For the sake of argument, let us agree with the Obama Administration that the Earth is warming up. Should we respond by being scared or cautious and, if scared, exactly what should we be frightened of?
Frankly, I am frightened of my president, who goes about justifying huge conversions of our public lands to subsidize wind farms and solar power plants.
Recently announced, a photovoltaic solar project at Soda Mountain, California, is just the latest among dozens to win approval. Has no one in the administration advised the president that two wrongs never made a right?
Now 69 years on this planet, I have yet to see the oceans “rise.” They of course surge during storms and hurricanes, but I remember storms just as big from the 1950s. They are only worsened now because of sprawl. Mother Earth has never lied to us about the tide line, which developers along our seacoasts still ignore.
Of course Super Storm Sandy was super. She had millions of targets from which to choose.
Like Goldilocks in the Three Bears, a host of “experts” now insists that our sea level must be perfect—not too high, and not too low, but comfortably suited for everything we have built.
The problem is: It is indeed our plan and not the Earth’s. Nor has Earth ever given ample warning before deciding to go on a rampage. Hey, humans! I have a 9.0 earthquake coming. Get ready to rock and roll!
Granted, new methods of prediction have helped. Still, as Jay Leno advises, the only sure way of predicting a tornado is to visit the nearest trailer park.
It’s dark humor, but so true. Development has increased the drama. These days, there are simply more structures for storms to reach and destroy.
As for the storms themselves, they are no worse than they were historically. When I was growing up, cities were smaller, fewer in number, and farther in between. When a big hurricane hit, as in 1900 at Galveston, Texas, it left many thousands dead—in Galveston perhaps 12,000. P.S. No one in the country blamed global warming.
The problem is that developers don’t read environmental history—or think critically about it if they do. For them, as for alarmists, every natural disaster becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We demand the country “do something” before Earth exceeds its “tipping point.”
Here the alarmists are entirely speculating. Going back hundreds of millions of years, we know from the geological record that the Earth has warmed repeatedly—and cooled repeatedly. Fifty-six million years ago, palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. But again, why should anyone be bothered with geology—the grandest history of them all?
“Tipping point” has nothing to do with science. It is rather preferred by politicians, developers, and corporations to scare us into doing something stupid.
Such as parting with our public lands. But zoning 40 million acres for alternative energy? Again, how will that make us smart?
Because we are the problem, they administration persists. We started this warfare with Mother Earth by suffocating her with gobs of CO2.
Mother Earth still has news for us—and for the administration. She will keep adjusting even if we can’t. Nor despite our best intentions will she necessarily adjust the way we want.
She simply doesn’t care. Even as we “model” her she refuses to be modeled. It’s a computer model, after all, showing but a pittance of her incalculable behaviors.
A better explanation for all of this modeling is money. A cabal of green energy developers is getting rich. Face it. Few politicians agreed to this “reform” without first being strong-armed by the industry.
When did President Obama go all out for green energy? The record there is deep. His chief adviser has been Jeffrey Immelt, the Chairman and CEO of General Electric. Now there is a top scientist for you.
And you, Senator Sanders. Just call it green. Wave your arms in the air and shout a lot. Tell them you’re not connected to Wall Street. It will be our secret, senator.
Just don’t mention that some people in Vermont are wising up, seeing wind farms as “moronic.” General Electric has billions on the line here, senator. Forget the tourist revenue.
There is your tipping point—money. News flash! Green acne grips the public lands. Not to worry, the lobbyists say. Lady Liberty won’t even notice the pimples because the rest of her face will remain “pristine.” The pimples, that is, the turbines, will require just five percent of her skin.
Those people in Vermont are right. Green acne is moronic. Five percent or even a tenth of one percent, the public lands were never meant to be picked over like a scab. These are life-giving lands—critical lands—demanding our everlasting respect.
The Obama Administration must believe in Clearasil. Unfortunately, these scars will not soon be undone. Destroying the beauty and biology of the American landscape is never an excuse for “action.”
Granted, global warming is not a hoax. But yes, the statement is designed to deceive. We are not supposed to ask: If global warming is for real, for how long has it been for real? The answer, at least for human civilization, is the better part of the past 15,000 years.
Nor are we supposed to see the deception here: 97 percent of scientists agree about global warming. Of course they agree. After all, they would have to agree. Now with us for 15,000 years, global warming is just about as certain as gravity.
That’s not what we mean, the cabal protests. We mean human CO2 emissions only. We get to say what is causing climate change. No wonder American education, especially higher education, has turned into another mess.
Again pardon history for violating everyone’s “safe zone.” For giving us a Northern Hemisphere virtually free of ice sheets and full of freshwater lakes, we owe thanks to the Big Melt. Without it, Western Civilization would not exist.
What will green energy do to reverse the melting? Not a thing. Are we making the melting worse? Again, what is meant by worse? On a warming planet, ice melts. It is neither better nor worse as far as Earth is concerned. It is simply something that she does.
As for what is meant by “we,” eight billion people on the planet is a pretty big we. With all of those people exploiting resources, we do have a tremendous impact.
However, that especially is what universities mean by a "safe zone," where anything controversial is banned. Lest even a single person in the room be offended, the real problem is out of bounds.
Certainly, there is little chance of going back to “us”—that sweet spot in the middle of the twentieth century when the United States stood virtually alone in the developed world. When I was born, there were just 145 million people in the country and everyone could get a job. Now the entire world wants what America has, nor will they let some Paris “emissions treaty” stand in their way.
What most countries don’t have are public lands. It’s up to us to use common sense. We set aside our public lands for a very specific purpose, at once both biological and aesthetic. They were never meant to be industrialized.
We’ve done enough of that already looking for oil, coal, gas, and minerals. Breaking faith with biology—wilderness—we break faith with America the Beautiful period, undoing the wisdom of some of our greatest leaders, especially Theodore Roosevelt and FDR.
As an exceptional history, it remains immovable, and so yes, the green energy cabal is stumped. Getting their way with the White House and Congress first depends on silencing us. Give it up, Dr. Runte, lest we next throw you to the wolves as a denier and card-carrying member of the three percent!
Here again, I grew up with black-listing and commie-baiting. I know censorship when I see it. “I have a list,” warned Senator Joseph McCarthy. “Be careful your government doesn’t put you on it.”
The ancients called it hubris, filling their mythology with the inevitable result. Nor will the gods now be appeased by mere mortals showing no respect for creation.
Pummeling the American landscape is hardly less criminal than emitting CO2. As George Perkins Marsh first reminded us (remember that Vermonter, Senator Sanders?), the public lands are America’s antidote to what happened to Greece and Rome.
George Perkins Marsh would know what to tell the White House. No more wind farms and solar power plants on the public lands. If they worked, they would work just as well on private lands paid for by the ratepayers.
Of course, that explains the censorship. Suddenly, few of those plants would work. Without their subsidies, they are bound by physics. Perhaps “the battery” they need is just around the corner. Well, so was fusion 50 years ago. I’m still waiting for fusion, as I suspect the nation will be waiting for that battery years after I am dead.
Simply improving a technology does not make for a revolution. Those are few and far between. There will be nothing revolutionary about wind or solar power until their reliability is 100 percent.
It may happen, and we should hope it does happen. Then no one will need the public lands—or polluting fossil fuels. Investors will be speculating on a proven technology and laughing all the way to the bank.
The point is that until it happens we have no business acting as if it will—or has. Instead we are left crying as our public lands die piecemeal. For what? At this point, still at best for a costly experiment and at worst another scam.
Every time Mother Nature fails to cooperate, wind and solar power call for backup, in other words, fossil fuels. Wind not blowing? Fire up the gas. Sun not shining? Fire up the coal. Actually, keep the fire hot 24/7 because both can die in an instant.
Where, oh, where, is that perfect battery? Lacking it, proponents next talk about “improving” the grid. The wind will always be blowing and the sun always shining somewhere. We simply need enough projects that overlap.
In short, they plan for even worse. More pimples, more power. After promising to treat with Clearasil Ultra, bring on the concrete, asphalt, rebar, culverts, bridges, retaining walls, service roads, transmission lines, and more. Fence it all off for security. Put up floodlights to hold back the night. What? No CO2 emissions in any of it?
As for wildlife, let the arrogance flow. Demand from the government a legal “take.” Failing in that, fudge the numbers in the EIS. Eagles? Following a very “rigorous,” “comprehensive,” “meaningful,” and “responsible” assessment—that after consulting every “stakeholder”—we didn’t see a one. Well, maybe one, but it was flying away from us. We therefore concluded it will not come back.
What the Interior Department calls an environmental impact statement is just about that bad. All are fudged; all are rushed, unless some judge, refusing to be bent by politics, forces the department back to the drawing board.
We may hope that will happen at Soda Mountain. Certainly, green energy has flaunted every principle of stewardship, if by stewardship we mean do no harm.
Us? Harm the environment? If it lives, we first try to move it. If it dies in its new location, so be it. When the public gets suspicious, we know to repeat the mantra. We are being as “green” as we possibly can.
The immovable history remains: Nothing dismissive of life and the American past has any place on our public lands.
History will already venture this. If the Obama Administration persists in making tradeoffs—as if what the public has to trade is expendable—future generations will never allow that a pittance of national monuments “balanced” out the loss.
The urge to start someplace is no excuse for starting badly. Might we then elect for ourselves a president who believes in the public lands? There again, and especially in this election year, I join Mother Earth in not holding my breath.
An environmental historian and frequent contributor to the Traveler, Alfred Runte lives in Seattle, Washington, where he writes about the public lands. His books include National Parks: The American Experience (Taylor Trade) and Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness, which he is revising for a second edition.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Comments
"The problem is that developers don’t read environmental history—or think critically about it if they do."
Let's change just one small part of that sentence -- let's make it read "developers and their purchased allies in legislatures."
We could even add "and the American public" to make it even more accurate.
This applies to virtually every kind of human impact upon the environment -- from massive, sprawling housing developments; roads and highways; solar and wind power; open pit mining; mountain top removal for coal extraction; continued use of fossil fuels; water and air pollution; trash -- you name it. Humans are having more impact upon Earth than ever before simply because there are now more of us than ever before. (Dr. Runte has recognized that in other postings here.)
There have to be solutions. We have to search for them and find them and make them work. Our survival as a species depends upon it. But until we can also find a way remove MONEY, PROFIT, and GREED as obstacles to any carefully reasoned, cooperative approach to solving the problems we face, there simply won't be much -- or any -- real progress.
The President, no matter who he or she may be, gets the blame for everything when blame really lies with so many others who hide behind a myriad of curtains and secret dealings. The problem goes far beyond the walls of the Oval Office, or Congress, or even our local town halls.
The problem is all of US -- you and me. Trouble is, not many of us or our neighbors will really look up from our entertainments until we are gasping for air or out of drinkable water.
But hey, then we can always blame the President.
Problem solved.
Really?
At it again with your unsubstantiated accusations.
Obstacles? Those elements of capitalism (except "Greed" which is just envy expressed by the envious) are what has made this country the greatest ever to exist on this earth and has led to solving more problems and generating more progress than any other system.
BTW -want to get developers' attention on the edge of the oceans? Get rid of government controlled and subsidized flood insurance.
I'm glad this is listed as an op-ed.
Interesting Op-Ed Alfred. I agree that climate change is a natural process, all the geological and archeological evidence point to the fact. What is in dispute is the human impact factor and is it accelerating the process. It is a stretch to think the 7.5 billion of us, human beings with all our associated activities, is not exacerbating the situation. Burning fossil fuels, fracking with the methane and water quality issues, waste disposal both in landfills and in the oceans, deforestation, the list goes on, well it is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field, that we a contributing factor. Many of those that write it off have ties to the fossil feul industry.
I also think you make a good point on the issue of leasing more public land for extractive purposes, mineral mining, grazing, oil and gas, and now renewable energy. It is the price we pay for the growing population and all the and development and services that goes along with it. There is a very interesting article in the March issue of the "Desert Report" a publication of the Sierra Club California/Nevada Desert Committee. It is a report on the National Lands Conservation System Designations in the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. Yes, vulnerable habitats are not permanently protected, but nothing is. It is a frustration of all environmental litigation that lawsuits won often times is just a postponement for the next development proposal. This is further complicated by population growth, we are projected to be at 9 billion by 2050, if not a lot sooner.
However all that said, and what do I know anyway, it is prudent for us to continue the fight, not just for our own sake but for those that follow, not to mention the plants, animals, birds, bees, etc. we share this planet with.
A nice post, Ron. Thank you. I continue to imagine what the world would be like with only the 2 billion people it had when we were born. Saying that, I stir up another hornet's nest--Oh, you want everyone to be dead instead of you! No, I just want 5.5 billion people to wait their turn. Even if you believe in Mormon theology, must we have our trial on Earth all at once?
No doubt, the Earth feels our presence enormously, but again, she doesn't care. She has 5 billion more years to run, unless the theologians are right. Every 20 million years or so, she takes an asteroid on the chin and shakes everything off. There again, we insist we can "deflect" the asteroid with a space program that hasn't been back to the moon in 44 years.
It is not worth losing our public lands over. But I agree. All we can do is keep up the fight.
Agreed, Ron. Earth is so full of humans and we are having such enormous impacts upon our planet that a growing number of geologists believe there should be a new epoch of geologic time -- the Anthropocene.
Dr. Runte, I agree with much of what you are saying, but question the wisdom of doing nothing in the face of mounting evidence that human activities are causing harm that may be irreversible. While neither side of the global warming debate can actually PROVE their positions, neither can either DISPROVE the positions of the other. Isn't failing to do anything tantamount to ignoring the screech of a smoke alarm because there are no flames visible -- yet?
Much of the drive behind using public lands for solar and wind installations is profit driven. Somebody is gonna make a lot of money. Much of it will be taxpayer subsidized in one way or another. Again, it's socialize expense while privatizing profits. Shouldn't we be actively seeking alternative locations for those installations? And wouldn't countless American rooftops or back yards be better locations?
On the other hand, I'd rather see acreage devoted to trying to solve our energy and fossil fuel addiction than doing nothing. Research and development of alternate energy is proceeding very rapidly. Might it be possible in a relatively few years to find that the huge solar and wind farms are no longer needed? And if that is the case, they should be removable with little permanent damage. While there are legitimate environmental concerns for things like desert tortoise and various other living things, surely there must be some kinds of safeguards that could be placed if enough effort goes into planning and construction. Don't solar or wind installations carry much less permanent impact than mountaintop removal or the emissions their product will produce?
There are other environmental effects of human activities that may be far greater. I am very disappointed in the current administration's lack effort when it comes to environmental enforcement. One thing that should be worrying all of us, but that is being ignored (and some government scientists are being targeted) is the rapid decline of one of the most important creatures on Earth at the present time -- honeybees. Political payoffs are preventing action to deal with the impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides. As you say, smokescreen use by various political parties and profiteers does indeed fog the situation.
It seems to me that we, as a species, are standing at a crossroad. The path we take from here can and will, as Robert Frost said, make all the difference.
It will take wisdom. Lots of it. And right now in American politics, wisdom is as scarce as the world's population of dodo birds or passenger pigeons.
Lee, you hit the nail on the head the moment you said: "Might it be possible in a relatively few years to find that the huge solar and wind farms are no longer needed? And if that is the case, they should be removable with little permanent damage."
If only that were the case. But it is not. The damage being done is virtually irreversible. After all, it is a desert environment where recovery may take centuries. The tracks of George Patton's tanks are still visible in the Mojave Desert, and he trained there 75 years ago.
For most solar farms, the land is entirely graded--scraped bare of all living things. Wind farms require miles of service roads, culverts, retaining walls, and new corridors for transmission lines. Rooftop solar? Now you're talking. The problem is: The Big Corporations want to sell the power themselves.
My good friend Garrett Hardin used to say: What would we have thought of the man promising to invent the parachute AFTER jumping off the Empire State Building? In the first place, we would have thought him pretty stupid. He would have had only seconds to deliver on his promise before going splat into the ground.
If all that technology can promise us is to go splat, I think we should wait. Why destroy our public lands to find that all of it was unnecessary? If, as promised, that "breakthrough" is just around the corner, why not wait? You wouldn't burn down your house to get rid of a few mice. Why burn down our country to eke out a few kilowatts of green energy when, again, it isn't yet capable of standing on its own?
There is no tipping point; there never has been. The Earth can and will adjust. The question is whether we will adjust--and whether we dare to adjust without destroying everything else in the process. Speaking of something we could do immediately--and leave not one scar on the land--why haven't we switched from highways to railroads for carrying all intercity frieght? Even on fossil fuels, a railroad is seven times more efficient than rubber on asphalt. A railroad can carry a ton of goods 425 miles on just a single gallon of diesel.
But you see--that would not require a new technology. It would simply take correcting a past mistake. First we would have to admit the mistake. And now you see why destroying the public lands is so much easier.
You should never, I repeat NEVER give in to a lie from a known liar who eschews truth all the time, that we can say for a second, is lie is the truth. Never do that. The truth is not in him.
Hey, about 15 years back Rush Limbaugh installed a doomsday clock based upon Al Gore's statement that in 15 years all would be over. Well, the clock ran out and we are still here. Okay, some of my friends and family are gone, making me a survivor. But they did not die of anything Al Gore claimed was happening.
Did you know that every day bits of ice comets hit the earth's protective atmosphere and gas up but then condense and fall to the earth as new water? Wow! None of the alarmists figured that truth into their computer models. Instead, they tried to tell us that once water was used it was gone. Drink water and it was gone. Wash dishes, it went down the sink and into a dirty pond where it can never be used. Forget the best purification system ever... evaporation. Nope, there IS NO MORE WATER you public school worker bees! But it was a lie. Like all of global warming and sea level rise due to the ice cube melting.
Fascinating, Cliff. How many gallons of water do those bits of ice comets add to Earth's supply every day?
Alfred Runte's last two Op-Ed columns have had interesting topics. I only wish those topics could have been better addressed in the columns themselves...
Jut when you thought it couldn't get any worse. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/new-administration-rule-would...
I don't understand why someone would write such drivel, as if it is this administration that is saying the world is warming. It is the whole world that is saying it! Wake up!
Well, I am not saying it, Argalite, and now it is time for you to wake up. Your president has no problem with killing eagles in the name of wind power. What kind of "science" is that? There are about 200,000 eagles in the continental United States and Alaska. Is that enough? Fifty years ago, when there were 4,000, everyone sat up and noticed. Why is no one noticing now? Because it is wind power and not DDT driving them to extinction? Drivel, you say? On what basis? These are the facts and not my opinion. If I were writing that, believe me, your ears would burn.
But yes, I will assume you read the entire article. It's a big assumption to make, I know. But if today you feel no outrage that a fellow species is on the chopping block, don't call yourself an environmentalist. Just order Eagle for Thanksgiving dinner and stuff the last one for the Smithsonian.
Why would I read some crappy article that begins with a statement about the administration saying the earth is warming? When an article begins like that, you know it is going to be a buch of beliefs, instead of a serious discussion of facts. What about the Union of Concerned Scientists? the UN? the rest of the world?
I seriously wonder why these anti-climate change article keep appearing in the Traveler, since the world's scientists have already determined that climate change is happening now.
The author can't seem to understand that we need to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon and if we don't, many thousands of species are going away for good, and not just a few eagles.
Good, Argalite. Now we're getting somewhere. Obviously you didn't read the article at all. You nonetheless want to argue about it, citing all of those scientists and "the rest of the world." Yes, some 180 countries sent representatives to Paris last year to sign a climate change agreement. Now we can all feel good that something is being done. The problem is: The agreement is entirely voluntary. Are we to give up our public lands for that?
I don't want to, and no one should have to. What hold should China have on us? They are the ones who should be going first in this business. They are the country with 1.4 billion people.
I want my eagles, and yes, I want all of them--not simply the ones the Administration allows me to have. I spent 50 years of my life fighting to bring them back from DDT. Why should I now allow them to be killed by windmills? You talk about thousands of species about to go "away for good," then dismiss my eagles as if they were just a frivolity. Fine, you apparently have the support of the president, but he is still not King George.
As for the Union of Concerned Scientists, the UN, etc., I really can't say at this point. I have not polled those people individually whether or not they agree with this latest "solution." But I certainly can tell you this. The friends I have in the scientific community are not dismissive of any species. They would not argue, as you do, that numbers outweigh the ethics. Just because thousands of species are allegedly in jeopardy does not make picking which get to survive any less painful.
Fine. Let's do something to reduce CO2 and get off the "the fossil fuel bandwagon," as you call it. However, the moment anyone says we have choose a sacrificial lamb, we should know that their sincerity is weak.
As is the sincerity of those 100 plus countries that told us they would have to wait. I believe China is waiting until 2030. Uh, huh. And then what? Does that sound like a looming crisis, and if so, when do we put our foot down and say no one gets to wait?
Perhaps, while we're changing the face on the $20 bill, we should put a wind turbine on the back of it. "In Wind We Trust." To trust in God would mean to believe in His creatures--all of them, although yes, some are always going extinct. I just don't believe that politicians--or corporations--should get to make that choice.
That is what the "crappy article" above is all about, and I would have written it regardless of who was in the White House. Had you been around when there were no eagles, and even songbirds were in jeopardy, perhaps you would understand why I will not consign them to this latest argument that they have to "take one for the team."
They've already taken enough. If you can't build something without killing them, I say it should not be built at all. Although that may not be the majority opinion in this world, many other majorities have been wrong, as well.
It is the opinion of the vast majority of experts in the field of "climate science" that the impact of 7.5 billion people and all their activities is having a serious impact on climate change. Activities include burning fossil fuels, deforestation, chemical pollution, well the list is lengthly. That climate changes regardless of what we do is also a fact. Alfred, I am with you on the issue of the eagles. I just spent 3 days at a major environmental organization conference in San luis Obispo. The CNRCC of Sierra CLub California passed a resolution stating that the California Desert Conservation Renewable Energy Plan is not acceptable. There is much that can be done, if not all, locally in cities/communities all over the country starting with roof top solar and localized distribution. Unfortunately for the eagles, its cheap to go the desert, you stated the issue well in a previous post.
I've tried in vain to find any good solid scientific information regarding bird kill by windmills. There are a whole bunch of hits when you Google it, but the numbers are all over the place depending upon which group's numbers you choose to look at and accept.
It appears that the bottom line is that nobody really knows.
That's why I keep coming back to installation of rooftop solar panels on as many roofs as we can find.
Absolute baloney. The only way you get to that conclusion is by selective editing of your "experts" and extropolation and biased interpretation of their papers and comments. Not to mention the predictions of the
"experts" have been horribly wrong.
Come on, EC. 7.5 billion people have to be having an impact, but yes, THAT IS THE IMPACT. It is not CO2. CO2 is the byproduct of the impact. If you don't want to stop the actual impact, stopping the byproduct won't do a thing.
In Environmental Studies, we used to teach it this way. Your grandfather used to dump his sewage in the river, and the river did just fine. A few hundred yards downstream the river ran clean again. Sunlight and oxygen did their magic. Then grandfather got married and had ten children, and all of their effluent went in the river, too. Now it took a mile of water to clear the stream. Then the whole riverbank got settled, and everyone had ten children, and the river was horribly polluted. Everything else went in the river, as well--old tires, discarded mattresses, industrial wastes, etc., etc. Then the government came along and told people to clean up their act. Unfortunately, no one told them to stop having children. Oh, they suggested it from time to time--and occasionally a professor wrote a book about it. The problem was: All it now took was a minority of the population acting irresponsibly to keep the river polluted. Why? Because that minority of that far larger majority outstripped grandfather's irresponsibility many fold.
People do add to the carbon load. No one is denying that. The problem remains: With less naturalness to cleanse the planet, the planet is not getting clean. The lack of naturalness is itself due to population overload.
Nonsense, General Electric says, and whispers in the ear of our president. We can solve that by putting up windmills in the desert--provided you give us the desert. In other words, allows us to deal with the byproduct again and not the problem. We will get rich and you will get reelected. Who will have to solve the problem? As Lucy said in Peanuts, stick it on the next generation.
I don't want to lose my public lands listening to Lucy's advice, which now, in this election year, is all we get to hear again. My wife and I took that professor's advice and had no children. When we die, our footprint will be gone. That is how it has to be on any spaceship--of which Earth is also one. Now to say that everything else has to die to save us is simply beyond the pale.
I hope my eagles are having a meeting, too, and have decided to poop all over the White House in protest. And while they're at it, General Electric headquarters. Stick it on the next generation indeed.
A recent peer-reviewed study, which itself looked at 116 other studies from the U.S. and Canada, confirms that wind turbines are waaaay down the list of problems for birds; in fact by displacing fossil fuels they are helping birds, as well as everything else that is alive on the planet. A recent report confirmed that "hundreds of bird species in the U.S. — including the bald eagle and eight state birds, from Idaho to Maryland — are at 'serious risk' due to climate change. It said some species are forecast to lose more than 95% of their current ranges."
For those who don't have an envelope nearby to do the math, that's about 10,000x more deaths from just house cats than from wind turbines.
An impact, no doubt, a "serious impact", majority impact, major impact? The evidence doesn't support it. That is one of the ways the "scientific consensus" is created. They take the concession of some impact, no matter how infintesimal, and put it in the "humans are the major cause" column.
The actual evidence does support it, as does simply looking.
Except, of course, when viewed through the blinders of ideology.
Don't bother, Eric. I'm not intested in debating a lost soul; I'm just making the point for the consideration of others who might innocently think you know what you're bloviating about.
Really? Is that why the predictions have been so terribly wrong? You are not interested in debating because the facts aren't on your side.
Just checking on the peers, Argalite.
In other words, a whitewash similar to what we witnessed in 1962 with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. I was there to watch the chemical industry say: Eagles, peregrine falcons, condors, etc., actually love DDT in their carrion and prey. Those thinning egg shells? Too little calcium in birds' diets. They should be drinking more milk.
Just for the record, no cat of mine has ever killed 70 birds a year--and no cat of mine has ever killed an eagle, hawk, falcon, owl, condor, bat, crow, or pigeon. One of my cats got a pigeon once, but after it beat the stuffing out of her, she let it go.
In short, peer-review means nothing when you are trying to bend the truth. Use of the word "responsible" does not mean you are the one being responsible. Everyone has a price, and even scientists can be bought. As here, they are bought all the time by the wind industry, which is why environmentalists have no choice but go to court. Recent court rulings, one described in the article above, have indeed upheld environmentalists' contentions that most of these peer-reviewed studies are rushed and fudged. This is to explain why the Obama Administration has just agreed to rewrite the rules, so that the courts and federal legislation can be bypassed.
If we allow that, and yes, agree, that our cats are the problem and not us, we deserve what we already have--a government that is miserably failing our public lands and wildlife in the pursuit of a corporate agenda.
I guees no matter what science I bring up, climate change deniers will always come up with a reason that they don't believe.
The author argues about facts and not beliefs, but them shuts down the facts when they don't fit his beleief system, and says the facts are skewed. I guess 7 billion people spewing Co2 is nothing to care about and lets just have a tea party.
Welcome back, Argalite, but yes, I do find an organization supported by the wind power industry a bit suspicious when it comes to "science." Allow me another short story. Years ago, when I was a seasonal ranger in Yosemite, I told visitors the story of the comeback of the peregrine falcon. One night, a man approached me after my program and vehemently objected that I had demeaned the value of DDT. When I pushed him he confessed. Yes, he worked for Chevron Oil, but what did that have to do with anything? "Everything," I replied. "Your company makes DDT. Why should I believe in Chevron's scientists?"
Tell you what, I continued. Put $10 million in a pot and let any university scientist apply to do a study by lottery. These would not be scientists on Chevron's payroll but rather scientists allowed full academic freedom. "But of course we would never do that," he replied. "Our scientists work for us."
Exactly. Now that those scientists have captured the language, you believe everything they say. You see nothing wrong when those scientists say: Everyone agrees with us. Well, 97 percent--and the rest are deniers. The only thing I deny is anyone's right to buy a fact and call it objective science.
An environmental impact statement, were it to be done objectively, would not be done by the self-interested party. That goes for government as well as corporations, or is even the Interior Department producing objective science when they say that eagle strikes from wind turbines should be allowed to increase fourfold?
On one fact we can agree--seven billion people have a lot of impact. But don't think for a moment their impact will be reversed by destroying our public lands--or wildlife. That is again sentiment and hardly science. Independent, i.e., university scientists were telling us 50 years ago that human population could not grow indefinitely. I took my college courses from those scientists and not from Chevron or General Electric.
Nor do I have any use for the current faculty occupying the Department of the Interior. Anyone who would say that killing raptors is justified by what we might learn from the process only reminds me of the worst of government.
In his new book on Yosemite, former superintendent Robert Binnewies is proud of his record in saving Yosemite's peregrine falcons. I was there and can attest to that fact. I was not fired for speaking truthfully to anyone, although I was called on the carpet a couple of times. What happened to that government, I wonder? It sure does not exist in any of the current plans to bypass science for expedience. Hear, ye! Hear, ye! Hear, ye! The 97 percent have spoken. Now the rest of you shut up.
It just isn't in my genes, Argalite. Now, show me some facts I can believe in--and don't start with killing what you say we must save.
You were working for the Dept of Interior, which had published Silent Spring and were defending the party line. I can't tell what you would believe, so I will not give you any more fodder. Did you know that this administration had the wind turbines with the highest kill rates removed from Altamont Pass in California because they were killing too many eagles? They were put there by a previous administration.
Say again? The Department of the Interior published Silent Spring? I believe that was Rachel Carson, the distinguished naturalist, and an independent scholar through and through.
As for the so-called party line, that these days holds wind power harmless to raptors, provided we allow the industry to do it right.
In this case, yes, the industry was forced to admit that the wind turbines at Altamont Pass "were killing too many eagles." But that is not the reason those particular turbines were removed. They were rather an older technology, and much less efficient. Half were also broken and generating no power at all. "Repowering" was needed, as the industry calls it. In other words, the turbines needed to be replaced.
Sure, everyone took advantage to claim that the replacement was in fact to protect the eagles. It's good spin, but still the upgrade, again paid for by taxpayer subsidies, was to get more milage out of Altamont Pass.
Here is a good article on the entire issue. This time, I would suggest you read it to the end:
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Wind-power-company-to-replace-bird...
Thank you Alfred for a very informative post. There was a time in the dear old USA when states actually regulated corporations. One common restriction was that corporations could not contribute to political campaigns. It is always interesting to read about a public official justify extensions, deregulation, poor development proposals, with the phrase , "we must strike a balance". A very interesting book on the subject is "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. It is a troubling read, but documents the issues we face with large corporations, financial institutions, etc. ruling the roost. EC. I agree with Alferd on the population issue, I am certainly no expert on the subject, but a good start, along with Alfred's suggestions, is "every child a wanted child". This will require total equality for women, support for educational programs in family planning (sex ed), health care for all citizens including groups like planned parenthood, living wage, well the list is lengthly. As Alfred points out, we can not even stop people from dumping oil down storm drains, let alone reuse shopping bags, water bottles, quit using roundup, well we can add much more to the list. Education is the hope, but it going to require researching the best information available, not "we must strike a balance", the common political sellout to ensure profits are not infringed upon, let alone political donations.
Ron - you think more social programs and give aways will reduce population growth? I think you have it exactly backwards.
Rachel Carson was working for the Dept of the Interior when she wrote Silent Spring. Yes, the removed those turbines and placed new ones that were situated better to avoid eagles.
Carson left her job with the Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) in 1952 to devote full time to writing. Silent Spring was written in the late 1950s and early 1960s and was published in 1962. Carson died in 1964 of breast cancer. Her biographer, Linda Lear, wrote a gem of a book about her, RACHEL CARSON: WITNESS FOR NATURE.
Yes, the new turbines are better "situated," but they're still killing eagles--apparently not as many, fortunately, but again, how many eagles is "enough?"
I can tell you how many eagles are enough when you can tell me how many salmon are enough, when killed by dams.
I am all for removing salmon-killing dams, as well. Here is one project in particular I supported. At least, we are not about to run out of salmon, even with millions of people (and bears) eating them. However, if eagles were to be put on the Thanksgiving menu, even Rhode Island could not be fed.
http://projects.seattletimes.com/2016/elwha/
How nice you supported it. You might want to look at the NOAA site and see the likelyhood of losing salmon. Many are in much more danger than the eagles.
Thank you, Argalite. I will indeed check out their site. Meanwhile, here is the latest interpretation from Snopes. I totally disagree that the Administration is intending this ruling for the eagles' benefit, or that eagle deaths are being properly reported. But yes, I do try to read everything and keep an open mind.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-gives-kill-order-for-bald-eagles/
Yes, here is a site showing the incredible amount of listed ESU's for salmon and steelhead in Washington state:
http://www.rco.wa.gov/salmon_recovery/listed_species.shtml
and that is just Washington state. Oregon has some and California has more listed salmon, as their streams are growing warmer.
Canada has some salmon problems also. Remember friends don't let friends eat farmed salmon, as they often negatively affect wild stocks due to poor siting.
I certainly don't eat farmed salmon, and now wish only that we would stop consuming farmed wind. As you say, the salmon farms are often poorly sited--and that also applies to wind.
More on the Mojave National Preserve. It's long, but well worth the read, since the people being interviewed are on the ground.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/13/taking-on-the-sacred-cow-of-big-g...
Face it, everything Obama touches gets ruined. On purpose. What the heck does he care about what some old, evil slaveowners or empire builders (ie white) guys did way back a long time ago?
You want a paper showing the loss of birds to cats compared to wind power and buildings? Try and refute this one:
Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic Causes Scott R. Loss,1 Tom Will,2 and Peter P. Marra3
And don't try and tell me that these people were bought off, because I know they were not.
Jack Clifford - Kurt's got a nice website here, and most of us regulars do our best to svoid racist political screeds.
argalite, I just tried your source and found it costs something like $35 to access the full text. But part of their summary was instructive:
Numerous anthropogenic mortality sources directly kill birds. Cause-specific annual mortality in the United States varies from billions (cat predation) to hundreds of millions (building and automobile collisions), tens of millions (power line collisions), millions (power line electrocutions, communication tower collisions), and hundreds of thousands (wind turbine collisions). However, great uncertainty exists about the independent and cumulative impacts of this mortality on avian populations.
From the opinion pages of the LOS ANGELES TIMES, here is the latest word on Soda Mountain.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-leslie-what-threatens-the-nat...
Is there one of those monstrosities off US 6 in Nevada?
This fluffy propaganda piece would serve more purpose if the author could provide some substantiated data to sway my opinion in a positive or negative manner about these projects. Instead there is nothing. Just a bunch of hyperbole, and propaganda to deny that events like Sandy, or even the "historic flooding" currently happening in the gulf states are a product of a warming climate. It can take up to decades for a power plant to go from the idea stage to the final stage where it's active and providing energy to the grid. It's far from some quick easy process, and at times these projects cross many administrations. So, let's also eliminate that administrations play such a key role. Most of these solar plants were sited during the Bush administration. Just as many projects are being sited under the obama administrations.
Regardless, I see nothing about the kWh being produced by these plants compared to coal plants flu-gas plants etc. And if the author fails to see the environmental impacts of digging up mountains to obtain coal, and thinks that has less impact on the landscape, especially, rivers, streams and air quality then i'm sure he could substantiate why that method is better. But, I see nothing here to state why coal power is going to outweigh and trump the negative aspects of developing CSP plants (and there definitely are impacts in any energy development plant).
Also, i'd like to see data in regards to future projections of what this plant will provide on ROI in say a 20 to 30 year scale vs coal plants during the same period, if i'm to make an informed decision. Obviously, the methods, and science will become more efficient over time, but let's think about the impacts. In my opinion, everything from the manufacturing, projected parts replacement, and let's not forget the emissions should be factored in, so that an informed person could then make a more accurate decision.
The NPS monitors within it's boundaries SO2 and NO2, along with many other types of emissions that are being displaced on the parks from various energy sources like coal plants, and transportation. The acidification of soils, and streams is also monitored by the NPS. But, I see nothing about that in this article. If this plant removes a coal plant from the grid, and creates less of an impact on places like Joshua Tree (which has horrendous smog issues), or Sequoia National Park (once again, a park that deals with terrible air quality throughout the year), then that needs to, and sholud be taken into account.
The only other option is just telling the government to pull the plug, and force a state of anarchy onto the country, when no one can turn on the lights.
Actually, there is, just west by north of Tonopah. Last year, I was blinded driving east from Reno to Zion for the better part of 50 miles. Even sunglasses hardly help.
Tonopah - yes, that is where I saw it on my way back from Yosemite last week. After making that drive (once again) I understand why they used Nevada for nuclear bomb testing - nothing to hurt.
Anonymous, sign and verify your name. That would be some "data" worth sharing with the rest of us. You don't want "data"; you want an argument. For now, here is some "data" that proves you wrong. The courts have started throwing out these projects for lack of scientific credibility. At Searchlight, Nevada, for example, the environmental impact statement was declared a sham. Go back and start over, the judge ruled. You can read all about it here.
http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/Searchlight-Wind-Void.html
Now, just who is Basin and Range Watch? Thankfully, more than just a bunch of patsies toeing the government line. We've studied it. It's all under control. Nothing to worry about with these projects. While we must kill a few thousand individual eagles, tortoises, etc., and the beauty of the desert landscape, consider that we're actually saving those species and the landscape from the greater ills of climate change.
That's not data; that's pure bunk. Three cheers for Basin and Range Watch, whose integrity cannot be bought. Now, you were saying again about missing "data?" How about some ethics to go along with the data, or is the Endangered Species Act again just for show?
Pages