Wind Energy Gets Away With Murder

James Conca writes at Forbes:

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. So Wind Farms kill eagles. It’s not like we don’t kill beautiful endangered animals all the time. True, these are federally-protected and they’re an iconic symbol of our democracy. But hey, who minds using taxpayer dollars to kill a few icons?

I guess it’s the hypocrisy that galls. Under both the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Acts and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the death of a single eagle is a felony, and the Administration has prosecuted oil companies when birds drown in their oily facilities, and fined utilities when birds are electrocuted by their power lines.

But, come on, everyone hates oil companies. And who even knows what a utility is.

Read more…

28 thoughts on “Wind Energy Gets Away With Murder”

  1. If the government can turn a blind eye to killing eagles from one group versus another, plus running potentially (according to the EPA) lethal experiments on its citizens, when will the government just start killing people? Oh, I forgot the “death panels” in Obamacare.

  2. I’d say it fairly represents the views of those who believe they must save the planet from the evils of fossil fuels and imported oil that a few dead birds is a small price to pay. They don’t notice or hope you don’t notice that we don’t make a lot of electricity from oil because it is too darned expensive, nor do we import much coal or natural gas.

  3. 24 hr surveillance with a zoom lens, and an infrared video camera would shed some light on the true number of bird and bad kills, as well as showing the difference in the actual numbers VS the numbers reported by the wind industry. Set up in a home or other building, close to a turbine, and aimed at the bladepath…..you can’t hide the truth!!!

  4. Windmills do nothing to lessen dependence on foreign oil.

    They allegedly replace other fuels that are domestically produced. But when you look seriously at them they probably create more power drain rather than saving anything.

  5. They looked for chopped up birds at the base of the mills. Don’t really need cameras to get an accurate count – though I am sure foxes and coyotes and bobcats do grab a few.

  6. When I was a child I went out with an “adult” male peer with a .22 rifle (that’s a small calibre OK), and with no pesky rabbits in sight, he (we?) shot a harmless magpie sitting in a tree minding its own business. Magpie didn’t know what was happening but it was gonna die painfully. Now I am looking at a graze paddock for sheep about to be slaughtered in the nearby abattoir. they are happy in the sun. Maybe we should kill less and grow more? Or is this just Christian maudlin sentiment?

  7. If there is benefit, then it is not waste. I feel no guilt from using trees to build my house, but I scoff if someone chops down a tree and leaves it to rot. Similarly, I feel no guilt from the cow who died for my hamburger. Carnivorism isn’t sin. However, waste is. Shooting that magpie was wrong, I agree. If substantial benefit was gained from these windmills, then I would accept the bird deaths as a sad side effect. However, since there is no substantial benefit to wind power, then they are sacrifices to waste and political ploys, and it needs to be stopped.

  8. Sorry Biggles, it isn’t Christian either. All of nature was placed here by the Creator for our us. It is up to us to use it properly (stweardship). that means using animals and plants for food and not wasting them.

  9. marque2: “They looked for chopped up birds at the base of the mill–” But how many are injured and die a mile or two away from the mill? And as you point out, how many do predators eat before the count is taken?

  10. Sure Gamecock, but I was only a kid, “Forgive them, they know not what they do”. Trouble was, as the world including America is becoming so aware – I had a “legal” gun. Maybe “we” should not have had a gun in the first place in those circumstances? Yes, I understand there are times when you need guns. Maybe if you mix with criminals. Most Australians stay away from criminals and their gangs. And our strict gun laws mean that you are very unlikely to be facing a gun unless you move in those circles. That is the way it should be. If the coppers stop a motorist here for a routine alcohol or drug-driving test, they rarely find a gun – even a “legal” one. That is the way it should be in a civilised world.

  11. In a civilized world, you would be required to have a gun.

    You have a duty to be prepared to defend yourself, your family, your neighbors, your community, and your state. You cannot outsource your duty to the police.

    More significantly, Australia can’t outsource its duty to be prepared to defend itself. You cannot depend on Britain or the USA. As you disarm, the Indians and Chinese take note. Your token military is an invitation to invasion.

    But the subject was killing. You must kill to survive. Declaring “we should kill less” is detached from reality. How many peas did you kill today?

  12. No doubt about it Gamecock – you sure have a philosophy. Yes we need armies. And we need universal surveillance to see nobody (no nation) steps out of line. I repeat, Gamecock – my family here in Australia does not need a gun for defence. He who keeps a sword may die by the sword. Get a good security device man, and they can’t even get in your house.

  13. Burglars broke into a house 4 doors down from me two weeks ago. They rifled the house. Main thing they got was some jewelry. Police estimate they were in the house for 3 minutes. While the security device siren blared and blared.

    Had they broke into my house, they’d still be in the hospital. It is unlikely they would ever break into a house again.

    As it is, they will continue to break into houses.

  14. Well, of course, you have a point. Maybe if we moved further west? – maybe if there were less people about us? I have a friend in a town west of here – The people of the town mostly leave their doors open. Everybody knows everybody – even the eccentrics are respected. Just a thought. Looks like in your cities you need a gun. OK.

  15. Yep, 1788, that’s when the first fleet with convicts arrived in Australia to set up the nation. Guess what? The convicts were not allowed to bear arms. The same applies to us today, and we are a prosperous and safe nation (I still have no need for a gun. I feel quite safe). I even get upset when I see a copper wearing a gun on his hip, like a hero. He should at least cover it with his jacket, and I am quite willing to tell him so. Gun toting is for legendary western heroes – which were, as we know, aka Tom Mix – just that – legends.

  16. The issue has nothing to do with safety, crime, or heroism. It has to do with one group of people wanting to tell another group of people how to live. If you have no need for a gun, don’t get one. Your needs are irrelavant to other people’s wants. Here you’re telling us you wish you didn’t even have to see that other sort walking around. That seems to indicate that your issue runs deeper than simple political disagreement.

  17. Yes, that’s true. I did say we need armies,(and allies). But you ignore my point Gamecock. I feel perfectly safe here without a gun. That’s because we strengthened our laws after a massacre in Tasmania years ago. Are you saying we can live in a lawless society just in the name of freedom? That is anarchy. I’m afraid anarchy is not the answer. Unless we believe those old six-guns westerns, and the plight of all those lone star sheriffs trying to keep the peace. Fiction? Surely.

  18. Maybe you should ask the head of Chicago police what he thinks? Or don’t we need a police force? OK, maybe not. That’s anarchy, not Orwell.

Comments are closed.