie Chickens. It’s about sending jobs overseas; redistributing wealth to the poorer nations.
Don’t you get it? The eco-nuts don’t want ANY energy generated. They’l support ‘green technology’ in principle but only so long as it’s hypothetical.
This is yet another very valid reason to defund the EPA and consider a complete revision of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. What began as a good idea rooted in common sense has devolved into a legal mechanism that acts against the needs of the country for cheap, reliable energy, as this instance demonstrates.
It’s time to return this entire movement to the fringes of society from whence it came, and to treat radical environmentalists and their lawyers as the enemies to society that they are.
I think environmentalism is best understood as a kind of “God-free”, secular religion. One that is essentially reactionary in nature.
Temper their zeal?
Hell, this was just the next page in the playbook.
They don’t want to take away your fossil or nuke power and replace it with
wind or solar; they want to take away your power and give you NOTHING.
Its time to start hunting these “Eco Nazis” along with the lesser prairie chicken.
Well, I have to say being against ALL forms of energy production certainly places these folks COMPLETELY outside of the loop in modern civilization. Making them irrelevant.
I’d say that’s the deciding vote to ignore the environmentalists, made by themselves, and proceed as necessary for societies benefit.
We’ll still let them use lights, heat, computers, shelter, transportation, communication, textiles and even food etc. just because it helps point up their stupidity.
Environmentalists like all revolutionaries are dedicated to achieving power. The whole game is to control society by any means whatsoever. The American middle class enviornmentalist is like the middle class Marxists who are at war with themselves. Somehow they think that they can attain their revolutionary goals and everything will be the same in their little milieu. They are the ultimate escapists who are running from facing themselves as they really are; spoiled selfish children who spit on the parents who worked hard and sacrificed in order to raise them. Someday they will wake up and find themselves alone facing the brutal facts of life and they will look for their parents and they will not be there.
Oh well, Just another chickens coming home to roost fable. And the lights will dim in Kansas. Dorothy will never find her way home. Oh, the horror.
You said no one wants a dirty environment. thats not true. i do. i want to wake up and see factories and lines of people going through the gates to work. Preferably making noisy very loud sports cars for me to drive.
I spent the first half of my career as an engineer working in factories that built things. With hard working techs and mechanics. was fun. prairie chickes are ok. cant we give them theiry own reservaction somewhere?
Interesting observation. I think that’s why the environmental movement gets only lukewarm support from the black community. Blacks are concerned about economic advancement and jobs. They know the enviros want to shut down factories, not build them.
Reservations? For which – the chickens or the environmentalists? I think we could establish environmentalist reservations – I’m sure the Dakotas would each give up a small portion of land, surrounded by barbed wire and land mines, wherein environmentalists could live a “natural”* life, without any energy sources other than muscle power.
The “alternative energy” they bleat about is an alternative to energy.
*i.e. nasty, brutish and short.
You can keep the enviro nuts in a reservation on the left coast. We have unspoiled beauty and ranchers and farmers raising your food out here. We don’t need to take any food acres out of production for the enviro’s.
More to the point: they are against man.
Wait, it’s even worse than you imagine. I heard that ELF, the radical leftist environmental group, is intentionally obstructing progress on the green front to maintain their relevance in today’s political discussions. Some people say they’re spending $200 million per day on long-plymer worm hybrids that will eat away at the earth under windmills and make them topple over. I don’t know, $200 million per day seems a LITTLE high to me. But I believe it because the some people who said it are saying what this person wants to hear.
First point: It was the Cuyahoga River that caught fire, not the Ohio (the Cuyahoga is in Ohio). The second point is that dirty, polluted rivers, among other nasties, are exactly what we’ll return to if the extreme environmentalists get their way. One wonders if these delusional people have even an inkling of the kind of brutish, nasty, and short life they’re advocating.
They are against candle dipping too.In fact,they would like the vast majority of humanity to just die already.
“a stinking tallow candle”
Outrageous! Are you not aware of the environmental impact of tallow production and use!
(I’ll leave you to write the rest of the satire)
Thanks for this update on the war.
In the near-future, according to the ex-CEO of Shell in his book, “Why We Hate Oil Companies”, within 10 years the war on energy will remove electricity from vast swaths of the U.S., including the east coast… He makes a strong case for this warning, as building power plants and refineries costs enormous sums and TAKES YEARS TO COMPLETE AFTER THE DECISION TO BUILD, but we are not building but rather we are de-commissioning (look this up for yourself)….He also gives a thorough look at Washington gridlock on energy expansion…Too bad people don’t pay attention to the EPA and the horrendous environmental lawsuits…Too bad people don’t see the exodus of energy companies in the face of increasingly destructive ‘rules’ and the threat of lawsuits….The U.S. is among the least friendly business climates in the world, and so California’s model looks to be the future of the nation…
It isn’t surprising that the well-funded environmental groups (our tax dollars help fund them) are attacking even the ‘green’ energy expansion, since pagan worship of the earth and animals has replaced belief in God. It’s time we campaigned to remove tax dollars from the EPA’s war on CO2 and from all environmental groups.
This is exactly what the “EvoHeads”want…. no green energy,no coal fired power plants,no nuclear plants. They want us to return to the days of Cain and Able…. well at least those of us who are not included in the “Elitists Club”.
Solution to these endless useless lawsuits. Loser pays, then say goodbye to 90% of litigation, and the remainder settled rapidly. That is tort reform. But unemployment will go up as lawyers lose their jobs.
Wind power is a complete swindle. It is heavily subsidized and gas turbines have to be built to back up the wind farms during times when the wind subsides. The windmills and the lines to them are an environmental disaster. The blades kill tens of thousands of birds. One nuclear power plant would replace every windmill in the country and provide non-greenhouse gas emitting energy. This is another ethanol-type boondoggle, a way to suck huge subsidies from the treasury and nothing more. The entire carbon-caused global Warming fraud is just that; and attempt to con billions from the foolish public and an excuse to implement discredited socialist policies. There has to be a point where common sense prevails and the people-hating enviro-nuts are marginalized.
“The blades kill tens of thousands of birds.” Really? I’ve heard this before, but I have never seen any source referenced. I drive by several windmills every day in an area heavily populated with gulls, ducks and geese. If tens of thousands of birds were being batted out of the sky, I think I would have seen a bird die by now.
Per the author,
“So what’s the solution?
There isn’t one.”
Drop the mandates. Problem solved.
And even more ridiculous, the enviros are turning against natural gas. There’s an “avant guarde” movie making the rounds in left-wing circles (including PBS) called “Gasland” which, with all the logic and science of “Loose Change”, attacks the gas drilling technology of fracing.
Yes, they’ve never met an energy source they didn’t like.
Make that “”liked”.
Considering we do not need expensive, erratically produced, power in Kansas, I sure hope the environmentalists block the wind farms, solar and geothermal plants and their unneeded, expensive new transmissions lines. Even more ironic, the wind farms actually increase CO2 emissions because the plants (mostly coal plants here in the Midwest) that must accommodate the wind turbine’s induced grid load swings (which occur mostly at night because that is when the wind blows) become more inefficient. Thus, more CO2 emissions are produced. Several studies have shown this. From a real world stand point, watch opacity meters at coal plants undergoing load changes; the “high” alarms go off and that tells you the plant’s efficiency is plummeting.
Yes, I’ve known this for years. Five and a half years ago, I found myself at a dinner with some environmental activist types who were aghast at the thought that a new coal-fired power plant would be built in a community near them. One of them said, “we’ll resist it with wind, solar, and geothermal.” Then she added, that if they tried to build wind or geothermal, they’d resist both of those, too.
In the meantime, I have an acquaintance who works for the fish and wildlife service. She spends much of her time researching the potential environmental impact of putting solar panels out in the desert or running pipelines or new power lines through unpopulated areas: one result is that it is difficult for anything to get built because there’s usually a colony of field mice or rabbits or some other critters in the way.
Isn’t “tallow” animal fat? Uh-oh. I’m pretty sure that will be a big ol’ no-no. *sigh*
Could be human fat. That would be okay with environmentalists, unless of course it added to ‘global warming’.
The end of a road construction zone in Indiana is marked with a sign that says “End Construction”. I always think of radical environmentalists when I see one of these signs because that’s what they want. They want to end construction.
The purpose of environmentalism is to reduced the human population. And with their success in getting the ordinary citizen to believe all the horrors that humans are supposedly doing to the planet, they have already acheived part of their objective.
From their push for abortion and gay rights, both with the consequence of fewer births, to their goal of emasculating males, which would seem to have already made inroads, since I read somewhere that the sperm count of males has dropped significantly in the last couple of generations, they can sit back and wait for us to destroy ourselves.
And if they get in a rush, they can make sure that socialism and Marxism takes control of our governmant and reduces the general population to serfdom, living in huts and using horses for transportation. I guess with their claim of global warming, we won’t need any sources of fuel to remain warm. I’m not sure what we’ll be eating or how we’ll be cooking it. Maybe back to roots and berries.
You could hardly invent a better natural resource than oil. It is easily accessible, relatively safe to transport, dependable and a highly concentrated source of energy that has upgraded the human condition immeasurably. If the Earth were a landlord, it would only allow tenants who had learned how to put its oil to work. All others would make too much of a mess and never achieve the standard of living that would allow them to be good stewards of the environment. How have we ended up in this bizarro world where oil is vilified and all kinds of wealth, time and effort is expended trying to replace it with cockamamie alternative schemes.
Wind factories are fine as long as they’re not in my backyard. They are over forty stories high with bliking red lights that are incessant. We’re having a battle here in northeast Oregon over a propossed wind farm of over 200 turbines looming over a small town with pristine elk, eagle, habitat. People here are simple folks that love the outdoors. Farming is the economy. The wind business is from Portugal and based in Texas. Subsidies from the Fed and State make the project feasible. The character of the valley, the smae since Lewis and Clarke, will be changed forever.
This wind industry is the worst of croney capitalism. It doesn’t pencil out as economically feasible. A few will benefit. (probaly less than 20 land holders).
Not a good deal for the taxpayers or residents.
The Environmental movement has no concern or regard for anything other than their radical agenda which is to block all industrial growth, especially in the wealthiest of countries, by claiming that all such activity by humans, who they do not consider a part of the natural world, is destroying the environment or the natural habitat of some endangered species or other threatening their extinction. Any negative response to their lofty prognostications, no matter the merit, are immediately demagogued as the rantings of greedy, manipulative polluters unconcerned about the health of the planet or well being of the “helpless creatures” like a 3 inch smelt in California or the Polar Bears on the “ever shrinking” polar ice or the Caribou in Alaska and now the prairie chickens in Kansas.
Remember the Caribou who were going extinct because of the Alaska Pipelines effect on their natural habitat? How did that workout? The “stupid” Caribou have adopted the area around the pipeline as part of their “natural” habitat because it’s a little warmer than it was before and they’re thriving as well if not better than ever.
These well intentioned fanatics need to be put back in their little academic sandbox where they can rant and rave against advancing civilization, commiserate with their like minded cohorts and let the industrial world get back to doing what it does best; innovate, create and expand their operations, create jobs, create wealth and improve the living standards of people who themselves are a major part of the natural world.
The Environmentalists have long since served their purpose. The world has become more vigilant, reacted, developed and implemented improved technology and operating procedures to minimize their impact on the environment and continues this process on an ongoing basis.
The adversarial relationship has long ago been proven to be far less effective than collaborative give and take, each side recognizing the significance of the other. The environment has taken its rightful place on the list of the major concerns surrounding industrial growth. It’s time the latter be considered equally relevant and compromises made while technological improvements are invented and implemented. That or go back to wood stoves, outhouses and the horse and buggy and deny those living in abject poverty any opportunity for relief from the misery they suffer while we bicker over our petty, selfish, intellectually motivated, “noble cause celeb.” Save the planet, screw the humans forced to live with your sorry butts on it.
Although this seems like an eternal argument, it is not. After forty years in engineering, a score of nukes, two score fossil power plants, and ten years studying advanced technology (what is coming), I have induced several truths. Environmentalism is composed of those who hate science, hate people, hate industry, or hate the USA, or a combination of these. They espouse a closed science, where no one can see the data, only their conclusions. But, in our litigious society, I have learned something worse: one environmental lawyer can trump a thousand engineers, due to a simple fact: It is far easier to block anything than it is to make something work, particularly if you are not constrained by the truth. Occasionally you hear the lie that green energy will bring new jobs. They just bought this lie in California. But you will never hear of a green energy company that can survive without mandates, subsidies, or both. Lacking a heavy government thumb on the scales, no investor will ever bet his own money. All this has been known for two generations.
What is new, in my experience, is that many fathers, uncles, and grandparents successfully steer their bright kids away from engineering, and science. America produces lawyers, not engineers, for the above reasons. China produces about eight engineers for one of ours (a soft number. There is no universal definition of an engineer, powerful forces define it to their benefit.) Nevertheless, whatever our government betters decide, they will find a vast black hole of talent when they decide to rebuild our creaky grid, and industry. Our smoke stack experts are dead. Thus, it is reasonable to expect a multi year outage due to some “unforseen” disaster. This will devastate millions of people, and will require another study commission of out of work D. C. lawyers. They will pontificate that our energy infrastructure is worn out, and we must do something, or cease to be an advanced society, and, for many victims, simply be alive. Which is fine for some environmentalists.
America may have past the point of no return in energy technology. We are certainly out of time. Electricity, and other forms of energy, will always exist but perhaps, only for the very wealthy. Under our current legal and regulatory system, we are headed toward the standard of living of the 19th century. Our current way of life is unsustainable.
“Environmentalism is composed of those who hate science, hate people, hate industry, or hate the USA, or a combination of these.”
Not so, sir. As a wildlife biologist and environmentalist, I can assure you that while there are certainly extremists out there, most of us are faithfully doing research, collecting data and analyzing the results, and trying to help based on what we find. We are genuine, we believe in our work, we embrace and fully believe the scientific process and are torn to shreds by our peers if our science is “bad.” There are corporate sellouts of course, and there are corporations pretending to be “green” because they want the cash. No environmentalist ever said to cover the whole damn country in wind farms. I don’t hate the USA or people. I hate that people think that simply because they are people they are entitled to consume and destroy whatever they see fit. I have no desire to send everyone back to the Dark Ages, but I do know that the current lifestyle of American excess is unsustainable and I’m not sure how we came to believe we are “entitled” to it. I think America is filled with creative, intelligent people who can come up with powerful solutions if they got it out of their heads that change is bad, that their lives will be miserable if there isn’t a WalMart and Starbucks on every corner, and that everyone is out to get them.
This article illustrates the illusion of “shovel ready projects” that Obama promised to fund with the $800 billion stimulus law. In fact, Obama, a former law professor, knows better. His statements were outright lies.
All land use activities require several steps before they become shovel. The project must be planned and then designed; next an environmental impact statement must be prepared, circulated for comment, and approved by the proper authority; then zoning, excavation and construction permits must be applied for, reviewed and approved; and then bidding and construction contract formation occur.
While all of the foregoing occurs, NYMBY and environmentalist opposition is ongoing in an attempt to block the project. When the project is ready to be performed, the lawsuits to review the entire process and to prevent performance will be filed and can take several years to complete.
The various stimulus federal programs are both wrong headed and require years to become “shovel ready.” This applies to all of Obama’s green programs to develop wind, solar, and nuclear energy projects. The environmental organizations that support Obama’s initiatives will flip and oppose many of them as well.
Ah well, so what if a few trillion dollars are borrowed and then squandered uselessly.
It was the Cuyahoga River that caught on fire, not the Ohio River.
We have now reached a plateau that goes beyond NIMBY and all the way to BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). Were we to gather all our energy on the moon and beam it to earth, they’d still have something to object to.
The good thing about such movements is that they do a fine job of discrediting themselves. Once people realize there is no sanity in these opinions, we can sit down and have an honest conversation about what works.
I would love to see our country move away from fossil fuels, and toward a renewable nuclear or solar energy source. I would love to be able to tell the governments that built themselves around oil, gas, and coal that we have no need to import their commodity any more. You do not have to be an environmentalist to appreciate this goal. There will be compromises. There are no perfect solutions. The problem is that the need exists right now and the longer we wait, the worse things will get.
I too care about the environment, but I do not express that care as a religious belief. I care because our economy and long term survival is tied to it. I enjoy hunting and fishing as much as anyone, and I want the wild animals and fish to be there for my children and grandchildren.
Again, you do not have to be a loony leftist to care about conserving our environment. We have an opportunity to find a great deal of common interest between both sides here. The shame of it is that too many people are fighting it.
Environmentalist nit wits are against everything period. The sooner the general public realizes this the sooner they will stop sending their hard earned money to these organizations. Look past their bs pamphlets with polar bears and baby seals emblazoned in living color and you’ll fine a spoiled high living twit that lives in a house 10 times the size of an average home. Think Algore, Paul Watson (captain? of the sea Shepard) or several CEOs on the Oregon coast.
When a Democrat says “Shovelready” it definitely not for jobs but to clear a path through their BS.
They could care less about the environment.
Take the EPA’s stranglehold off America! We have more oil in N D than exists in the mid east.. hell scientists just ‘discovered’ it is an element… not bio! And so a renewable resource! Abolish the un-Constitutional EPA and open the fields.. oil will goto below 15 a barrel.. the entire worlds economy will skyrocket. Secondly, we’d no longer be buying C4 and AK 47′s for the enemy to kill us with… and construction may suffer by the slowdown in mosque building.
….. and the kicker? IT’D BE CHEAPER!!
Job loss? NAW, they could go work the rigs, I worked them for years… its a learn/promotion as you go job. And pays good!
The department of energy was created in the 70′s to end America’s dependence on imported oil. It was 30% at the time… now it’s 70% WTF? Fire the whole agency! Another saving in billions of dollars! … and get back to the original Constitutional maritime law and away from this commercial code law these/those ‘titles of nobility’ holding lawyers have snuck us under. All three branches, serve at our pleasure… Why would we have them, pay them no less, to write tens of thousands of pages of ‘rules’ to expand ‘their’ powers and restrict ours… that most of us can’t even read or understand?
If you have ever been out Interstate 10 past San Gorgonio pass on the way to the Coachella Valley you would have seen one of the most ugly industrial projects in history. The Wind Farms. And to think, the idea is out to build such a disgusting project in the Mojave Desert.
I’ve got to go with the environmentalists, democrats and Obama on this one! There is one solution and only one solution and they have it. We must tap the vast power of unicorn urine, just as Obama has urged. There must be great herds of unicorns across the country with millions of green job holders collecting their urine to be converted into clean power!!
And when they /do/ manage to build a single stupid wind turbine, the damn thing doesn’t work.
http://www.kansas.com/2010/11/09/1579985/man-arena-sues-over-wind-turbine.html
The root of the problem is that the fedgov pays lawyers to bring lawsuits against the US fedgov. The environment is one area where they are active.
How to make deserts and continent
green + energy + food + land + water + cooler climate.
Use mighty power of nature. In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,
huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.
Tides are up to 12m. Evaporation is up to 4m per year and can be increased.
Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,
desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia.
World population is growing rapidly and we need more energy, food, land and water.
see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/submissions/cprs-green-paper/~/media/submissions/greenpaper/0929-mitic.ashx
this will change deserts and whole continent for better climate -
environment, provide hydro energy, permanently and economically.
energy + food + land + water + cooler climate
Climate is not easy to understand.
To comprehend this theory probably best forum with lots of explanations and plans
so that others can contribute their ideas and missunderstanding clears up.
Please answer
Hi! Great, I read this blog, Its very interesting…..