Case Against Renewable Energy

[wandering peacefully]

"our entertainment?"

I think that term is going to cause you problems. I don't know any pet owner who thinks that 'entertainment' is the primary..or even secondary...reason for having a pet.

Just interjecting here; that phrase caught my eye.

That is why I put the disclaimer. I most likely the only person on the planet who feels that way. But when one adds the costs of airable land and animal byproducts to feed them, I can imagine it impacts CC and resources which could be used to feed humans. It is just an idea and one I wouldn't expect anyone else to agree with.
What are pets for if not entertainment including companionship with a furry, cute creature who won't eat you?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Thank god someone with a brain. I'd also argue that it's morally wrong to keep pets as well. Yeah I love pets also and cute cats,etc. However, their main purpose seems to be for entertainment, maternal instincts, avoid loneliness, etc. I'd be curious if, for instance dogs, ever developed self-awareness, they'd go wtf why am I a slave? If I were to ignore any moral argument, which I think are subjective anyway, it's humorous how pet lovers will devotedly defend their pets passion and other animals, all the meanwhile they actually own another living being. Anyway, I'm glad your logical side is able to observe illogical side of human behaviour. Most people seem unable to observe what affect passions or emotions influence our thoughts.




Interesting. Thanks

You're welcome.
You give me more credit than due. I wasn't even thinking of the ownership or "enslavement" aspect. Just recources. From what I've seen pets love being owned!

 

[charlie sc]

charlie, we are talking, in this thread, about wind farms. Specifically. If we bring up every OTHER danger that birds face, we won't get anything done at all, with any of those problems.

Oh, I see, this is the route we're taking Apart from my curiosity of the potential solutions for wind-farms, my initial argument was that it was not as bad as people seem to say it is. If the goal is to prevent the extinction of bird species, the data does not show windfarms doing this, which is what you were saying. That being the goal, I thought I'd mention cats, since they have actually caused the extinction of multiple bird species and we are the indirect cause of it.
But you are right, it's technically not on point, though it's common discussions usually deviate.

Because some of us concentrate on one specific problem, it does not mean that we don't think any other problems 'count.'

Yep, you are right.

BTW, I have six cats in my house (only one actually belongs to me, mind you) and every one of them is either spayed or neutered. So is my dog. Content yourself with the thought that while I may concentrate on other problems, I am at least not contributing to the one you are concentrating upon.

Oh....and if you begin a thread about the danger of feral cats, I won't barge into it with claims about how you shouldn't worry about them when windmills kill California Condors.

My ex had 6 cats. When she let them out they would bring back presents The study I linked said that the presents they bring back are only 20% of their loot. The rest you don't see.

Sure, we don't have to discuss how billions of birds are slaughtered by cats.

I enjoy talking to you btw

 

[dfnj]

Just watched a TED related video by Michael Shellenberger, who talks about how windmills kill birds and the instability of solar power leads to a need for more natural gas power. He discusses the problem of disposing of toxic solar panels the relative expense of renewable infrastructure versus relying upon nuclear energy.

So what do you think about these things? Please take the time to watch the video if you can or skim it. Its about 17 minutes long. Are windmills and solar panel farms a mistake?

For reference here are some previous threads hosted here on RF where the topic of renewable energy has been discussed:
100% Renewable Energy Vision
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Another Energy Thread
Compressing Air for Renewable Energy Storage

Here's the video:

Text message from Big Oil: "Check is in the mail"

 

[charlie sc]

From what I've seen pets love being owned!

Yes, I think some pets are especially content, but some not so much. I'd direct you to parrots who live longer than humans and form strong bonds that can never be fulfilled. Owners don't understand how needy they are and throw them away when they had enough. So, they form pathological problems and subsequently rip out their own feathers.
Who cares right? The point I'm trying to make is that humans are very bad at decisions when emotions are involved, especially strong emotions.

Cats kill birds?(210 - 3700 million) But they're so cute!
Cars kill birds?(50- 100million) but I love cars!
Buildings kill birds?(355-988million) but I need my building!
Hunting kills birds?(174million) but I like to shoot things!
Windfarms kill birds?(0.02 - 0.57million) YEAH! I'm not sure I like the look of them and they are noisy, plus I LIKE the birds that bump into them. These wind-turbines are ruining our environment!

If birds really mattered that much it's fairly obvious what we should focus on. I don't care much about birds, what I care about is showing how illogical people are and perhaps then they can make informed decisions.

 

[dianaiad]

That is why I put the disclaimer. I most likely the only person on the planet who feels that way. But when one adds the costs of airable land and animal byproducts to feed them, I can imagine it impacts CC and resources which could be used to feed humans. It is just an idea and one I wouldn't expect anyone else to agree with.
What are pets for if not entertainment including companionship with a furry, cute creature who won't eat you?

(thinking about my dog and his service cat) Service animals. not just guide dogs and service animals for the disabled, I'm talking about the 'support' dogs and therapy animals who give emotional and mental support and stability.

....and one can't just pick up any old animal and make it a 'support/service animal,' with all the bells, whistles, and vest that allows them to go to places that ordinarily ban pets from entrance, such as stores, medical clinics and the rest. One must have a large population to choose from, a population of animals that have been bred to, and become accustomed to, living that intimately with humans.

They are, true, ALSO fun to watch and play with, but as I wrote earlier, that is a secondary, lovely surprise.

Huh. Y'know, I never had a dog until three years ago, when something just told me that I had to visit the local animal shelter. Someone had turned in a litter (TEN puppies!) of mixed breed dogs. They were all about six weeks old, perhaps younger. They were mostly shetlands. I, of course, picked the smallest one. I only was able to keep Belle for a bit over a year before she ran out of the house and got hit by a car. It was devastating. Two months later I went back to the shelter and came home with a Chihuahua/cairne terrior mix, and he's been a vital part of my life for two years now. I'm not 'entertained' by him. I NEED him. Chemotherapy is a ..(insert appropriate but descriptive curse of your choice). He's my 'therapy' dog.

If people didn't keep pets, so that Dobby wouldn't have been born, I wouldn't have that solace.

...and people have had dogs almost as long as there have been people. Dogs, it seems, are an integral part of being human. So, evidently, are cats, parrots...whatever. Humans NEED them. They are not a luxury item, and if it ever comes to the point where we literally can't afford to have pets, the human race would be in a great deal more trouble than can be fixed by not having them, that is certain.

 

[dianaiad]

Oh, I see, this is the route we're taking Apart from my curiosity of the potential solutions for wind-farms, my initial argument was that it was not as bad as people seem to say it is. If the goal is to prevent the extinction of bird species, the data does not show windfarms doing this, which is what you were saying.

Actually, the data you have shown says that birds in general are not at risk. I said that they put some endangered species at risk. They certainly do that. The California Condor, a couple of species of hawks are at great risk. The golden and bald eagles considerably less so, but they still (especially the golden) are very stressed by windfarms.

That being the goal, I thought I'd mention cats, since they have actually caused the extinction of multiple bird species and we are the indirect cause of it.
But you are right, it's technically not on point, though it's common discussions usually deviate.

Well, I rather doubt that cats have endangered condors or eagles, golden or bald. Indeed, those species look upon small feral cats, not as predators to fear, but as, er.....lunch.

Yep, you are right.



My ex had 6 cats. When she let them out they would bring back presents The study I linked said that the presents they bring back are only 20% of their loot. The rest you don't see.

Sure, we don't have to discuss how billions of birds are slaughtered by cats.

I enjoy talking to you btw

Thanks.

Oh, we can discuss how billions of birds are slaughtered by cats, if you wish. Just...don't use that as an argument against solving some OTHER problem birds may face.

Sure, fixing windfarms won't solve the feral cat problem (except that feral cats won't live on windfarms any more than anything ELSE does. However, it's something we CAN do.

 

[charlie sc]

Actually, the data you have shown says that birds in general are not at risk. I said that they put some endangered species at risk. They certainly do that. The California Condor, a couple of species of hawks are at great risk. The golden and bald eagles considerably less so, but they still (especially the golden) are very stressed by windfarms.

Cats have obliterated 63 species of birds. Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss I think that's quite a lot. You like birds, right? Does that bird look pretty to you? One single light keeper's cat named Tibbles went medieval on their asses and consequently they're gone. One cat annihilated these pretty birds. It looks like a pretty bird but it's cat lunch now. Cats are still killing in the million but they're cute so we'll do very little about it. Please, let's talk more about wind-turbines. btw it was actually a few feral cats. I said that for effect. Lyall's wren - Wikipedia

Well, I rather doubt that cats have endangered condors or eagles, golden or bald. Indeed, those species look upon small feral cats, not as predators to fear, but as, er.....lunch.

That would be nice but they're not cute. Feral cats have us to protect them and we'll shoo away any natural predator that comes for them. I should know. My ex was a cat nut.

Thanks.

Oh, we can discuss how billions of birds are slaughtered by cats, if you wish. Just...don't use that as an argument against solving some OTHER problem birds may face.

Sure, fixing windfarms won't solve the feral cat problem (except that feral cats won't live on windfarms any more than anything ELSE does. However, it's something we CAN do

What do you mean there's nothing we can do or you seem to be implying there's nothing we can do? Shoot them! You see a feral cat, get out your shotgun and chase that sucker down! You got cats. Don't let them out!

I assume you care about birds? or do you only care about certain birds or birds only killed by wind-turbines LOL?

 

[dianaiad]

Cats have obliterated 63 species of birds. Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss I think that's quite a lot. You like birds, right? Does that bird look pretty to you? One single light keeper's cat named Tibbles went medieval on their asses and consequently they're gone. One cat annihilated these pretty birds. It looks like a pretty bird but it's cat lunch now. Cats are still killing in the million but they're cute so we'll do very little about it. Please, let's talk more about wind-turbines. btw it was actually a few feral cats. I said that for effect. Lyall's wren - Wikipedia

That would be nice but they're not cute. Feral cats have us to protect them and we'll shoo away any natural predator that comes for them. I should know. My ex was a cat nut.



What do you mean there's nothing we can do or you seem to be implying there's nothing we can do? Shoot them! You see a feral cat, get out your shotgun and chase that sucker down! You got cats. Don't let them out!

I assume you care about birds? or do you only care about certain birds or birds only killed by wind-turbines LOL?

I care about a great many things. Most of them don't apply to the problem of wind farms. However, that doesn't mean I don't care about them.

This conversation reminds me a bit about when my kids (five of 'em) were small, and one of them was very needy for a time. He simply could not stand to see me give any of his siblings any attention. If I hugged his sister, he would insert himself between his sister and me. If he had a scratched knee, and I was comforting a sibling who came to me with a cut that required stitches, he threw a tantrum if I fixed his scratch before I dealt with the cut.

Thankfully he grew out of that in very short order...mostly because I wouldn't put up with it, I think.

But here's the thing: if we somehow managed to get rid of every feral cat in the world, so that birds were absolutely safe from them (remembering that 'feral' and 'wild' are two different things) we'd still have to deal with windfarms swiping birds out of the sky.

So...we fix the windfarms and work on the problem of the cats.

 

[charlie sc]

I care about a great many things. Most of them don't apply to the problem of wind farms. However, that doesn't mean I don't care about them.

This conversation reminds me a bit about when my kids (five of 'em) were small, and one of them was very needy for a time. He simply could not stand to see me give any of his siblings any attention. If I hugged his sister, he would insert himself between his sister and me. If he had a scratched knee, and I was comforting a sibling who came to me with a cut that required stitches, he threw a tantrum if I fixed his scratch before I dealt with the cut.

Thankfully he grew out of that in very short order...mostly because I wouldn't put up with it, I think.

But here's the thing: if we somehow managed to get rid of every feral cat in the world, so that birds were absolutely safe from them (remembering that 'feral' and 'wild' are two different things) we'd still have to deal with windfarms swiping birds out of the sky.

So...we fix the windfarms and work on the problem of the cats.

Awww, your story is very nice. This conversation reminded me of others I've had, but far more entertaining.

Sure, we can fix the windfarms first and hope there are still birds left within populated areas that house cats, which is about everywhere. A good compromise.

Keep your cats inside!

 

[dianaiad]

Awww, your story is very nice. This conversation reminded me of others I've had, but far more entertaining.

Sure, we can fix the windfarms first and hope there are still birds left within populated areas that house cats, which is about everywhere. A good compromise.

Keep your cats inside!

Try multitasking. Do both at the same time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

who talks about how windmills kill birds

I can't comment on the natural gas, but the point about windmills killing birds is very short sighted. Air planes kill birds. Power lines kill birds. Cars kill birds. Pollution kills birds. Lots of things are killing birds. But suddenly it's only relevant and discussed and something we care about when we have those damned windmills to prevent popping up. Overall, windmills kill fewer birds than the alternatives. Perhaps even fewer than buildings.

 

[exchemist]

Roscoe is really good at sliding along....

the ones here in California (Roscoe is in Texas, which is a whole lot more supportive of new wind farms than California is) are more mindful of wildlife. At least they are NOW. They didn't used to be.

Thanks. However, having looked these up it seems that Roscoe is a place in Texas, where there is a wind farm operated by E.ON, a European utility company (actually I buy my gas and electricity from them, here in London.). The wind farm at Tehachapi pass in California, which you referred to, is called either Alta Wind Energy Center (AWEC) or Mojave Wind Farm. This is operated by an outfit I am not familiar with, called Terra Gen Power.

But now I am confused by what you are saying. Is it E.ON's project at Roscoe that is disregarding the effect of its operations on birds? I thought your case was it was the Tehachapi pass one that was the problem, as it was on a migration path.

Anyway I am encouraged to learn that these companies are paying more attention to bird deaths because of popular pressure. That can only be a good thing - though from what I read the contribution of wind turbines to the overall causes of bird death is small.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks. However, having looked these up it seems that Roscoe is a place in Texas, where there is a wind farm operated by E.ON, a European utility company (actually I buy my gas and electricity from them, here in London.). The wind farm at Tehachapi pass in California, which you referred to, is called either Alta Wind Energy Center (AWEC) or Mojave Wind Farm. This is operated by an outfit I am not familiar with, called Terra Gen Power.

But now I am confused by what you are saying. Is it E.ON's project at Roscoe that is disregarding the effect of its operations on birds? I thought your case was it was the Tehachapi pass one that was the problem, as it was on a migration path.

Anyway I am encouraged to learn that these companies are paying more attention to bird deaths because of popular pressure. That can only be a good thing - though from what I read the contribution of wind turbines to the overall causes of bird death is small.

Two things....no, three. No, make that a bunch of things. Sorry...

First, thanks for doing the research I didn't, and finding the 'upstairs' owners.
Second, Tehachapi isn't on a migration path. That would be the Altamont pass wind farm, and THAT one has been responsible for tens of thousands of bird deaths since its inception. I wouldn't, were I you, put all that much faith in the reports that claim that the "overall causes of bird death is small." Yes, It would be 'small' compared to everything else that causes bird deaths, but consider how you would react if someone pointed out the absolute FACT that the deaths guns are involved with is small compared with all other causes of death. Car crashes. Cancer. Just plain living....It is our job to NOT add to the problems birds have, not to shrug our shoulders and figure that since all birds die of something anyway, that it's just ducky to build something and not worry about whether that something kills off a bunch of birds that would otherwise die of something else.
Third, Tehachapi is dangerous to California Condors...which is one of THE most endangered species on the planet. However, Tehachapi is actively working to ameliorate that danger.
Fourth, while the wind farms in California are trying to limit bird deaths (Altamont is having huge problems with that, but at least they are trying) Texas is going full bore ahead with new farms without worrying all that much about the wildlife.

I have looked at several studies now that have studied the actual numbers of bird deaths...I gave the link to a radar study of the Great Lakes in an earlier post, for instance. These studies (difficult to find) from neutral sources tell me that while the hysterical claims of the 'birders' might be a little off, the damage to bird populations is a great deal closer to their claims than they are to the claims of wind farm supporters. It's not always easy to figure out who is behind the 'studies' one finds, but I have found, almost universally, that those studies which find that bird deaths aren't 'all that bad,' are funded and done by wind farm supporters/owners. Dunno about you, but trusting them unreservedly is a bit like trusting Phillip Morris to give me unbiased information about lung cancer.

I like renewable energy. Solar, Wind, Nuclear...it's all good. However, grabbing onto them without dealing with problems they cause is just as short sighted as sending miners into the coal seams without protection...and a canary.

 

[charlie sc]

Two things....no, three. No, make that a bunch of things. Sorry...

First, thanks for doing the research I didn't, and finding the 'upstairs' owners.
Second, Tehachapi isn't on a migration path. That would be the Altamont pass wind farm, and THAT one has been responsible for tens of thousands of bird deaths since its inception. I wouldn't, were I you, put all that much faith in the reports that claim that the "overall causes of bird death is small." Yes, It would be 'small' compared to everything else that causes bird deaths, but consider how you would react if someone pointed out the absolute FACT that the deaths guns are involved with is small compared with all other causes of death. Car crashes. Cancer. Just plain living....It is our job to NOT add to the problems birds have, not to shrug our shoulders and figure that since all birds die of something anyway, that it's just ducky to build something and not worry about whether that something kills off a bunch of birds that would otherwise die of something else.
Third, Tehachapi is dangerous to California Condors...which is one of THE most endangered species on the planet. However, Tehachapi is actively working to ameliorate that danger.
Fourth, while the wind farms in California are trying to limit bird deaths (Altamont is having huge problems with that, but at least they are trying) Texas is going full bore ahead with new farms without worrying all that much about the wildlife.

I have looked at several studies now that have studied the actual numbers of bird deaths...I gave the link to a radar study of the Great Lakes in an earlier post, for instance. These studies (difficult to find) from neutral sources tell me that while the hysterical claims of the 'birders' might be a little off, the damage to bird populations is a great deal closer to their claims than they are to the claims of wind farm supporters. It's not always easy to figure out who is behind the 'studies' one finds, but I have found, almost universally, that those studies which find that bird deaths aren't 'all that bad,' are funded and done by wind farm supporters/owners. Dunno about you, but trusting them unreservedly is a bit like trusting Phillip Morris to give me unbiased information about lung cancer.

I like renewable energy. Solar, Wind, Nuclear...it's all good. However, grabbing onto them without dealing with problems they cause is just as short sighted as sending miners into the coal seams without protection...and a canary.

That was lovely. You and your damn Condors.

I’m just curious, what would be the problem if some bird species die off, like your precious Condor, in favour of human progress? I prefer human beings to animals, because, you know, I am one.

 

[exchemist]

That was lovely. You and your damn Condors.

I’m just curious, what would be the problem if some bird species die off, like your precious Condor, in favour of human progress? I prefer human beings to animals, because, you know, I am one.

What's the matter with you? It behoves us all to consider and mitigate the environmental damage from energy generation of whatever form. It's just responsible stewardship. "Human progress" consists, in part, in learning how to damage the environment less in pursuit of our needs.

 

[charlie sc]

What's the matter with you? It behoves us all to consider and mitigate the environmental damage from energy generation of whatever form. It's just responsible stewardship. "Human progress" consists, in part, in learning how to damage the environment less in pursuit of our needs.

Windfarms don't even get close to the million mark and generate pollution free, renewable electricity. Considering they are useful for mankind and the health of the planet as a whole, it seems like a worthy pursuit in spite of some losses. Why does maybe one or two species of birds that can't adapt matter? I assume you own cats?
Cats have contributed to billions of bird deaths and no one does anything about it. The only use they have is that they're cute. Buildings get near to the billion mark, but I don't see waves of protesters or people making buildings smaller. You, on the other hand, want windfarm projects to spend millions of resources to adapt to some species of birds when the rest of mankind is doing EXTREME damage to birds, some with no justification other than pleasure(cute cats). And you assume you have the moral high-ground?

Try construct some moral argument that argue for supporting a few species of birds in favour of clean renewable energy(Windfarms in this case). Then, I want you to examine the people in your life who own cats, or yourself, whom contributed to more bird deaths than entire windfarms. Yet, I bet I'll see no self-judgement.

So, I'll ask you the same question: what is the matter with you?

My friend, every moral argument against another has extreme difficulty getting off the ground, especially hypocritical moral arguments. Hypocritical moral arguments fail immeasurably. You will not win this. I suggest you stop.

 

[dianaiad]

That was lovely. You and your damn Condors.

I’m just curious, what would be the problem if some bird species die off, like your precious Condor, in favour of human progress? I prefer human beings to animals, because, you know, I am one.

That would be, er, selfish and shortsighted of us. We ARE humans...but we are also very much a part of the ecosystem some of our progress is damaging.

Shoot, I sound like a hysterical green peacer, don't I? I'm not, though. I am absolutely not of the type that thinks we need to give up all technology and start living like our hunter-gatherer ancestors, or that we should stop technological progress. Quite the opposite. The problem here is that unlike any other animal on this planet, WE have the power to affect the planet and its inhabitants. Shoot, even the bible tells us that we are in charge, right? Well, "in charge" means 'responsible for." Those who are in charge/responsible for something aren't doing the job if they merrily use and abuse that thing, and destroy it.

As well, we don't know what we are doing, completely, and if what we do results in the elimination of a species, the unintended consequences of that can come back to bite us solidly in the butt.

For instance...I referenced Yellowstone and the wolves awhile back. During the nineteenth and early twentieth century, wolves were considered pests to be eliminated, and so they were, utterly and completely, in most of the USA. Good, right? I mean...what would be the problem if some ***species die off, in favour of human progress, yes? Except that with the wolves gone, the population of bison, elk and other ruminants in the park exploded, resulting in weak and starving herds. The plantlife by the rivers died back...I can't list all the problems that the park experienced, but they were numerous and nasty. So...someone went to Canada, to the last refuge where wolves could be found, took some packs and brought them back to Yellowstone. Since their reintroduction, the population of all the other animals have become healthier and the plant life has returned to normal. The park requires the wolves. Every other animal in the park depends upon them. Counter intuitive, sure, since the wolves' reason for existing is to kill and eat other animals, but that's how it works.

If we are responsible for the world we live in (and we are, since we CAN destroy it) then we have to figure that the elimination of one species would probably be a Bad Thing, when it is possible to avoid that. This doesn't mean that we have to give up 'progress.' We are smart. Surely we can figure out how to build windfarms that don't kill off tens of thousands of birds. We can figure out how to deal with used up solar panels and nuclear fuel. Figuring out how to do that ought to be a vital part of any new thing we do; not throwing something out because it causes problems, but solving the problems as part of the process of invention.

............and as passionate as you are about cats and birds, I have a wee bit of suspicion here about your motive for your question. Just a tad bit, there.

 

[charlie sc]

That would be, er, selfish and shortsighted of us. We ARE humans...but we are also very much a part of the ecosystem some of our progress is damaging.

Shoot, I sound like a hysterical green peacer, don't I? I'm not, though. I am absolutely not of the type that thinks we need to give up all technology and start living like our hunter-gatherer ancestors, or that we should stop technological progress. Quite the opposite. The problem here is that unlike any other animal on this planet, WE have the power to affect the planet and its inhabitants. Shoot, even the bible tells us that we are in charge, right? Well, "in charge" means 'responsible for." Those who are in charge/responsible for something aren't doing the job if they merrily use and abuse that thing, and destroy it.

As well, we don't know what we are doing, completely, and if what we do results in the elimination of a species, the unintended consequences of that can come back to bite us solidly in the butt.

For instance...I referenced Yellowstone and the wolves awhile back. During the nineteenth and early twentieth century, wolves were considered pests to be eliminated, and so they were, utterly and completely, in most of the USA. Good, right? I mean...what would be the problem if some ***species die off, in favour of human progress, yes? Except that with the wolves gone, the population of bison, elk and other ruminants in the park exploded, resulting in weak and starving herds. The plantlife by the rivers died back...I can't list all the problems that the park experienced, but they were numerous and nasty. So...someone went to Canada, to the last refuge where wolves could be found, took some packs and brought them back to Yellowstone. Since their reintroduction, the population of all the other animals have become healthier and the plant life has returned to normal. The park requires the wolves. Every other animal in the park depends upon them. Counter intuitive, sure, since the wolves' reason for existing is to kill and eat other animals, but that's how it works.

If we are responsible for the world we live in (and we are, since we CAN destroy it) then we have to figure that the elimination of one species would probably be a Bad Thing, when it is possible to avoid that. This doesn't mean that we have to give up 'progress.' We are smart. Surely we can figure out how to build windfarms that don't kill off tens of thousands of birds. We can figure out how to deal with used up solar panels and nuclear fuel. Figuring out how to do that ought to be a vital part of any new thing we do; not throwing something out because it causes problems, but solving the problems as part of the process of invention.

............and as passionate as you are about cats and birds, I have a wee bit of suspicion here about your motive for your question. Just a tad bit, there.

You are absolutely right and this is why windfarms will lesson pollution and thereby help the ecosystem. It may however cause a few bird species to die off. I think we should focus on renewable and clean energy first and then focus on bird species next. Unless, of course, you think my position is incorrect ?

Btw, the wolf story was fascinating. We can keep some Condors in a zoo and then relocate them to less windy areas.

............and as passionate as you are about cats and birds, I have a wee bit of suspicion here about your motive for your question. Just a tad bit, there.

Really? My little green peace advocate.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Yes, I think some pets are especially content, but some not so much. I'd direct you to parrots who live longer than humans and form strong bonds that can never be fulfilled. Owners don't understand how needy they are and throw them away when they had enough. So, they form pathological problems and subsequently rip out their own feathers.
Who cares right? The point I'm trying to make is that humans are very bad at decisions when emotions are involved, especially strong emotions.

Cats kill birds?(210 - 3700 million) But they're so cute!
Cars kill birds?(50- 100million) but I love cars!
Buildings kill birds?(355-988million) but I need my building!
Hunting kills birds?(174million) but I like to shoot things!
Windfarms kill birds?(0.02 - 0.57million) YEAH! I'm not sure I like the look of them and they are noisy, plus I LIKE the birds that bump into them. These wind-turbines are ruining our environment!

If birds really mattered that much it's fairly obvious what we should focus on. I don't care much about birds, what I care about is showing how illogical people are and perhaps then they can make informed decisions.

Well, yes sir! It's usually easier to get them to consider your well informed ideas if you don't yell at people and call the stupid. Just saying.

Now back to the topic. Absolutely we need to be making ecological decisions based on science and all research associated with climate and biology. These two fields should be working together to make sure what ever ideas we come up with have the least and safest side effects possible while benefiting humans and nature. Not sure if that happens. I experience a lot of left hand knows no right hand situations. Too much industry and special interest, policy decisions going on with little chalange.

Any ideas for that problem?
And I'm certain we could come up with a safer design and placement of windmills. All the infrastructure needed to get power further from these farms would create a lot of jobs. Albeit temporary but it would help. Studies of impacts from hydro dams certainly could improve those designs. And all of the money "we" subsidise the fossil fuel industry could be used to do it with!

Fossil fuels have to be scrubbed from Washington and investment interests.

Oh, and I don't really have the heart to shoot the feral cat who lives under my house. It will be fed until a coyote eats it. I couldn't get close enough to shoot it even if I had a gun. So enough about the emotions not being a factor. We are human animals after all. Paleo Indians started the whole taming wolves thing here about 14,000 years ago. So we probably aren't going to change now.