That's a valid question and yes, it is a concern. The full effect of wind power on bird mortality is still unknown and being studied. The impact can already be reduced with proper siting and turbine design, and other solutions are being investigated. And wind opponents tend to forget that other forms of electric generation have significant negative impacts on birds, as well as other wildlife. Remember, the wind industry is a relatively new industry and bugs are still being worked out.
I only used wind as an example; I don't have any dreams of it supplying all of our energy needs. The best solution is a mix of energy sources, appropriate for each region, along with a strong emphasis on efficiency measures. This mix will benefit local economies throughout the country and will be highly secure from disruption or price swings. Those attributes can't be claimed by fossil fuels.
When I mention efficiency measures I'm referring to getting the most out of our energy, reducing waste. There are a multitude of simple steps, such as adding insulation, using fluorescent bulbs, and using high efficiency appliances, that would have tremendous impact. In the office building I work in, all bathroom lights and fans run 24/7 despite the building being occupied only about 40% of that time. Just shutting those off would save a lot. Multiply that times the millions of other ways we waste energy and you don't even need several hundred power plants or the fuel to run them. If we only increased vehicle efficiency by ONE mpg it would offset even the optimistic estimates of oil in ANWR.
My main point is that without sacrifice, and with economic benefit to all, we could easily do without the potential oil in ANWR. Factor in it's lack of security and the environmental concerns (The degree of environmental impact is highly debatable as this thread has shown. But risk does exist and if you say the risk is nil you are living in a dreamland), and ANWR drilling doesn't make sense.
I understand prime wind farm locations are often located along coastlines, where the wind blows all day long. How dare you propose destroying the pristine wilderness along our coastlines!
To any one living in a dream world in Nebraska. Even though you have chosen to ignore my posts to the contrary the facts still exist, this decision will effect the economy of our country.
and with economic benefit to all,
except those that choose to live in Alaska or support themselves with skills based on an industry that is dependant on narural resource development. Perhaps you didn't read or choose to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Reposted from THE TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR.
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.
3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.
4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.
we could easily do without the potential oil in ANWR. your opinion
So you suggest we continue to send our petrodollars to the ME nations that hate us and use our dollars to fund terrorism against us? Once again you are correct, why should we keep any of this money in our own country to provide jobs and income for the people of the U.S. It only makes sense to pollute a third world country rather than allow drilling in the most pollution free environment in oil production on the face of this planet. Are you really that obtuse?
Factor in it's lack of security and the environmental concerns Again you must have skipped over or chosen not to read the posts to the contrary
I suppose you believe the security of oil tankers from the mideast to be far superior than anything here on U.S. soil?
(The degree of environmental impact is highly debatable as this thread has shown. But risk does exist and if you say the risk is nil you are living in a dreamland), This is your opinion and the dreamland exists between your ears.
ANWR drilling doesn't make sense.
Maybe to you. 75 % of Alaskans disagree. Since you have choosen to skip over or ignore my previous post, allow me to repeat:fromTOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.
I'm sorry that your inland Gwich'in natives don't support drilling on the coastal plain, even though it may be questionable as to their motives.(Some Canadian and Alaskan Gwich’in Indians, who live outside the Refuge, opposed ANWR exploration only after Exxon and BP let their leases on Gwich’in tribal lands expire.)Pretty hard to base your oposition on these folks.