Posted on 02/04/2004 8:25:18 PM PST by neverdem
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:13:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Whenever there is a discussion of energy policy, many environmentalists and their political allies tout wind power as an alternative to burning fossil fuels. Even if electricity from wind power is more expensive than conventional fuel sources, and it is, wind advocates argue its environmental benefits are worth it. In particular, proponents claim increased reliance on wind power would reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Another way to look at it is one bird kill per year per turbine.
It still blatantly hypocritical of the greens, though. If the government finds some endangered bird nesting on your property they won't even allow you to build an outhouse for fear of disturbing the poor creature. Or if you have a mosquito-breeding swamp you want to drain, forget about it because some waterfowl might want to spend the night there.
But 50 raptors getting nailed every year by their precious bird blenders are "acceptable losses".
First off, these are not my words. I just used that quote as the basis for my own comments. If you wanted to take issue with it, you should have addressed your comment to the Freeper who originally composed the thought.
It still blatantly hypocritical of the greens, though.
I don't know of any "green" who holds that position.
If the government finds some endangered bird nesting on your property they won't even allow you to build an outhouse for fear of disturbing the poor creature.
I haven't read anything in the article which suggests that endangered birds were nesting in the areas where wind turbines have been erected.
Or if you have a mosquito-breeding swamp you want to drain, forget about it because some waterfowl might want to spend the night there.
Perhaps true, but completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed.
But 50 raptors getting nailed every year by their precious bird blenders are "acceptable losses".
The elimination of those who cannot successfully compete in that environment. Works for me.
They are not self insured, there is no insurance against disaster, the government will have to step in and clean up the mess.
Are you trying to tell me that nuclear power plant operators are not legally liable?
We shouldn't need to subsidize either industry.
Yes I am! Your statements had me thinking quite a bit over the last 24 hours or so about all the different types of subsidies that occur. There are more ways that the government helps business's out other than outright cash. A tax break is exactly the same thing. I work on the new airforce tanker project which is clearly a government bailout of Boeing. I worked on a project before where with the flick of the wrist the FAA forced every 757 and 767 to buy a new gizmo we built.
I understand what you are saying but it is just too idealistic. The new grocery store in Cedar Rapids Ia cost 4 million dollars to build but Hy Vee refused to build it unless the city government forked over a million dollars. They promised lots of better jobs and convenient access to my trailer/trash diverse neighborhood full of people who are not legal to drive, but only if they were subsidized 25 percent on the cost of building the new store.
So why hold windpower to some standand that no one else maintains. I was just reading in my windpower magazine about bird kill. The number 1 bird per turbine per year is still being used but the wind industry points out that communication towers kill 50,000,000 birds per year! You read that right, 50,000,000 birds per year. They simply don't want to be held to a different standard.
The new grocery store in Cedar Rapids Ia cost 4 million dollars to build but Hy Vee refused to build it unless the city government forked over a million dollars. They promised lots of better jobs and convenient access to my trailer/trash diverse neighborhood full of people who are not legal to drive, but only if they were subsidized 25 percent on the cost of building the new store. So why hold windpower to some standand that no one else maintains.
I don't believe in using bad public policy to justify worse public policy.
communication towers kill 50,000,000 birds
Do you believe that? I don't.
And to think, the money could've been spent on another nice pipeline in Alaska that the caribou find makes a nice warm nursery. ;-)
Very brief consideration of the numbers of birds and animals killed by such things as cars, trucks, buildings and even comminucation towers will make one ask why windpower is being held to so much higher a standard than anything else. I just read in Windpower Monthly that 50,000,000 birds are killed each year by communication towers. That number is so high I'd certainly like to hear more details but that is only one source. Where's the outrage. Wind power needs to be given equal treatment instead of being held to a higher standard because it is green.
It certainly is comical to see people who normally couldn't care less, get all PETA-esque when a relative few birds are being killed by those worthless, despicable windmills.
Apparently, you've never heard of property tax breaks. Property tax breaks happen independent of earnings (profit, if you prefer). Property tax breaks are the usual handouts given to business -- including utilities, certainly -- in return for creating new (assume the proper reverence when you read the following magic word) jobs. Oh, was that perhaps the "public good" you meant (jobs)?
Apparently, you've never heard of property tax breaks. Property tax breaks happen independent of earnings (profit, if you prefer). Property tax breaks are the usual handouts given to business -- including utilities, certainly -- in return for creating new (assume the proper reverence when you read the following magic word) jobs. Oh, was that perhaps the "public good" you meant (jobs)?
Yes, I have heard of property tax breaks. Property taxes make a business into an indentured servant to the state by requiring payment even if he doesn't make a profit. They are worse than income taxes because he has to pay the tax even if he doesn't make a profit. If he doesn't perform a useful service to the public (and, yes, create jobs) he won't have his business for very long, the property becomes owned by the state and then no taxes will be collected. But again, no check is drawn on the public treasury in the case of property tax breaks.
They try to justify these tax concessions to proposed new business on the grounds that they create tax revenues where they didn't exist before. But I think tax breaks violate the 14th amendment because it gives an economic advantage to one business over his competitor who has to pay the full tax rate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.