goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on May 07, 2014, 12:25:11 PM
-
on the rise.
http://freebeacon.com/blog/the-obama-bird-genocide-is-out-of-control/
I remember having a discussion about this with a set of hardcore liberal progressive types who wanted to build wind and solar farms every where possible.
Wind farms kill birds, solar farms kill birds, the expansion of high voltage lines into known habitats is not good for birds either.
-
An adorable baby bald eagle whose parents were executed by solar panels. (AP)
:bawl:
-
the-obama-bird-genocide-is-out-of-control
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.freebeacon.com%2Fup%2F2014%2F05%2FAP511294253166-540x643.jpg&hash=b1c97185cec9073f07bd752ebb442f0dafec56fd)
:lol:
-
he might hate obama more than he hates ku. idk.
-
I don't hate Obama.
What I don't like is all the people who run around touting these so called "green" energy resources and they don't ever stop to think that you can put giant propellers and huge fields of mirrors reflecting the sun out there and not think some thing(s) aren't going to be harmed.
-
it would take an ignorant sonofabitch to not see the extreme hypocrisy of this talking point.
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
-
dax just cares about the birds
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreebeacon.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fbirdkillfire.jpg&hash=e4f72f9157b5761e611e0f1f97fd5d9754633a14)
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
don't spend your bird hunting money in South Korea bro.
-
If the feds will stop development for an endangered lizard, they are being bigots towards these poor birds. :Chirp:
-
the problem here is that it is impossible to put a bird body count on the ubiquitous status quo of burning hydrocarbons
-
the problem here is that it is impossible to put a bird body count on the ubiquitous status quo of burning hydrocarbons
Yeah, pollution tends to have a negative effect on public health as well.
-
http://austriantribune.com/informationen/143537-bird-conservation-group-plans-sue-obama-administration-over-wind-farm-eagle
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/wind-farms-bird-deaths_n_3270691.html
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
that populations down because of global warming. quite the pickle, really.
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
that populations down because of global warming. quite the pickle, really.
That's not true.
-
Birds v. Polar bears. Cage match seems the only reasonable way to settle it.
-
Birds v. Polar bears. Cage match seems the only reasonable way to settle it.
It should take place on top of a gigantic solar panel beneath the desert sun.
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
that populations down because of global warming. quite the pickle, really.
That's not true.
oh it's 100% true
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
that populations down because of global warming. quite the pickle, really.
That's not true.
oh it's 100% true
Link?
-
Birds v. Polar bears. Cage match seems the only reasonable way to settle it.
It should take place on top of a gigantic solar panel beneath the desert sun.
On a floating ice pad that broke away but used to be part of the polar bear's home
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
Maybe the populations would be better if there weren't so many gun-nuts out there trying to murder the poor little guys.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fredkite.jpg&hash=18f4b280f1d21881ef3e7962b09c6cecdcba1f45)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PBCeA2vLNSo%2FT8PkWN6IoSI%2FAAAAAAAAFhM%2Fh27XEYULo44%2Fs1600%2FWind%2BEnergy%2Bbird%2Bkill%2Bcow%2Bkill.jpg&hash=e84deb31597c6436cd52dd4030aef2ea024ac7ce)
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
Maybe the populations would be better if there weren't so many gun-nuts out there trying to murder the poor little guys.
This has been disproven over and over again in multiple studies. Also, hunters have done more than all the other special interest groups combined to protect the species they hold dear.
-
Wait, you spend $12k/year to at hunt quail?
:lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fredkite.jpg&hash=18f4b280f1d21881ef3e7962b09c6cecdcba1f45)
Charles Darwin
-
Should we get rid of glass doorways, too?
-
Wait, you spend $12k/year to at hunt quail?
:lol:
Not just quail, but yes. That's an average.
-
Should we get rid of glass doorways, too?
Big rigs and trains kill millions of birds
-
Should we get rid of glass doorways, too?
Big rigs and trains kill millions of birds
eff 'em ban 'em
-
Wait, you spend $12k/year to at hunt quail?
:lol:
Not just quail, but yes. That's an average.
Do you think that's a little bit silly? Or do you host large groups for work or something?
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
Maybe the populations would be better if there weren't so many gun-nuts out there trying to murder the poor little guys.
This has been disproven over and over again in multiple studies. Also, hunters have done more than all the other special interest groups combined to protect the species they hold dear.
Maybe you're just jealous that windmills are better at hunting than you? :dunno:
-
Wait, you spend $12k/year to at hunt quail?
:lol:
Not just quail, but yes. That's an average.
Do you think that's a little bit silly? Or do you host large groups for work or something?
That's my personal expenditure. I don't think it's silly. It's fun and has a direct correlation to my happiness, which is priceless. :dunno:
-
Wait, you spend $12k/year to at hunt quail?
:lol:
Not just quail, but yes. That's an average.
Do you think that's a little bit silly? Or do you host large groups for work or something?
That's my personal expenditure. I don't think it's silly. It's fun and has a direct correlation to my happiness, which is priceless. :dunno:
80% of that is spent on gas
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsocaltrucks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FScreen-shot-2012-02-21-at-4.11.13-PM.png&hash=97b78190630a9346281dfa68ee3c4751ca98dcc9)
-
It's not 80% but gas is the number 1 real expenditure.
-
I mean, couldn't you hunt for like 5% of what you spend?
-
I once killed a pheasant with a 15 passenger van. Felt terrible.
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
-
wait, can you buy a personal-use wind turbine for $12k? many birds, one stone
-
Yes and that would drastically accelerate the ROI.
-
wait, can you buy a personal-use wind turbine for $12k? many birds, one stone
this 'stach'r may have just won a nobel prize
-
do upland birds even fly high enough to be killed by a windmill?
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
-
do upland birds even fly high enough to be killed by a windmill?
Not in my experience. Also, isn't there a disconnect in that windmills need wide open areas to operate yet quail love timber and fields immediately off timber?
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
I think a bunch of you don't know what hunting leases go for. $12k a year isn't that big of a deal if you are leasing land in two different states.
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
I think a bunch of you don't know what hunting leases go for. $12k a year isn't that big of a deal if you are leasing land in two different states.
he was saying he hunts on federal land. :dunno:
And yeah $12k for a hunting lease for you is that big of a deal. Make friends with a farmer or something!
-
if i was spending $12k a year on a hunting lease and not obscenely wealthy, i'd pretty quickly decide that maybe i was just meant to live out in the country. good grief
-
Make friends with as many farmers as you want that have prime hunting land. they will tell you in a friendly manner that you can't hunt because of all the money they are paid from those that lease from them for not letting anyone other than them hunt.
-
emo, how much would you pay to unleash dat avian carnage on a bald eagle?
-
If you are a fan of conservation, you should hate wind farms. They destroy an inordinate amount of habitat for birds (I don't know how there isn't an LPC thread in the pit yet), frighten them from breeding and kill them. This is well documented. They also use up farm ground (which has to be replaced elsewhere) and require thousand of miles of transmission lines (further wasting ground and scaring birds).
If your a douche bag leftist idiot without a brain who thinks wind warms will somehow end the fossil fuel industries, then you love wind farms because that's what you've been told to do.
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
I think a bunch of you don't know what hunting leases go for. $12k a year isn't that big of a deal if you are leasing land in two different states.
he was saying he hunts on federal land. :dunno:
And yeah $12k for a hunting lease for you is that big of a deal. Make friends with a farmer or something!
Shut up you idiot. You don't know what the eff you're talking about and look like a moron right now.
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
I think a bunch of you don't know what hunting leases go for. $12k a year isn't that big of a deal if you are leasing land in two different states.
he was saying he hunts on federal land. :dunno:
And yeah $12k for a hunting lease for you is that big of a deal. Make friends with a farmer or something!
Shut up you idiot. You don't know what the eff you're talking about and look like a moron right now.
I can put you in touch with a farmer that will only charge you $10k/year to hunt.
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
I think a bunch of you don't know what hunting leases go for. $12k a year isn't that big of a deal if you are leasing land in two different states.
he was saying he hunts on federal land. :dunno:
And yeah $12k for a hunting lease for you is that big of a deal. Make friends with a farmer or something!
Shut up you idiot. You don't know what the eff you're talking about and look like a moron right now.
I can put you in touch with a farmer that will only charge you $10k/year to hunt.
What's your hobby? I want to tell you why you're spending too much money on it. Don't you live in Oakland or something? Don't you know you can live in Tulsa for way over $12000 less per year? Dumbass
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
I think a bunch of you don't know what hunting leases go for. $12k a year isn't that big of a deal if you are leasing land in two different states.
he was saying he hunts on federal land. :dunno:
And yeah $12k for a hunting lease for you is that big of a deal. Make friends with a farmer or something!
Shut up you idiot. You don't know what the eff you're talking about and look like a moron right now.
I can put you in touch with a farmer that will only charge you $10k/year to hunt.
What's your hobby? I want to tell you why you're spending too much money on it. Don't you live in Oakland or something? Don't you know you can live in Tulsa for well more than $12000 less per year? Dumbass
My income would be less in Tulsa and I probably wouldn't like my job. :frown:
My main hobby is volunteering at the food bank. It's fun!
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
I think a bunch of you don't know what hunting leases go for. $12k a year isn't that big of a deal if you are leasing land in two different states.
he was saying he hunts on federal land. :dunno:
And yeah $12k for a hunting lease for you is that big of a deal. Make friends with a farmer or something!
Shut up you idiot. You don't know what the eff you're talking about and look like a moron right now.
I can put you in touch with a farmer that will only charge you $10k/year to hunt.
What's your hobby? I want to tell you why you're spending too much money on it. Don't you live in Oakland or something? Don't you know you can live in Tulsa for well more than $12000 less per year? Dumbass
My income would be less in Tulsa and I probably wouldn't like my job. :frown:
My main hobby is volunteering at the food bank. It's fun!
Full circle! :D
-
do you switch hemispheres for year-round hunting or something? maybe i'm just cheap, but 1k/mo on a hobby seems kinda odd
I think he was trying to slip in a fanningbrag but it just makes him look like a goof
I think a bunch of you don't know what hunting leases go for. $12k a year isn't that big of a deal if you are leasing land in two different states.
he was saying he hunts on federal land. :dunno:
And yeah $12k for a hunting lease for you is that big of a deal. Make friends with a farmer or something!
Shut up you idiot. You don't know what the eff you're talking about and look like a moron right now.
I can put you in touch with a farmer that will only charge you $10k/year to hunt.
What's your hobby? I want to tell you why you're spending too much money on it. Don't you live in Oakland or something? Don't you know you can live in Tulsa for well more than $12000 less per year? Dumbass
My income would be less in Tulsa and I probably wouldn't like my job. :frown:
My main hobby is volunteering at the food bank. It's fun!
As you pointed out, your happiness is not relevant, dumbass
-
Hey shitbrain, I'd have less money, too.
-
FSD outta nowhere with the blood feud attitude... must be in the pocket of Big Bird...
-
i'm actually working out here right now. funny to see it make goEMAW.
-
Hey shitbrain, I'd have less money, too.
Doubtful. Plus you wouldn't have to live in a sewer. You really need to move to Tulsa.
-
what a dumbass thing to be angry about
I spend about $12k a year bird hunting. Since 2005 I've seen quail populations on federal land go from pretty darn good to rough ridin' pitiful, some due to energy development. It makes me sad/angry. Now we spend our money in MT or SK.
Maybe the populations would be better if there weren't so many gun-nuts out there trying to murder the poor little guys.
God damnit jim bob, these birds are already dead!
-
if i was spending $12k a year on a hunting lease and not obscenely wealthy, i'd pretty quickly decide that maybe i was just meant to live out in the country. good grief
My dad probably spends that much, and he also bought land out in the country for weekends only. Hunters really get into this stuff
-
Look at all this bird habitat being preserved!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi849.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab54%2Fgeorgia289%2FViewintomine_zpscfea23c3.png&hash=76ae82e449a752d3827b31c1c32afa48dc9e7b19)
www.coal4birds.com
-
people who want to kill birds are butthurt about birds being killed.
-
I tend to agree with LSOC. You'd have to be a huge dumbass to get killed by a windmill. We're just culling the bird-herd.
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
I'm on board with pretty much all you said here. My issue is the absurdity of attacking wind and solar while ignoring the ecological devastation wrought by the status quo.
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
I'm on board with pretty much all you said here. My issue is the absurdity of attacking wind and solar while ignoring the ecological devastation wrought by the status quo.
I'm not ignoring it. But it's kinda what's done is done. Let's learn our lesson and not do it again. It's a lot easier to prevent momentum from being gained than trying to stop something once it's already reached critical mass (KS wind / WV coal).
-
There would be zero windfarms in Kansas and zero in the Midwest if it was not for subsidies and passed legislation forcing fossil-fueled power generators to incorporate "green" power sources. When there was a likely threat of the subsidies going away, all of the big boys (GE, BP, Infinity, Xcel, etc.) immediately ceased any additional development and shutdown any ongoing operations. The legislation was passed at the last minute and then surprise! new farms were immediately built.
Clean Line, tho
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
I'm on board with pretty much all you said here. My issue is the absurdity of attacking wind and solar while ignoring the ecological devastation wrought by the status quo.
call Beems he's probably nested and reared 80-90 chicks by now
-
:lol:
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
I'm on board with pretty much all you said here. My issue is the absurdity of attacking wind and solar while ignoring the ecological devastation wrought by the status quo.
I'm not ignoring it. But it's kinda what's done is done. Let's learn our lesson and not do it again. It's a lot easier to prevent momentum from being gained than trying to stop something once it's already reached critical mass (KS wind / WV coal).
The reality is that we have no method of producing electricity that doesn't harm the environment. Different methods harm to different degrees, yes, but as the population continues to grow, it will become necessary to produce more energy. Nuclear energy is probably the cleanest we can get, as long as the reactors don't melt down.
-
those nerds need to figure out fusion ASAP (for the birds)
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
Don't you and your wife live in a four bedroom house with acreage in the exurbs?
-
oh boy
http://gizmodo.com/our-electronics-are-messing-up-how-birds-navigate-1573209524
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
I'm on board with pretty much all you said here. My issue is the absurdity of attacking wind and solar while ignoring the ecological devastation wrought by the status quo.
I am assuming the purpose of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of the left. They will go to great extremes to stop an oil or gas well from being drilled because a lizard lives around it somewhere, yet they will fill the skies with eagle and condor execution machines.
-
The birds and hunters won't have to worry about the birds running into turbines when climate change kills all the grain that they eat here in the midwest.
-
Air pollution kills an estimated 7 million people per year. Birds, tho.
-
Feline carnage.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2014-05%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr05%2F8%2F4%2Fanigif_enhanced-12178-1399537361-11.gif&hash=63808ccc39ad06a3e87a4bea28d076714a4a1377)
Ban glass doors!
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
I'm on board with pretty much all you said here. My issue is the absurdity of attacking wind and solar while ignoring the ecological devastation wrought by the status quo.
I am assuming the purpose of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of the left. They will go to great extremes to stop an oil or gas well from being drilled because a lizard lives around it somewhere, yet they will fill the skies with eagle and condor execution machines.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/25/obama-admin-finally-taking-action-on-bird-deaths-at-wind-farms/
-
Wow this topic really zoomed!
I don't hunt the federal land I used to hunt anymore on account of the wind development and the non-existent quail population there. FWIW, it's not just wind, oil and gas development, too. I can't believe some of you dumbasses think that quail fly into the turbines. :facepalm: The development hurts the population because it brings activity to areas where they like to nest and rear chicks. Birds are pushed out by the noise of the turbines, the activity from the service men and vehicles, etc. The lesser prairie chicken, recently added to the federal endangered list, won't nest within view of a tall structure. Some people believe it's because they are wary of potential roosting sites for raptors, but no one really knows. We do know that if you put up wind mills in lesser PC habitat it will force them out. Because their habitat is so fragmented it really means they are being extirpated from those areas, likely forever.
A lot of the same is going on with regards to sage grouse in the west. O&G and wind pushing them out.
Hunters do contribute more money to conserve habitat than all other special interest groups combined. It's not even close. Between hidden taxes, license fees, activity and donations in conservation groups, it really adds up. That's not even considering the commercial aspect. People pay big money for good bird hunting leases, too. Even at $12k a year I can't afford a good one. And that's why I spent 2 weeks a year out west where the public land is plentiful and development is fragmented. Although even up there in 5 years going we've lost spots to O&G. Places we used to move 5 coveys in an hour walk now maybe hold 10% of the birds they used to.
Most of you probably don't care about some of these specific species that are affected. Even I am conflicted at times about some of them. But a precedent has been set (long ago) that it's okay to destroy public lands for the greater public good, and that's not right.
Something to consider about wind energy...Denmark has really dove head first into it. Something like 30% of their power comes from wind. It's only a country of 5 million people, so not that big anyway, but still. Wind there enjoys a subsidy exceeding 30%. And it's been a massive failure to the citizenry. But companies have profited tons from the industry. It's basically been a way to funnel public funds to private companies. There is likely corruption, not unlike what we've seen here with O&G, cattle, etc. If it can't work in Denmark at something like 25 cents a kilowatt*hour, then it sure as crap won't work here at 10 cents a kilowatt*hour. But GE will certainly make money (and won't pay any taxes on it, either).
Don't you and your wife live in a four bedroom house with acreage in the exurbs?
Not much acreage. I have a Nest. :D What's your point, though?
-
The birds and hunters won't have to worry about the birds running into turbines when climate change kills all the grain that they eat here in the midwest.
While some birds do eat grains (like the introduced pheasant), the native birds like quail and prairie chicken can subsist without it. In fact a study concluded that a quail would starve to death standing on top of a pile of milo in a Kansas winter; there just isn't the energy density compared to native/wild foods.
-
on some other blog there is some other emo upset that you built your house where he used to love to hunt.
-
We bought a used house. :D
-
FWIW I'm willing to pay double or triple or more for electricity if it meant I didn't have to drive to Oklahoma or Texas to find lots of birds.
-
My point was you shouldn't get all sanctimonious about ruining your precious hunting ground when you consume way more electricity, gasoline, and land than you need to.
-
do you love your NEST?
I DO!!!
-
My point was you shouldn't get all sanctimonious about ruining your precious hunting ground when you consume way more electricity, gasoline, and land than you need to.
It's no worse than demanding electricity without knowing where it came from or what harm had been done to create it in the first place.
-
My point was you shouldn't get all sanctimonious about ruining your precious hunting ground when you consume way more electricity, gasoline, and land than you need to.
It's no worse than demanding electricity without knowing where it came from or what harm had been done to create it in the first place.
No, it's definitely worse.
-
My point was you shouldn't get all sanctimonious about ruining your precious hunting ground when you consume way more electricity, gasoline, and land than you need to.
It's no worse than demanding electricity without knowing where it came from or what harm had been done to create it in the first place.
No, it's definitely worse.
:rolleyes:
-
"Oil and gas, bad! Wind and solar, good!" :ROFL:
-
"Oil and gas, bad! Wind and solar, good!" :ROFL:
You've got it.
-
"Oil and gas, bad! Wind and solar, good!" :ROFL:
Pollution, bad! Clean energy, good!
:Woot:
-
"Oil and gas, bad! Wind and solar, good!"
You've got it.
"Coal, bad! Geothermal, good!"
"Atomic energy: possibly worst, possibly best!"
-
i'm actually working out here right now. funny to see it make goEMAW.
i was kinda hoping someone would ask for deets. :frown:
-
i'm actually working out here right now. funny to see it make goEMAW.
i was kinda hoping someone would ask for deets. :frown:
i'm actually working out here right now. funny to see it make goEMAW.
i was kinda hoping someone would ask for deets. :frown:
I kind of assumed you were confused and in the wrong thread.
-
i'm actually working out here right now. funny to see it make goEMAW.
i was kinda hoping someone would ask for deets. :frown:
I know it sounds patronizing at this point, but I really would like to know what you're doing. Like Micat, I was a little :confused:
-
I don't care even if it was relevant, FWIW.
-
i'm looking for dead birds at the facility dax started the thread about. i guess i should have made that more clear.
-
i'm looking for dead birds at the facility dax started the thread about. i guess i should have made that more clear.
DNR
-
Have you find any yet, sys?
-
yeah, some.
-
i'm looking for dead birds at the facility dax started the thread about. i guess i should have made that more clear.
DNR
bubbles4ksu, you are a very clever and amusing poster.
-
i'm looking for dead birds at the facility dax started the thread about. i guess i should have made that more clear.
DNR
bubbles4ksu, you are a very clever and amusing poster.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2Fcheesy.gif&hash=26f739b1594d4aa6d68b18c154a9eca5cc099a45)
now please tell us about more about the dead birds.
-
Okay, now I'm concerned. Stay out of the kill zone, sys.
-
So 700K plus birds a year die, it's highly inefficient "green energy" kids!! The best kind!!
-
Air pollution kills an estimated 7 million people per year. Birds, tho.
How does this not garner more antagony?
-
I don't understand the extreme opposition to oil and gas development from the left. Then I remember that the left's entire purpose is to create more poverty, and I understand.
-
Okay, now I'm concerned. Stay out of the kill zone, sys.
i can't fly, michigancat.
-
So 700K plus birds a year die, it's highly inefficient "green energy" kids!! The best kind!!
the link you posted claimed 328k, based on a study that estimated 140-328k. later in the thread you now post 700k.
btw. context.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/outdoor-cats-kill-between-14-billion-and-37-billion-birds-a-year-study-says/2013/01/31/2504f744-6bbe-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_story.html
-
Pfft what % of 37 billion is 700000?
-
So 700K plus birds a year die, it's highly inefficient "green energy" kids!! The best kind!!
the link you posted claimed 328k, based on a study that estimated 140-328k. later in the thread you now post 700k.
btw. context.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/outdoor-cats-kill-between-14-billion-and-37-billion-birds-a-year-study-says/2013/01/31/2504f744-6bbe-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_story.html
So, 70billion, then?
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
-
Okay, now I'm concerned. Stay out of the kill zone, sys.
i can't fly, michigancat.
Ever been knocked out by dead condor falling from the sky? It's not fun.
-
Don't these dead birds decompose and make more oil?
LickNeckey, your 'nesting' post was top shelf.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
The United States and Western European countries have proven that you can still use lots of hydrocarbons and still reduce air pollution substantially.
My ultra green progressive lib types pretend like there's no substantial environmental impact from the widespread deployment of inefficient so called "green energy" and that simply is not the case.
I don't know what the numbers are now, but several years ago, it took approximately 2 years for a large wind turbine to offset the consumption of hydrocarbons during the production of the wind turbine and that's 2 years with the wind blowing pretty much all the time.
Not saying we shouldn't be looking at "green" energy, but it's been oversimplified in some circles.
-
Green energy needs to be a solution provided by a wide variety of methods. A Take What You Can From Where It Makes Most Sense(actual common sense, not some twisted bullshit that can ring true to a bunch of mouth breathers if repeated enough with the bible behind it) type thing.
-
Green energy needs to be a solution provided by a wide variety of methods. A Take What You Can From Where It Makes Most Sense(actual common sense, not some twisted bullshit that can ring true to a bunch of mouth breathers if repeated enough with the bible behind it) type thing.
Subsidizing any one of them and funneling billions of dollars to make rich people richer isn't a solution.
-
Green energy needs to be a solution provided by a wide variety of methods. A Take What You Can From Where It Makes Most Sense(actual common sense, not some twisted bullshit that can ring true to a bunch of mouth breathers if repeated enough with the bible behind it) type thing.
Subsidizing any one of them and funneling billions of dollars to make rich people richer isn't a solution.
We subsidize fossil fuels, as well. Those subsidies keep energy costs low so poor people can afford heat in the winter, etc.
-
Green energy needs to be a solution provided by a wide variety of methods. A Take What You Can From Where It Makes Most Sense(actual common sense, not some twisted bullshit that can ring true to a bunch of mouth breathers if repeated enough with the bible behind it) type thing.
Subsidizing any one of them and funneling billions of dollars to make rich people richer isn't a solution.
We subsidize fossil fuels, as well. Those subsidies keep energy costs low so poor people can afford heat in the winter, etc.
Fossil fuels make more energy/$. Denmark can't even make wind work at $.40/kw*hr, and here we pay a quarter of that.
-
So these things are killing like .1% of the birds that cats kill?
BFD buncha butthurt pubs here.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmiriamchemmoss.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fblame1.jpeg&hash=960b5dd2c60e7b9cc8b37e6d1babbbf747230e42)
-
oh boy
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/06/the_gulf_oil_spill_may_have_killed_up_to_800000_birds/
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_EIP-LeTg6FQ%2FTSzjE4zW09I%2FAAAAAAAAALA%2FZTGrpmsV_Pk%2Fs1600%2Fnoooo_birds.jpg&hash=183e6280df0d9ababe275c6d655158008b0512e1)
-
oh boy
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/06/the_gulf_oil_spill_may_have_killed_up_to_800000_birds/
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_EIP-LeTg6FQ%2FTSzjE4zW09I%2FAAAAAAAAALA%2FZTGrpmsV_Pk%2Fs1600%2Fnoooo_birds.jpg&hash=183e6280df0d9ababe275c6d655158008b0512e1)
It probably killed countless fish and shrimps, too.
-
That's why we need that Keystone XL babaaaay!
-
oh boy
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/06/the_gulf_oil_spill_may_have_killed_up_to_800000_birds/
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_EIP-LeTg6FQ%2FTSzjE4zW09I%2FAAAAAAAAALA%2FZTGrpmsV_Pk%2Fs1600%2Fnoooo_birds.jpg&hash=183e6280df0d9ababe275c6d655158008b0512e1)
It probably killed countless fish and shrimps, too.
It is still causing big problems for fishermen. Huge.
-
That's why we need that Keystone XL babaaaay!
The safest and most environmentally clean way to transport oil. Doesn't make sense that anybody would be anti Keystone.
-
Subsidizing any one of them and funneling billions of dollars to make rich people richer isn't a solution.
We subsidize fossil fuels, as well. Those subsidies keep energy costs low so poor people can afford heat in the winter, etc.
Fossil fuels make more energy/$. Denmark can't even make wind work at $.40/kw*hr, and here we pay a quarter of that.
Well I can't figure out if you're for subsidies or not.
-
Subsidizing any one of them and funneling billions of dollars to make rich people richer isn't a solution.
We subsidize fossil fuels, as well. Those subsidies keep energy costs low so poor people can afford heat in the winter, etc.
Fossil fuels make more energy/$. Denmark can't even make wind work at $.40/kw*hr, and here we pay a quarter of that.
Well I can't figure out if you're for subsidies or not.
While the federal government oil subsidies are about $4 billion to $10 billion a year, the gasoline taxes collected by local, state and federal governments are about $60 billion.
-
I know it hasn't been brought up, but left-leaning conservation groups oppose wind farms and solar farms all the time because of wildlife impact.
-
IIRC, oil subsidies account for around a nickel per bbl of oil produced. If they received the same amount of subsidies percentage-based as wind farms do, they would get around a Grant ($50) per bbl.
-
I think green technology should be subsidized more than oil.
-
I think green technology should be subsidized more than oil.
Once green technology comes close to or surpasses oil in terms of efficiency, I'm all for this idea.
-
I think green technology should be subsidized more than oil.
Once green technology comes close to or surpasses oil in terms of efficiency, I'm all for this idea.
I think once it comes close or surpasses, that's when the subsidies should stop, (or at least be reduced).
-
I think the big factor is time. Oil production and other fossil fuels were probably subsidized just as much as wind in their initial timeframe. I just wish that money went more towards R&D then actually building them, transmission lines, etc.
-
I think green technology should be subsidized more than oil.
Once green technology comes close to or surpasses oil in terms of efficiency, I'm all for this idea.
I think once it comes close or surpasses, that's when the subsidies should stop, (or at least be reduced).
As a country we have policies that make it relatively cheap to own/drive a car. We subsidize fossil fuels in all sorts of indirect ways, even though it is the most efficient energy source we have. Until the technology catches up, heavily subsidizing green energy is basically throwing good money after bad. I'm all for R&D, though, and not just in green energy.
-
so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.
-
I know it hasn't been brought up, but left-leaning conservation groups oppose wind farms and solar farms all the time because of wildlife impact.
:thumbs: :thumbs:
Also, oil and green technology are not mutually exclusive.
-
so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.
I'm not an economist. I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically. First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow). Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption. Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient. Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.
-
Right now, it makes the most sense to subsidize fossil fuel engine design to squeeze the most mileage or generating power out of a gallon of gas. Also, battery technology.
-
I think the big factor is time. Oil production and other fossil fuels were probably subsidized just as much as wind in their initial timeframe. I just wish that money went more towards R&D then actually building them, transmission lines, etc.
I would also prefer the money go into R&D. That said, if once R&D produced something that needed transmission lines, I think the implementation of that should be subsidized as well. If the product/process itself isn't efficient enough, once up and running, to compete with O&G, then that shouldn't get the subsidy.
-
so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.
I'm not an economist. I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically. First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow). Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption. Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient. Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
-
Right now, it makes the most sense to subsidize fossil fuel engine design to squeeze the most mileage or generating power out of a gallon of gas. Also, battery technology.
Yeah, battery tech is where a bunch of money should be going. It could change the whole game.
-
I think the big factor is time. Oil production and other fossil fuels were probably subsidized just as much as wind in their initial timeframe. I just wish that money went more towards R&D then actually building them, transmission lines, etc.
I would also prefer the money go into R&D. That said, if once R&D produced something that needed transmission lines, I think the implementation of that should be subsidized as well. If the product/process itself isn't efficient enough, once up and running, to compete with O&G, then that shouldn't get the subsidy.
Like ethanol.
-
so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.
I'm not an economist. I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically. First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow). Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption. Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient. Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
This would cripple business, small and big. Not going to happen.
-
so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.
I'm not an economist. I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically. First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow). Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption. Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient. Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
This would cripple business, small and big. Not going to happen.
How so?
-
It should be some formula of mileage*GVW.
-
so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.
I'm not an economist. I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically. First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow). Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption. Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient. Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
This would cripple business, small and big. Not going to happen.
How so?
Adding additional tax to any business will change the price structure of their goods/services and reduce the amt of ppl able to pay for them.
-
It should stay on the gallon of gas. Use it as efficiently or inefficiently as you need to. The more you use, the more you pay.
Then, do what they are already doing and regulate mileage efficiency on new vehicles(including work vehicles).
-
so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.
I'm not an economist. I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically. First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow). Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption. Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient. Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
This would cripple business, small and big. Not going to happen.
How so?
Adding additional tax to any business will change the price structure of their goods/services and reduce the amt of ppl able to pay for them.
You are just replacing one tax with another. The fuel tax is already essentially a mileage-driven tax as it is, only people with highly efficient cars get to damage the roads while paying next to nothing.
-
It should stay on the gallon of gas. Use it as efficiently or inefficiently as you need to. The more you use, the more you pay.
Then, do what they are already doing and regulate mileage efficiency on new vehicles(including work vehicles).
Assuming it were feasible, some formula of distance*vehicle weight would be most fair as those two are the top contributing factors to wear on a road surface. I don't really hate the way we do it now, though, as it's pretty fair, simple, and easy to control/monitor.
-
What about my boat, tractors, lawn mowers, chainsaws, and my old lady's gas-powered dildo?
I'll be damned if I'm paying a mileage gas tax for my bonfire gas. Everyone likes a good roaring bonfire.
-
What about my boat, tractors, lawn mowers, chainsaws, and my old lady's gas-powered dildo?
I'll be damned if I'm paying a mileage gas tax for my bonfire gas. Everyone likes a good roaring bonfire.
The mileage tax would make all of that crap tax-free. :Woot:
-
High efficient vehicles are like that for several reasons, one of which is weight. They aren't equally damaging the drive surfaces compared to non-efficient vehicles.
Also, if you want to worry about road damage, then they need to address how they treat the roads in cold conditions.
-
BTW the 700K birds a year is considered by environmental groups to be way low, they believe the number is much higher and their biggest concern is birds-of-prey who like to soar the skies in areas where these inefficient "green" energy platforms are being built looking for prey.
Pointing to other calamities or the predation by the overpopulation of domestic felines is immaterial to the discussion.
-
since birds are really a non issue in all of this.
we should throw everything into American companies that could turn us into the middle East of green energy.
-
Sounds like we need to somehow alter the turbines to make the rodents and snakes uncomfortable too. No prey = no predator.
Boom! Problem solved!
-
since birds are really a non issue in all of this.
we should throw everything into American companies that could turn us into the middle East of green energy.
Natural Gas. We are supposedly the Saudis of Nat Gas.
A good first move may be converting vehicles and what not to run on it rather than oil.
-
High efficient vehicles are like that for several reasons, one of which is weight. They aren't equally damaging the drive surfaces compared to non-efficient vehicles.
Also, if you want to worry about road damage, then they need to address how they treat the roads in cold conditions.
If you are worried about damaging small and large businesses, then they don't need to address that at all. Roads are expensive to maintain. It's perfectly fair that the people who drive the most miles on them should pay the most taxes. Trucks and semis should pay a higher tax per mile than small cars. You shouldn't get to use the highway for free just because you car doesn't run on gasoline, though.
-
since birds are really a non issue in all of this.
we should throw everything into American companies that could turn us into the middle East of green energy.
Natural Gas. We are supposedly the Saudis of Nat Gas.
A good first move may be converting vehicles and what not to run on it rather than oil.
Yeah, we'll probably shazbot! ourselves into oblivion.
-
F rack ourselves into oblivion.
-
High efficient vehicles are like that for several reasons, one of which is weight. They aren't equally damaging the drive surfaces compared to non-efficient vehicles.
Also, if you want to worry about road damage, then they need to address how they treat the roads in cold conditions.
If you are worried about damaging small and large businesses, then they don't need to address that at all. Roads are expensive to maintain. It's perfectly fair that the people who drive the most miles on them should pay the most taxes. Trucks and semis should pay a higher tax per mile than small cars. You shouldn't get to use the highway for free just because you car doesn't run on gasoline, though.
In case of electric only vehicles, that is valid.
-
It would be almost impossible to turn the United States into the "Middle East" of green energy using the most popular and highly inefficient "green" energy production sources.
-
It would be almost impossible to turn the United States into the "Middle East" of green energy using the most popular and highly inefficient "green" energy production sources.
Take all the defense money we spend warring over the middle east oil protection and use it to subsidize local alt energy and we probs break even. Mostly kidding.
-
High efficient vehicles are like that for several reasons, one of which is weight. They aren't equally damaging the drive surfaces compared to non-efficient vehicles.
Also, if you want to worry about road damage, then they need to address how they treat the roads in cold conditions.
Yes they are.
Like I said, I'm happy with how they do it today. The impetus to change to a more fair system is too small for me.
-
dax is really daxing himself here, i don't even know who he's yelling at anymore
-
This entire thread is based on a stupid talking point (turbines kill birds) and a delusional point of view (green energy is a viable alternative to O&G).
-
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
I don't think this is a good idea. What is the incentive to buy a fuel efficient vehicle if you are taxed on miles driven and not the amount of fuel you burn?
I think what liberals really want is a gas tax AND a miles driven tax. I don't see them ever getting rid a any tax.
-
We're not coming up with better resources because there is no incentive to.
-
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
I don't think this is a good idea. What is the incentive to buy a fuel efficient vehicle if you are taxed on miles driven and not the amount of fuel you burn?
I think what liberals really want is a gas tax AND a miles driven tax. I don't see them ever getting rid a any tax.
Well, there would still be the whole not having to buy gasoline thing.
-
We're not coming up with better resources because there is no incentive to.
Are you kidding? Set aside the billions in tax incentives and there's still the incentive to produce something everyone in the world requires.
-
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
I don't think this is a good idea. What is the incentive to buy a fuel efficient vehicle if you are taxed on miles driven and not the amount of fuel you burn?
I think what liberals really want is a gas tax AND a miles driven tax. I don't see them ever getting rid a any tax.
Here in Austin, we've been dealing with drought for several years. The city launched a massive campaign to influence citizens to curb their water use. The campaign worked. In fact, it worked so well that the water department is in the red, because people are paying for less water. The solution? A drought tax, of course.
Taxes never go away.
-
We're not coming up with better resources because there is no incentive to.
Are you kidding? Set aside the billions in tax incentives and there's still the incentive to produce something everyone in the world requires.
:dubious:
-
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
I don't think this is a good idea. What is the incentive to buy a fuel efficient vehicle if you are taxed on miles driven and not the amount of fuel you burn?
I think what liberals really want is a gas tax AND a miles driven tax. I don't see them ever getting rid a any tax.
Here in Austin, we've been dealing with drought for several years. The city launched a massive campaign to influence citizens to curb their water use. The campaign worked. In fact, it worked so well that the water department is in the red, because people are paying for less water. The solution? A drought tax, of course.
Taxes never go away.
Holy crap. How do they just not charge more for the water per unit since it is scarce?
-
It would be almost impossible to turn the United States into the "Middle East" of green energy using the most popular and highly inefficient "green" energy production sources.
Oh hey, it's me, solar road.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/09/solar-highway-indiegogo/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000589
-
BTW the 700K birds a year is considered by environmental groups to be way low, they believe the number is much higher and their biggest concern is birds-of-prey who like to soar the skies in areas where these inefficient "green" energy platforms are being built looking for prey.
Pointing to other calamities or the predation by the overpopulation of domestic felines is immaterial to the discussion.
ladies and gentlemen, mr. dax jones.
-
BTW the 700K birds a year is considered by environmental groups to be way low, they believe the number is much higher and their biggest concern is birds-of-prey who like to soar the skies in areas where these inefficient "green" energy platforms are being built looking for prey.
Pointing to other calamities or the predation by the overpopulation of domestic felines is immaterial to the discussion.
ladies and gentlemen, mr. dax jones.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi189.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz81%2Fksurocks00%2Frando%2FOleConway.jpg&hash=6dcafcaceac394232054f7cb8a43d5612b587860)
-
Really a fantastic talking point by me.
In addition, I am still getting a good :lol: about the concept of turning the U.S. into the "green energy middle east" . . . let's just say that a bajillion gajillion metric tons of carbons will be needed in order to make that happen. Carbon offset on that factored in the . . . centuries?
-
so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.
I'm not an economist. I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically. First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow). Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption. Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient. Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
I read something about this, and it seems with all the different means of technology such as electric, natural gas, propane, solar, exc..., taxing fuel would not be fair for fossil fuel travel methods.
-
Tax should be based on tolls to drive on all interstate roads. The tolls should be based on weight and no. of axles per vehicle. Also a tax based on miles added when selling, going to local treasurer.
-
http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/05/09/wind_collapses_without_tax_subsidy.html
-
would obesity collapse without agriculture subsidy? food for another thread?
-
would obesity collapse without agriculture subsidy? food for another thread?
I think it probably would, but starvation would rise.
-
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
I don't think this is a good idea. What is the incentive to buy a fuel efficient vehicle if you are taxed on miles driven and not the amount of fuel you burn?
I think what liberals really want is a gas tax AND a miles driven tax. I don't see them ever getting rid a any tax.
Here in Austin, we've been dealing with drought for several years. The city launched a massive campaign to influence citizens to curb their water use. The campaign worked. In fact, it worked so well that the water department is in the red, because people are paying for less water. The solution? A drought tax, of course.
Taxes never go away.
You neglect to mention that tons of people just drilled their own wells and stopped using city water and kept their lawns green.
-
In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.
I don't think this is a good idea. What is the incentive to buy a fuel efficient vehicle if you are taxed on miles driven and not the amount of fuel you burn?
I think what liberals really want is a gas tax AND a miles driven tax. I don't see them ever getting rid a any tax.
Here in Austin, we've been dealing with drought for several years. The city launched a massive campaign to influence citizens to curb their water use. The campaign worked. In fact, it worked so well that the water department is in the red, because people are paying for less water. The solution? A drought tax, of course.
Taxes never go away.
You neglect to mention that tons of people just drilled their own wells and stopped using city water and kept their lawns green.
Well yeah, who wouldn't want a bonnie green St. Augustine lawn?
-
Because drilling a water well is free and has a 100% success rate.
-
private animal killing businesses can't compete with obama's avian carnage.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/18/4994110/federal-wildlife-services-makes.html
-
Disgusting.
-
private animal killing businesses can't compete with obama's avian carnage.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/18/4994110/federal-wildlife-services-makes.html
Sounds like the private animal killing businesses need a better business plan.
-
Alright, can we make some of those deer whistle things you put on cars, but for birds, and glue them to windmills?
Problem solved!
-
dax, who do you love beating the crap out of more: green energy or KU financials?
-
So the WSJ runs a story about sage grouse on the front page, tells us they're endangered, but never tells us why. :rolleyes:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303417104579546044100811388?KEYWORDS=grouse&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303417104579546044100811388.html%3FKEYWORDS%3Dgrouse
-
So the WSJ runs a story about sage grouse on the front page, tells us they're endangered, but never tells us why. :rolleyes:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303417104579546044100811388?KEYWORDS=grouse&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303417104579546044100811388.html%3FKEYWORDS%3Dgrouse
WSJ is in the pocket of Big Grouse
-
So the WSJ runs a story about sage grouse on the front page, tells us they're endangered, but never tells us why. :rolleyes:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303417104579546044100811388?KEYWORDS=grouse&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303417104579546044100811388.html%3FKEYWORDS%3Dgrouse
It's to feed the land and energy needs of suburban dwellers who take up more land and energy than they need
-
Jeez I serve a softball up to you hippies and the squeeze is on and you forget to swing. :rolleyes:
Pro-tip: it's not wind (or suburban development) killing the sage grouse. It's O&G and probably some disease and overgrazing.
-
Jeez I serve a softball up to you hippies and the squeeze is on and you forget to swing. :rolleyes:
Pro-tip: it's not wind (or suburban development) killing the sage grouse. It's O&G and probably some disease and overgrazing.
That's my point. WSJ won't point the blame where it belongs, at the stupid grouse.
-
Big Religion is subsidizing BigO&G through their control of the 'pubs so that they can kill the grouse and then hold it up as proof that evolution isn't real since the grouse failed to evolve. Boom, Intelligent Design in Science class!
-
I came here to post that I almost hit a hawk/eagle on the highway today, he was munching on some roadkill in the median then started to take off across the highway. If I did not slow down there would of been Avian Carnage all up in my grill.
Also, reading this thread for the first time I found it pretty funny that Emo was complaining about Wind Engery/O&G killing so many birds that there are very few left for him to kill.
-
I came here to post that I almost hit a hawk/eagle on the highway today, he was munching on some roadkill in the median then started to take off across the highway. If I did not slow down there would of been Avian Carnage all up in my grill.
Also, reading this thread for the first time I found it pretty funny that Emo was complaining about Wind Engery/O&G killing so many birds that there are very few left for him to kill.
It is funny from an outsider's perspective, I understand that.
Most wild galliformes (pheasant, quail, grouse) don't live a full year. Probably less than 25%. But they can be very successful breeders with the right conditions. So like the same "spot" can suck one year and be awesome the next if the habitat is there. But if you remove the habitat it will suck no matter what. The point being, hunters kill very few birds compared to hawks and other predators, or disease, or accident, or whatever. But we do a lot to protect habitat to ensure that the population can sustain itself. Like I said earlier in this thread, multiple studies have shown that hunting pressure has no correlation to bird populations.
-
I have heard from a MO DOW guy that a large issue with bird pop is the type of grass being planted for hay being too dense as well as the removal of fence row tree structure. :dunno:
I heard this several years ago. Maybe we hadn't realized that non-existent(at that time) wind farms were really just dicing up everything.
-
That's totally true in MO. The fescue is bad bad news for the quail. We have those same issues here in the eastern third of KS. My buddy manages some land near Columbia for quail and it's a mother rough rider to keep the fescue out. They Round-up it every other year.
-
We can agree that windmills aren't decimating any bird populations short of the Lesser North American Idiot Sparrow.
-
Serious Q: Could the 13 year drought we're currently in be affecting the quail population or do they thrive in dry heat?
-
Jeez I serve a softball up to you hippies and the squeeze is on and you forget to swing. :rolleyes:
Pro-tip: it's not wind (or suburban development) killing the sage grouse. It's O&G and probably some disease and overgrazing.
Pro tip: who do you think needs that oil and gas?
-
We can agree that windmills aren't decimating any bird populations short of the Lesser North American Idiot Sparrow.
I know I made a minor dent in it this spring.
Serious Q: Could the 13 year drought we're currently in be affecting the quail population or do they thrive in dry heat?
Probably could be affecting it, however that's not the topic of discussion bubs.
-
Serious Q: Could the 13 year drought we're currently in be affecting the quail population or do they thrive in dry heat?
Well the drought isn't quite that long. As recent as 2009 we could move 40 coveys a day in Texas. But it certainly is hurting them BIG time. But it goes back to habitat. Drought will affect populations season to season. Other things like wind/O&G development affect them in the long term.
-
An old sage told me
Sage grouse don't die of old age-
It's bullet, or blades
-
We can agree that windmills aren't decimating any bird populations short of the Lesser North American Idiot Sparrow.
I know I made a minor dent in it this spring.
Serious Q: Could the 13 year drought we're currently in be affecting the quail population or do they thrive in dry heat?
Probably could be affecting it, however that's not the topic of discussion bubs.
it's where i'm taking the discussion, you sonofabitch.
-
http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-18567.pdf
Wind energy development could likewise become a major issue for sage-grouse population
management. The associated infrastructure and human activities, as well as effects unique to wind, may
pose some threats to the species, similar to those that result from oil and gas development. The
development of wind energy in conjunction with oil and gas (as well as other types of development) may
pose cumulative synergistic direct and indirect effects on sage-grouse that are worthy of consideration.
Because large-scale development of wind energy resources is recent and ongoing, many of the
potential impacts of wind energy development on sage-grouse have not been studied. However, potential
development impacts to grouse population can be anticipated from studies of oil and gas development
effects on the species. Identifying important information gaps regarding effects of wind energy
development on sage-grouse, as well as the research needs and priorities that will fill these gaps, is a
critical component of long-term strategies to enable both resource development and species protection.
-
We can agree that windmills aren't decimating any bird populations short of the Lesser North American Idiot Sparrow.
I know I made a minor dent in it this spring.
Serious Q: Could the 13 year drought we're currently in be affecting the quail population or do they thrive in dry heat?
Probably could be affecting it, however that's not the topic of discussion bubs.
it's where i'm taking the discussion, you sonofabitch.
guys GE has gotten really mean lately.
-
http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-18567.pdf
Wind energy development could likewise become a major issue for sage-grouse population
management. The associated infrastructure and human activities, as well as effects unique to wind, may
pose some threats to the species, similar to those that result from oil and gas development. The
development of wind energy in conjunction with oil and gas (as well as other types of development) may
pose cumulative synergistic direct and indirect effects on sage-grouse that are worthy of consideration.
Because large-scale development of wind energy resources is recent and ongoing, many of the
potential impacts of wind energy development on sage-grouse have not been studied. However, potential
development impacts to grouse population can be anticipated from studies of oil and gas development
effects on the species. Identifying important information gaps regarding effects of wind energy
development on sage-grouse, as well as the research needs and priorities that will fill these gaps, is a
critical component of long-term strategies to enable both resource development and species protection.
Very little is known about wind energy and sage-grouse, but oil- and gas-field developments within
the range of the sage-grouse often have caused measureable effects to their populations.
It is not known to what extent the development of wind energy resources will affect sage-grouse
populations.
I mean, I'm not even doubting wind energy would have an impact, just enjoying that you shared this.
-
Just sharing what we know and don't know.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
-
US Fish & Wildlife thinks wind farms are 10-15 times more damaging for the Lesser Prairie Chicken (a grouse).
As I stated earlier, wind farms destroy far more habitat than O&G development, whether libtards like it or not. If you like conservation you should be opposed to wind farms. If you're a mindless leftist like michigancat, keep on keeping on with your ignorant ideals.
-
That huge wind spill last year still hasn't been cleaned up fully. :shakesfist:
-
US Fish & Wildlife thinks wind farms are 10-15 times more damaging for the Lesser Prairie Chicken (a grouse).
alternative study from mindless leftists: http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jul13/sandercock71013.html
:dunno:
-
goddam. mcat with the best source known to man
-
US Fish & Wildlife thinks wind farms are 10-15 times more damaging for the Lesser Prairie Chicken (a grouse).
alternative study from mindless leftists: http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jul13/sandercock71013.html
:dunno:
1) different species
2) not persuasive (likely self serving) to US Fish & Wildlife who ultimately got the LESSER PC listed.
3) the results of that study would equally implicate O&G development as it is not as tall, noisy and uses less surface than (things prairie chicken's supposedly hate) than wind.
Do you have the slightest idea as to what you're talking about?
-
We can all agree that no one cares about the Lesser Prairie Chicken. Good riddance, I say
-
We can all agree that no one cares about the Lesser Prairie Chicken. Good riddance, I say
I think this is a good point. Millions of species have come and gone over the history of the earth. Why should we curtail our enjoyment of the planet to preserve the existence of some species afraid of trees?
-
US Fish & Wildlife thinks wind farms are 10-15 times more damaging for the Lesser Prairie Chicken (a grouse).
alternative study from mindless leftists: http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jul13/sandercock71013.html
:dunno:
1) different species
2) not persuasive (likely self serving) to US Fish & Wildlife who ultimately got the LESSER PC listed.
3) the results of that study would equally implicate O&G development as it is not as tall, noisy and uses less surface than (things prairie chicken's supposedly hate) than wind.
ok
-
If you like conservation you should be opposed to wind farms.
a lesson in how a political paradigm can blind someone. we're all vulnerable(though perhaps not to this extreme).
-
We can all agree that no one cares about the Lesser Prairie Chicken. Good riddance, I say
:curse:
-
US Fish & Wildlife thinks wind farms are 10-15 times more damaging for the Lesser Prairie Chicken (a grouse).
alternative study from mindless leftists: http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jul13/sandercock71013.html
:dunno:
KSU is great, but there is a lot of proof right here that many mindless liberals pass through it's hallowed halls.
-
US Fish & Wildlife thinks wind farms are 10-15 times more damaging for the Lesser Prairie Chicken (a grouse).
alternative study from mindless leftists: http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jul13/sandercock71013.html
:dunno:
KSU is great, but there is a lot of proof right here that many mindless liberals pass through it's hallowed halls.
multiple layers of hilarious stuff in this post.
-
FTR, no one thinks wind and solar farms should be developed unchecked besides dax's mythical friends. I think wind farms (and oil and gas development) are great in places like much of Southern and Western Kansas where farming has already taken over the landscape, but don't really care for it on land that hasn't been developed at all.
-
FTR, no one thinks wind and solar farms should be developed unchecked besides dax's mythical friends. I think wind farms (and oil and gas development) are great in places like much of Southern and Western Kansas where farming has already taken over the landscape, but don't really care for it on land that hasn't been developed at all.
:cheers:
-
I'll also add that wind should be close to population centers where it can be more cheaply consumed.
-
Hunter sits and waits for animal. Animal comes by. Hunter blows it out of the sky/ground.
Windmill sits and waits for a breeze. Breeze comes. Symbiosis. Windmill, while enjoying a symbiotic relationship by sitting in one spot, minds it own business and kills a bird.
I sympathize more with the windmill.
If you want to kill stuff and love a challenge, go be a mercenary. You're arguing about which man made device is more appropriate to kill animals with. One benefits many, one benefits one. Democracy.
-
Hunter sits and waits for animal. Animal comes by. Hunter blows it out of the sky/ground.
Windmill sits and waits for a breeze. Breeze comes. Symbiosis. Windmill, while enjoying a symbiotic relationship by sitting in one spot, minds it own business and kills a bird.
I sympathize more with the windmill.
If you want to kill stuff and love a challenge, go be a mercenary. You're arguing about which man made device is more appropriate to kill animals with. One benefits many, one benefits one. Democracy.
Socialism.
-
Hunter sits and waits for animal. Animal comes by. Hunter blows it out of the sky/ground.
Windmill sits and waits for a breeze. Breeze comes. Symbiosis. Windmill, while enjoying a symbiotic relationship by sitting in one spot, minds it own business and kills a bird.
I sympathize more with the windmill.
If you want to kill stuff and love a challenge, go be a mercenary. You're arguing about which man made device is more appropriate to kill animals with. One benefits many, one benefits one. Democracy.
Socialism.
You're the one asking for a more level playing field....
-
Hunter sits and waits for animal. Animal comes by. Hunter blows it out of the sky/ground.
Windmill sits and waits for a breeze. Breeze comes. Symbiosis. Windmill, while enjoying a symbiotic relationship by sitting in one spot, minds it own business and kills a bird.
I sympathize more with the windmill.
If you want to kill stuff and love a challenge, go be a mercenary. You're arguing about which man made device is more appropriate to kill animals with. One benefits many, one benefits one. Democracy.
Socialism.
You're the one asking for a more level playing field....
A more level playing field for innovation and private enterprise to compete...neither hunter nor windmill seek to eliminate a species (although one is decidedly suited to the task).
-
Hunter sits and waits for animal. Animal comes by. Hunter blows it out of the sky/ground.
Windmill sits and waits for a breeze. Breeze comes. Symbiosis. Windmill, while enjoying a symbiotic relationship by sitting in one spot, minds it own business and kills a bird.
I sympathize more with the windmill.
If you want to kill stuff and love a challenge, go be a mercenary. You're arguing about which man made device is more appropriate to kill animals with. One benefits many, one benefits one. Democracy.
Socialism.
You're the one asking for a more level playing field....
A more level playing field for innovation and private enterprise to compete...neither hunter nor windmill seek to eliminate a species (although one is decidedly suited to the task).
Invest the money you spend on hunting in a private enterprise for clean energy that you deem worthy. You'll do more for your cause in that manner than bringing hunting into the conversation. Take solace in the fact that every time you shower, walk, disinfect something, you are killing thousands of living things. Many of which enable you to exist in the first place.
-
US Fish & Wildlife thinks wind farms are 10-15 times more damaging for the Lesser Prairie Chicken (a grouse).
alternative study from mindless leftists: http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jul13/sandercock71013.html
:dunno:
KSU is great, but there is a lot of proof right here that many mindless liberals pass through it's hallowed halls.
multiple layers of hilarious stuff in this post.
Boom.
-
Hunter sits and waits for animal. Animal comes by. Hunter blows it out of the sky/ground.
Windmill sits and waits for a breeze. Breeze comes. Symbiosis. Windmill, while enjoying a symbiotic relationship by sitting in one spot, minds it own business and kills a bird.
I sympathize more with the windmill.
If you want to kill stuff and love a challenge, go be a mercenary. You're arguing about which man made device is more appropriate to kill animals with. One benefits many, one benefits one. Democracy.
Socialism.
You're the one asking for a more level playing field....
A more level playing field for innovation and private enterprise to compete...neither hunter nor windmill seek to eliminate a species (although one is decidedly suited to the task).
Invest the money you spend on hunting in a private enterprise for clean energy that you deem worthy. You'll do more for your cause in that manner than bringing hunting into the conversation. Take solace in the fact that every time you shower, walk, disinfect something, you are killing thousands of living things. Many of which enable you to exist in the first place.
I already give a fair amount to conservation organizations. Loads more than you spend drinking cheap win in a year.
-
WHIP OUT THE 1040'S
-
Hunter sits and waits for animal. Animal comes by. Hunter blows it out of the sky/ground.
Windmill sits and waits for a breeze. Breeze comes. Symbiosis. Windmill, while enjoying a symbiotic relationship by sitting in one spot, minds it own business and kills a bird.
I sympathize more with the windmill.
If you want to kill stuff and love a challenge, go be a mercenary. You're arguing about which man made device is more appropriate to kill animals with. One benefits many, one benefits one. Democracy.
Socialism.
You're the one asking for a more level playing field....
A more level playing field for innovation and private enterprise to compete...neither hunter nor windmill seek to eliminate a species (although one is decidedly suited to the task).
Invest the money you spend on hunting in a private enterprise for clean energy that you deem worthy. You'll do more for your cause in that manner than bringing hunting into the conversation. Take solace in the fact that every time you shower, walk, disinfect something, you are killing thousands of living things. Many of which enable you to exist in the first place.
I already give a fair amount to conservation organizations. Loads more than you spend drinking cheap win in a year.
With stances like yours, cheap wins are easy to come by, so I should hope so.
-
You may sit down now.
-
FTR, no one thinks wind and solar farms should be developed unchecked besides dax's mythical friends. I think wind farms (and oil and gas development) are great in places like much of Southern and Western Kansas where farming has already taken over the landscape, but don't really care for it on land that hasn't been developed at all.
I think we should put this bullshit right on top of the assholes who use all the energy and then complain about how it's produced.
-
If you like conservation you should be opposed to wind farms.
a lesson in how a political paradigm can blind someone. we're all vulnerable(though perhaps not to this extreme).
I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or making a meme of yourself.
What I am certain of, is that a lot of people on this blog don't know what conservation mean. They just fall lock, stock and barrel fossil fuel = bad, green energy = good. Those people are indoctrinated retards incapable of independent thought and who likely spend a great deal of time on liberal parody blogs like thinkprogress.
-
FTR, no one thinks wind and solar farms should be developed unchecked besides dax's mythical friends. I think wind farms (and oil and gas development) are great in places like much of Southern and Western Kansas where farming has already taken over the landscape, but don't really care for it on land that hasn't been developed at all.
I think we should put this bullshit right on top of the assholes who use all the energy and then complain about how it's produced.
Agree, although you do see shitloads of solar roofs in California already.
-
Great, those people should get 1 hour of electricity per day then. Everyone else gets zero.
-
If you like conservation you should be opposed to wind farms.
a lesson in how a political paradigm can blind someone. we're all vulnerable(though perhaps not to this extreme).
I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or making a meme of yourself.
What I am certain of, is that a lot of people on this blog don't know what conservation mean. They just fall lock, stock and barrel fossil fuel = bad, green energy = good. Those people are indoctrinated retards incapable of independent thought and who likely spend a great deal of time on liberal parody blogs like thinkprogress.
What do you think conservation means? I probably agree with you on your definition. but can we both agree the "windmills kill too many birds" talking point is silly?
I mean, I'm not going to live in a mud hut (a cave maybe) because a spotted frog may go extinct. I get that animals die and species are always going down, dinosaurs died out and only Jesus could have stopped that. Again, we are probably on same page here.
-
I think I said the killing birds thing is dumb 10 pages ago.
That being said, to the extent conserving habitat is important, wind farms are the worst wastes of habitat imaginable.
-
Strip mining is more eco - friendly than wind farms.
-
Strip mining is more eco - friendly than wind farms.
Laughable claim. Source: my smell test.
Test method: smell
Result: stinky
-
I think I said the killing birds thing is dumb 10 pages ago.
That being said, to the extent conserving habitat is important, wind farms are the worst wastes of habitat imaginable.
Conserving habitat is important. I was out west for work and there is a huge wind farm between Dodge City and Hanston. It looked pretty benign as far as ruining habitat. It basically looked like all of the other field around that area except for the turbines, with fences around them. What's the diff?
-
I think I said the killing birds thing is dumb 10 pages ago.
That being said, to the extent conserving habitat is important, wind farms are the worst wastes of habitat imaginable.
Conserving habitat is important. I was out west for work and there is a huge wind farm between Dodge City and Hanston. It looked pretty benign as far as ruining habitat. It basically looked like all of the other field around that area except for the turbines, with fences around them. What's the diff?
You didn't see the roads, transmission lines, power stations, etc.? You didn't notice the dearth of life. It basically makes half the surface estate unusable for any other purpose and no living being will go anywhere near it. Probably the only part of your drive where you didn't see cattle or a hawk or anything.
The strip mining thing wasn't a flame. These things waste square miles of habitat for all living beings. At least strip mining is concentrated to a few hundred acres.
-
Strip mining is more eco - friendly than wind farms.
a lesson in how a political paradigm can blind someone.
-
Strip mining is more eco - friendly than wind farms.
a lesson in how a political paradigm can blind someone.
Good meme.
-
I think I said the killing birds thing is dumb 10 pages ago.
That being said, to the extent conserving habitat is important, wind farms are the worst wastes of habitat imaginable.
Conserving habitat is important. I was out west for work and there is a huge wind farm between Dodge City and Hanston. It looked pretty benign as far as ruining habitat. It basically looked like all of the other field around that area except for the turbines, with fences around them. What's the diff?
You didn't see the roads, transmission lines, power stations, etc.? You didn't notice the dearth of life. It basically makes half the surface estate unusable for any other purpose and no living being will go anywhere near it. Probably the only part of your drive where you didn't see cattle or a hawk or anything.
The strip mining thing wasn't a flame. These things waste square miles of habitat for all living beings. At least strip mining is concentrated to a few hundred acres.
There were cows around. Not many, for sure. That land is about worthless to graze.
Don't you think if the land was better used to graze cows, the owners would do that? Isn't this the perfect example of the free market taking over? Land makes more $$ for owner as a wind farm = not grazing it.
-
I think I said the killing birds thing is dumb 10 pages ago.
That being said, to the extent conserving habitat is important, wind farms are the worst wastes of habitat imaginable.
Conserving habitat is important. I was out west for work and there is a huge wind farm between Dodge City and Hanston. It looked pretty benign as far as ruining habitat. It basically looked like all of the other field around that area except for the turbines, with fences around them. What's the diff?
You didn't see the roads, transmission lines, power stations, etc.? You didn't notice the dearth of life. It basically makes half the surface estate unusable for any other purpose and no living being will go anywhere near it. Probably the only part of your drive where you didn't see cattle or a hawk or anything.
The strip mining thing wasn't a flame. These things waste square miles of habitat for all living beings. At least strip mining is concentrated to a few hundred acres.
There were cows around. Not many, for sure. That land is about worthless to graze.
Don't you think if the land was better used to graze cows, the owners would do that? Isn't this the perfect example of the free market taking over? Land makes more $$ for owner as a wind farm = not grazing it.
Do you want to talk about free markets or conservation? If free markets were in issue, wind mills would have ceased to exist minutes after the pump was invented.
-
Point is, that land is barren. Why not try and generate some electricity?
-
Point is, that land is barren. Why not try and generate some electricity?
Because we want to conserve native habitat? The same reason we don't cut down the national forest for fuel.
-
Because tons of effective power is generated from burning wood. Are you serious? Cutting wood? We aren't cutting national forests (with all of the abundant wood based energy) to save habitat?
No way I have to tell you that's simply wrong.
-
I feel bad that the damn libs have shut down the nations huge wood burning power plants.
-
If we'd just harvest the pines of Yellowstone, we'd free the US from dependence on oil
-
I have an e-crush on dugout
-
i'm grateful for threads like this one. it helps remind me that although the work i do seems mind-bogglingly simple, if not actually Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), that somehow the majority of adult americans are so stupid they apparently can't even discuss these issues coherently.
-
i'm grateful for threads like this one. it helps remind me that although the work i do seems mind-bogglingly simple, if not actually Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), that somehow the majority of adult americans are so stupid they apparently can't even discuss these issues coherently.
dad :frown:
-
Because tons of effective power is generated from burning wood. Are you serious? Cutting wood? We aren't cutting national forests (with all of the abundant wood based energy) to save habitat?
No way I have to tell you that's simply wrong.
Okay, for timber then. Think of all the great things that could be built if 2x4 were 20 cents instead of $2.
The conservation issue is the same. Stop confusing it with free markets. Conservation perverts free markets.
-
The road to sustainable "green" energy is filled with billions of tons of hydrocarbons consumed and substantial environmental impact.
The way some act on here I keep picturing Gen. Buck Turgidson sitting at the table in front of the "Big Board" telling President Muffley that launching a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia would keep U.S. casualties at an "acceptable" level, no more than 10-20 million killed . . . depending on the breaks.
-
Does anyone else love it when dax puts "green" in quotes as much as me? :love:
-
Another thing worth noting is that oil(fuel, lube and plastics) and wind (electricity and bird shredding) aren't exactly in direct competition with each other. The proliferation of one does not obviate the other. Most libtards think more wind = less oil, which of course is wrong.
Secret Info: Sugar Dick likes wind energy, just not in its current form.
-
Because tons of effective power is generated from burning wood. Are you serious? Cutting wood? We aren't cutting national forests (with all of the abundant wood based energy) to save habitat?
No way I have to tell you that's simply wrong.
Okay, for timber then. Think of all the great things that could be built if 2x4 were 20 cents instead of $2.
The conservation issue is the same. Stop confusing it with free markets. Conservation perverts free markets.
Actually cheap lumber is the worst. Go to your local Home Depot sometime and look at how warped all of their cheap 2x4s are.
-
Because tons of effective power is generated from burning wood. Are you serious? Cutting wood? We aren't cutting national forests (with all of the abundant wood based energy) to save habitat?
No way I have to tell you that's simply wrong.
Okay, for timber then. Think of all the great things that could be built if 2x4 were 20 cents instead of $2.
The conservation issue is the same. Stop confusing it with free markets. Conservation perverts free markets.
Stick to your guns pussy
-
thanks, obama.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27426866
-
sys really wearing out the BBC webpage this am. Top O the Morning guvnah!
-
thanks, obama.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27426866
Sys channeling his inner Gen. Buck Turgidson.
http://youtu.be/HgyjlqhiTV8?t=2m12s (http://youtu.be/HgyjlqhiTV8?t=2m12s)
-
thanks, obama.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27426866
Sys channeling his inner Gen. Buck Turgidson.
http://youtu.be/HgyjlqhiTV8?t=2m12s (http://youtu.be/HgyjlqhiTV8?t=2m12s)
How did I not know George C. Scott played another general. I :love: Patton.