Energy

Get Ready for the Green Civil War

|

Get ready for the great environmental civil wars. So far the environmental community has been fighting industry, developers, utilities and other villainous purveyors of human stuff. But going forward its big battles might be with itself.

Consider the recent massacre of six golden eagles at California's Tehachapi Mountains wind farm. Federal authorities are investigating the incident, but some enviros are upset that not all their brethren are more outraged over the dead birds—along with the 440,000 others that are shredded annually by all the "cuisinarts of the sky" around the country.  Shawn Smallwood, an expert studying the impact of wind farms on migratory birds, for example, told Fox News that he can't understand why it took so long for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, which enforces the Endangered Species Act, to come in and investigate the situation. Likewise, Sue Hammer of Tehachapi Wildlife Rehab in Kern County, complained about the hypocrisy of the Golden State's environmental enforcement establishment. "If I shoot an eagle, it's a $10,000 fine and/or a vacation of one to five years in a federal pen of my choice," she said. But wind farms don't suffer the same consequences.

But if the broader enviro community isn't more upset over the avian genocide, it's because it has no one but itself to blame. Wind power is the fastest growing component of the Golden State's energy sector because, thanks to the community's opposition to greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels, California has embraced a law requiring it to generate 35 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2035. But expanding hydroelectric power—a renewable, emission-free source—was not an option because the large dams necessary to generate it are injurious to the state's salmon population. California actually is in the process of dismantling some of them, as I wrote some years ago. Nor were the enviros super hot on solar because they involve placing acres of mirrors in pristine desert habitat. (The Sierra Club and Wilderness Society once testified before Congress to keep California's Mojave Desert —one of the prime solar sites in the country—off limits to all development.)

Simply by the process of elimination, then, California was forced to make wind a bigger part of its energy portfolio than most other states, although it costs much more than even clean coal. So, having backed itself into a corner by its own actions, the community is hardly in any position to protest now. But that doesn't sit well with the bird lovers in its midst.

The problem for the environmental movement is that, in contrast to its original conservationist roots reflected in the thinking of Aldo Leopold, it has decided to protect nature from humans rather than for humans. However, unless humans make a collective pact to simultaneously commit suicide, they will need energy, and if they need energy, some creature of god is going to get hurt. But having jettisoned human welfare as their core concern, enviros have no rational standard left to determine which creatures to save and which to sacrifice. Hence, it is inevitable that those who care about the salmon are going to find themselves at loggerheads with those who want to save the golden eagles. If the salmon lovers can shout the loudest, they'll win in our cacophonous democracy. But their very victory will mobilize the eagle lovers to shout even louder in the next round.

Hence, as the enviro agenda gets implemented, the enviro wars are going to become more—not less—intense, except that instead of fighting the rest of us, they'll be fighting each other.

Bonus material: Ron Bailey's excellent "The Myth of Pristine Nature."

Advertisement

NEXT: New York Times: "Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Laws are for the proles. Now STFU and buy these CFC light bulbs.

    1. Yeah!

    2. Ethan: So just let the animals wipe each other out?

      Denzel: GOD WILLING!

  2. Vulture vs. windmill

    Actually, don’t watch it. It makes me feel those feelings things.

    1. OT: do you care for Blood Stain Child at all?

      1. Not really. They do too much of the metal-riffs-over-club-beats thing for my taste, at least in the few songs of theirs I’ve heard.

        The only Japanese metal band that I’ve listened to a lot is Sigh. They’re also very strange-sounding.

        1. Ah, I actually like the metal-on-electro thing. Hadn’t ever listened to Sigh; I’ll check that out tonight when I’m home (can’t get youtube on work computer).

          So much East Asian metal is just terrible, I guess my expectations are really low, so when a band is even marginally good, I wind up telling people about it.

          1. I like Chthonic. They’re the only decent Taiwanese band I know of.

            1. I’ll have to find one from HK so my wife will get into it. She only speaks Cantonese, English, and Japanese, but the loser couldn’t bother to have learned Mandarin. My wife is a jerk.

          2. Posting in this thread to post some Dir en Grey.

        2. there’s also Boris from japan. quality stuff there from the Southern Lord label.

      2. Lately I’ve been digging Sinister Realm. Old-school as fuck.

        1. I’ll check that one out later, too. Old School like Slayer, or King Diamond, or Death, or what are we talking here?

          1. I’ll quote the Angry Metal Guy here.

            Sounding like a mash up of Argus, Manowar, Cirith Ungol and Heaven and Hell era Black Sabbath, Sinister Realm excels at stripped down but classy traditional metal with a doom influence.

            1. Hmm…never really liked Manowar, but do like Cirith Ungol (who couldn’t with that name?) and Dio Sabbath, though I get the feeling you like the older stuff more than I do.

              I will say this: when I finally got to see Ozzy a few years ago, I was expecting the shuffling old man to get propped up and belt out a few classics, then go home. I don’t know what they injected him with, but that fucker was bouncing all over the stage, doing jumping jacks, spraying the audience with a hose, the whole nine yards.

              1. Yeah, you’ll only dig it if you like the old stuff. I do, fortunately.

                And no one can whip a crowd into a party frenzy like Ozzy. It’s amazing.

              2. Never liked Manowar? I’m sorry sir, you’re going to have to leave the hall.

        2. Dirt Communion is my favorite old-school metal out these days.

          http://www.dirtcommunion.com/

          1. Remember the old stonerrock.com? Everything on that site was devoted to bands like this. Those were the days.

        3. Upper Crust anyone? ACDC style rock from Boston.

    2. This. This is why we come here.

      Thank you, Warty.

    3. You know, why don’t we capture every single bird on the continent and implant a chip in each brain that will keep them from flying into wind turbines? Otherwise, wind power will remain an objectionable energy source.

      1. But what about sliding glass doors?

        What will we do to stop all the avian losses arising from the scourge of sliding glass doors?

        1. More chips, obviously.

          1. Get rid of the sliding glass doors and share our home with our constantly shitting avian brethren.

            1. What, you don’t like the sparrows that live in the roof trusses at Wal-Mart? What kind of monster are you?

              1. What kind of monster are you?

                Please, I am frightened at reading the response to this question.

            2. “Brethren”? I think you mean “overlords”.

              1. And I, for one, will welcome them.

        2. I saw a piece on TV (and have read articles) that an estimated 500,000,000 – 1B birds are killed flying into buildings each year. My office in downtown Minneapolis overlooks the Mississippi (a major, major migratory flyway, and I have managed in the last year to find stunned birds ranging from little warblers to good sized woodcocks.

          But I do think that if the wind turbine owners in CA don’t have incedental take permits for golden eagles, they should face both criminal and civil penalties.

    4. good riddance. those motherfuckers take over the duck pond at my office every year and shit over every goddamn thing. Motherfucker playing superminigolf damn well ought to be taken out by the windmill.

      I feel bad for the eagles (after all they’re pretty and rare) but every windmill that takes out a buzzard ought to get a goddamn medal.

  3. HA HA fucking HA. In your face, hippies!

  4. Federal authorities are investigating the incident, but some enviros are upset that not all their brethren are more outraged over the dead birds?along with the 440,000 others that are shredded annually by all the “cuisinarts of the sky” around the country. Shawn Smallwood, an expert studying the impact of wind farms on migratory birds, for example, told Fox News that he can’t understand why it took so long for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, which enforces the Endangered Species Act, to come in and investigate the situation

    I am so enjoying watching the environmental movement destroy alternative energy.

    1. The ‘environmentalists’ basically want to destroy humanity.

      Give them the opportunity and they’d ban the clovis point and everything that came after.

      1. Won’t somebody think of the rocks.

  5. But the eagles had to die and wanted to die for the cult.

    1. What kind of phone is that rather?

  6. Nah, that’s not how it will go down.

    The thing to remember is that the number of sincere environmentalists is really quite small.

    Usually in any particular development dispute, what’s really happening is that one group of self-interested landowners is trying to squelch another landowner’s use decision.

    To do that, they pick up any environmentalist tool that’s near at hand.

    Eagles are the most important thing the day you’re trying to stop someone from building a windmill. Salmon are the most important thing when you’re trying to stop a damn.

    A pro-eagle person will become a pro-salmon person simply by moving from a place with a view of a ridgeline to a place with a view of a river.

    1. The thing to remember is that the number of sincere environmentalists is really quite small.

      Uh, no. You’re going to need a link to back that up (and it’s going to be tough to quantify “sincerity”).

      True, often times parties who would financially benefit from the application of environmental regulations do don the green cloak to pursue their selfish gain, but that’s not most environmentalists.

      Just because they disagree with you (and me most of the time too) does not mean they’re morally evil hypocrites.

      1. does not mean they’re morally evil hypocrites.

        They may not be, but their lawyers are.

      2. but that’s not most environmentalists.

        You’re going to need a link to back that up.

        1. When Tulpa asserts things they are self evident.
          When anyone else does they are required to provide links, in triplicate, verified by the proper experts, to be disregarded because you can’t believe everything you read.

        2. The burden of proof is on the one asserting that others are not acting in good faith.

          1. You want me to link you to the thousands of articles written by “serious” liberals who think that libertarians are, by definition, not acting in good faith?

            Afterall, I’ve got nothing better to do than spend my Koch endownment and comment on H&R!

            1. I’m aware of the liberal slanders against libertarians and other non-liberals. We should criticize them for that behavior, not emulate them.

          2. I agree Tulpa, but only semantically. They are sincere insomuch as they want what they believe in. Problem is, not nearly enough people who call themselves “environmentalists” are studied in the fields they advocate for. John’s example below is a perfect case in point, as were the people who fought every fire break people tried to construct in the Santa Barbara hills that could have prevented the spread of fires that devastated the area a couple of years back.

            That, and a lot of their environmentalism is a thinly-veiled NIMBY-ism or maternalism, because power over others is fun.

            1. Oh, I agree. Of course most people of every ideological bent are not serious enough to really study the impact of their ideology’s favored course of action.

              But sincerity does not require due diligence; claiming that someone is insincere is inappropriate if they just haven’t done their homework.

      3. Most environmentalists are not interested in the environment. The evidence of that is their complete unwillingness to compromise. For example, for years the Forrest Service tried to cut the forests and under growth in Arizona and New Mexico to keep from having a massive habitat destroying forest fire. And for years environmentalists fought them at every step only to see the whole place they claimed to protect burn down.

        I can give you dozens of examples of pig headed environmentalists refusing to make choices or do anything but but cut off their noses to spite their face.

        There are too many examples of this to ignore. Is it because they are just self interested like Fluffy says? Maybe and in some cases for sure. But it really doesn’t matter because they act the same regardless.

        1. Sounds vaguely like some recent political debate…but I can’t quite put my finger on who the pig-headed group was…

          1. I think you mistake theater for debate.

          2. Oh okay New Mexican. Whatever we do lets not talk about the facts. Lets just point fingers and scream about how the other team does it too.

            If you were anything but a concern trolling liberal, you would either agree or dispute the facts and say that the environmentalists were right and the fires are good or would have happened anyway.

            Instead, you bring some other topic in order to muddy the waters. That is why you really are the worst troll on here. Tony and MNG are annoying but they at least are honest about who they are. You are so dishonest, you can’t even do that. Instead you put on this bullshit above the fray attitude while doing nothing but shilling for team blue and concern trolling.

            1. You need to read more carefully

              but I can’t quite put my finger on who the pig-headed group was…

              1. Oh yeah…now I remember….the pig headed group were the ones who settled on cutting nothing from the debt…..yeah!

            2. Not a fan of NM in the slightest, but sometimes it’s helpful to remind people of the decaying aboreal segments in their ocular cavity.

        2. Your analysis of the undergrowth situation is correct, the environmentalist groups were mistaken…the solution to the fire problem was counterintuitive. You may have noticed that even honest people have difficulty accepting counterintuitive things.

          People fixate on minor things and ignore the big picture…it’s not just environmentalists.

          1. But the environmentalists are always like that. Show me a case where they are reasonable and I will show you ten where they are not.

            1. But the environmentalists people are always like that. Show me a case where they are reasonable and I will show you ten where they are not.

              FIFY

        3. Even when it became obvious that the undergrowth needed to be cut and forests needed to be thinned in the interest of overall forest health no agreement could be found.

          Forest Service managers came up with a plan to sell selective cutting leases so that timber companies could take usable trees and sell them.

          The enviro purists objected and insisted that the only way to do it was to have the cutting done by right minded disciples signed up on the government payroll.

          In the end the sound plan was blocked by selfrighteous busybodies who couldn’t stand to see someone make a profit.

          1. The fire suppression debate is a long-standing one. While there was more agreement on the potential problems that fire suppression causes, the way to manage that risk was certainly not something that people agreed on. And like lots of these kinds of complex issues the debates rage on while the problem gets worse.

            The primary disagreement seems to be about whether logging/resource management style approaches or “let fires burn and only protect homes and towns” approaches are more appropriate. Many who oppose the resource management approach do so because they see ecological benefits from the fire itself that are not available if logging is used to clear the undergrowth.

            1. Yes, I realize that the healthiest forest is the one that has periodic fires to clear the undergrowth.

              The problem is that with the Smoky Bear philosophy the natural fire cycle to do that was prevented and as a consequence forests became essentially choked with underbrush (as well as with far greater tree density than is expected in a natural setting). This greater concetration of fuel meant that fires were more intense and the big mature trees were in danger.

              As I said, it was widely agreed that intervention was necessary to bring forests back to a healthy standard and that this intervention would invole both clearing underbrush but also cutting fairly sizable and mature trees. Those trees would have contained marketable luber and the Forest Service wanted to recoup some of the cost by selling leases and having timber companies buy leases to do the cutting.

              That was the plan that got shot down. The

            2. So how’d that whole “let fires burn and only protect homes and towns” approach work out?

              1. Pip…it is being implemented in many areas successfully. But Isaac’s points are correct. In many places more aggressive plans were needed and were not implemented to do difficulty coming to agreement on the best approach.

      4. Two words:

        Cape Wind.

        “Wah wah wah give me a link!”

        It’s transparently obvious that most organized environmentalist activity arises in opposition to specific projects on an ad hoc basis.

        You’ve got a small core of Greenpeace-level activists, and a large pool of people who write a $50 check once a year to feel good about themselves, but who otherwise only spring into action when threatened by the possibility that someone will build something near them.

        I guarantee you – GUARANFUCKINGTEE you – that the average “environmentalist” opponent to any given wind farm loved wind farms and bored everyone around him with talk of how renewable energy is the future…until the day someone said they would build a wind farm near his house. Then all of a sudden it’s “Oh noes Bird Apocalypse!”

        1. it is called BANANA
          Build
          Absolutely
          Nothing
          Anywhere
          Near
          Anything

          Environmentalists love projects provided they don’t actually get built.

        2. So you’re tarring the majority of environmentalists because a bunch of Marthas Vineyard douches opposed a wind farm? Yes, I’m sure there were some self-proclaimed environmentalists among the opponents, but that’s not proof of most environmentalists being insincere.

          1. Yeah, OK, Tulpa.

            Let’s find every self-identified environmentalist in the country who advocates for renewable energy or conservation.

            And then let’s tell them we intend to build a recycling transfer station on one side of their house, and a wind farm on the other side of their house.

            Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that a massive supermajority of our test subjects – and I mean, 85, 90, 95% – won’t immediately turn on a dime and start talking about all the environmental risks of such projects?

            The burden of proof is on the one asserting that others are not acting in good faith.

            I’ve never seen a political movement about a local land use issue that wasn’t motivated by bad faith, so I’m not sure why you think that good faith should be my default presumption.

            1. In that somewhat extreme hypothetical the people would probably complain about the noise more than anything. I’m sure you wouldn’t be thrilled about having your property sandwiched by a hog farm and a garbage dump either; that doesn’t make you a hypocrite.

              Would people try to drum up some environmental reason to oppose it? Maybe. I don’t know. Neither do you, and accusing them of bad faith with no evidence only accomplishes the brain shutting-off of everyone involved.

              I’ve never seen a political movement about a local land use issue that wasn’t motivated by bad faith, so I’m not sure why you think that good faith should be my default presumption.

              How did you know these movements were in bad faith? You probably had independent evidence, no?

              I’m not saying people always act in good faith, or that you shouldn’t look for evidence of bad faith, I’m just saying you should assume good faith unless there’s evidence of bad faith. Just as a life philosophy, I guess.

              And merely disagreeing with you is not evidence of bad faith. That’s an easy trap to fall into.

  7. I’m just going to save a huge jar of farts in my basement for my future energy needs.

    1. They will find a way to tax that, too.

      1. The EPA will nuke him from orbit. Thar’s methane in them thar farts, ya know!

  8. Nah, that’s not how it will go down.

    The thing to remember is that the number of sincere environmentalists is really quite small.

    Usually in any particular development dispute, what’s really happening is that one group of self-interested landowners is trying to squelch another landowner’s use decision.

    To do that, they pick up any environmentalist tool that’s near at hand.

    Eagles are the most important thing the day you’re trying to stop someone from building a windmill. Salmon are the most important thing when you’re trying to stop a damn.

    A pro-eagle person will become a pro-salmon person simply by moving from a place with a view of a ridgeline to a place with a view of a river.

  9. If it would only turn into a shooting war.

  10. the recent massacre of six golden eagles at California’s Tehachapi Mountains wind farm

    “If I shoot an eagle, it’s a $10,000 fine and/or a vacation of one to five years in a federal pen of my choice,” she said. But wind farms don’t suffer the same consequences.

    the avian genocide

    Shikha Dalmia is an embarrassment to Reason. I’m not sure of the genesis of her automatic, unthinking hatred for anything that environmentalists appear to like, whether it’s an ideological tic or something less wholesome, but seriously, I wrote more logically reasoned position papers when I was in sixth grade.

    1. Link? I mean, to your sixth-grade papers?

      1. They’re on 5.25″ floppies and I don’t have a drive. Sorry.

        1. You put papers on 5.25 floppies when you were in sixth grade?

          Jesus you’re young.

          1. Maybe he has an excuse to be an idealistic liberal.
            He’s too young to know better.

          2. I guess I shouldn’t mention that I got all the way through Oregon Trail as the carpenter when I was in 2nd grade.

          3. You do realize that I said 5.25, not 3.25, right? 5.25″ floppies became widespread over 25 years ago.

            1. I also realize that there was no 3.25, there was 3.5.

              I also remember 5.25 becoming obsolete around 22 years ago.

              They were used for a small window which gives a good gauge of your age. An age that, while not really young, is still young enough to have not had the life experiences that can turn one away from the lunacy of liberalism.

              1. You’re right, it’s 3.5. Of course you should be aware that the 5.25s were used in grade schools long after they stopped being used in business and other places that bought new computers more frequently.

                1. I was watching How it’s Made (recorded in the last five years) one day and I can’t remember exactly what they were making, but the brain of the automation was an Apple IIe using a 5 1/4 floppy.

            2. Then again if you are sequestered away in the world of academia, it is unlikely that you will have such experiences.

            3. You do realize that I said 5.25, not 3.25, right? 5.25″ floppies became widespread over 25 years ago.

              Of course I do. Which is why, in fairness I should have said, “Jesus I’m old”.

              when I graduated from high school you would still occasionally run across the odd 8″ floppy, and 3.5″ floppies had just come into vogue.

              They had 5.25″ floppies when I was in Jr High, but they were treated like gold and no one put their school papers on them because the only person who had a computer was The School(tm) (only a handful of them) and they were fucking Apple II’s.

              1. In High School, we did our computer projects using punch cards.

                1. Sticks and clay tablets here.

                  1. I did my school work on cave walls with with red and yellow ochre, hematite, manganese oxide and charcoal.

                    True story.

                    1. Fuck-off, codger.

    2. I think it’s pretty clear that all of the turns of phrase you highlight are meant to be mockingly ironic.

      1. She’s mocking a strawman then. Few environmentalists would refer to the deaths of six eagles as genocide.

        And the second quote is not presented ironically at all, it’s supposed to be an argument for Dalmia’s position, despite the fact it’s ignoring the difference between intentional and accidental killings.

        1. Re: Tulpa,

          Few environmentalists would refer to the deaths of six eagles as genocide.

          How about 440,000?

          1. Are there that many environmentalists?

            1. Christ, I hope not.

        2. I don’t believe that accidently killing an ‘endangered’ species means you get a pass.

          1. But they didn’t mean to. It wasn’t their intention.

            You’re focusing on results. Forget results. Intentions are all that matter.

            1. I think a person who accidently kills an eagle is going to get reamed in the ass by the man regardless of the circumstances.

              1. That was meant as sarcasm.

                1. I figured, I just wasn’t sure I was clear

          2. I don’t believe that accidently killing an ‘endangered’ species means you get a pass.

            In a sane world, it would mean you get a free meal and a kick-ass trophy for your mantle.

          3. According to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act, it’s illegal (with serious fines and jail terms) to “disturb” an eagle. No mention of intent in the text of the law.

            1. What is that? When you piss on a girl with a Brazillian wax?

              1. What is that? When you piss on a girl with a Brazillian wax?

                No, that’s known as “Tuesday” (or Wednesday, if I was busy that week).

            2. I remember reading something about some kid who found an eagle’s feather, took it to school or something, and found out he broke the law…. but I can’t back that up with a link…

              1. It’s entirely possible. Possession of bald eagle feathers is illegal unless you’re Native American AND have a permit.
                http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/07/35595.htm

              2. “Three Felonies a Day”

            3. If there’s no mention of intent then violations require intent. Ever heard of mens rea?

              1. If there’s no mention of intent then violations require intent.

                Not really, no. In moderne legislative drafting, the absence of a defined standard of intent generally means strict liability. At least, that’s the way it works in my industry.

              2. If there’s no mention of intent then violations require intent. Ever heard of mens rea?

                Endangered species acts, environmental laws regulations… I’m guessing mens rea isn’t an overarching necessithy to convict someone.

                16 USC 3370:

                Further, it prohibits the importation, exportation, transportation, sale, or purchase of fish and wildlife taken or possessed in violation of State, Federal, Indian tribal, and foreign laws.

                Someone in the legal arts might illuminate this one:

                If I do something in violation of a ‘foreign law’– and it’s logically impossible for me to know the foreign laws regarding the conservation of the yellow-bellied sapsucker are, does mens rea apply here?

                1. Ignorance of the law is no defense, Paul. Foreign or not.

                2. IANAL but I’d imagine the foreign law provision would only go into effect if you broke foreign law while in foreign jurisdiction (or in this case, while traveling from that foreign jurisdiction into the US). Just like if you act inconsistent with California’s laws while in Vermont (and partaking in an activity that does not involve California), you probably haven’t violated the State law provision.

              3. Ever heard of mens rea?

                I vaugely recall reading about it in a history book.

            4. I mean are you saying that if a stupid eagle flies into your car windshield and gets splattered, you go to jail for it?

              1. I don’t know. My guess is, if the government is the one doing the hitting, the answer would probably be “no”.

          4. It’s not the windmill’s fault that the eagle was stupid enough to fly through the blade.

            And don’t give me lip about salmon getting killed by dams. The salmon have nowhere else to go but through the dam. The eagles have the entire troposphere to fly in.

            1. You have to be fucking kidding. Please tell me this is a spoof. It is a fucking animal you moron. If it flies into the windmill that is what it does. It is not like we can have an eagle education program.

              My God Tulpa, are you that stupid?

              1. We do have an eagle education program. A bunch of slow-turning blades that they see their friends killed by.

                Lesson 1: AVOID THE BLADES

                1. Good point. Birds need to evolve or die.

                  If they can’t learn to avoid windmills, they don’t deserve to be on this planet.

                  1. Actually, one of the solutions is taller towers.

              2. Yes. Yes he is.

              3. Pot…kettle…black.

        3. The second quote is presented with second-level irony, because the person being quoted thinks they are advocating for their own argument, while Shikha is able to simply quote it without comment while expecting us to all see how silly it is.

          1. Wow, Shikha is a real Socrates. Thankfully she also has Platos to tighten up her arguments after they’ve already been made to put them in the best possible light.

            1. The argument is fine as it is. I’m tightening up your reading comprehension, not her writing.

              However, unless humans make a collective pact to simultaneously commit suicide, they will need energy, and if they need energy, some creature of god is going to get hurt. But having jettisoned human welfare as their core concern, enviros have no rational standard left to determine which creatures to save and which to sacrifice. Hence, it is inevitable that those who care about the salmon are going to find themselves at loggerheads with those who want to save the golden eagles.

              Read this part again, and then rethink your initial belief that she was trying to argue that wind farms are bad.

              1. However, unless humans make a collective pact to simultaneously commit suicide.

                As a anarcho-cap-leaning libertarian environmentalist, I am okay with this, so long as said pact is voluntary

        4. Few environmentalists would refer to the deaths of six eagles as genocide.

          No they would refer to it as RACISM.

    3. Reason should fire her! I’m unsubscribing to ReasonTV until they do!

    4. Actually she’s spot on. You can’t support wind farms without being okay with butchering a couple of eagles. So this poses a dilemma to the enivronmental lobby.

      Her logic is sound.

      1. Pretty sure the environmental lobby is aware that eagles are not immortal. Wind farms would have to cover a sizeable percentage of the area of the country to kill enough eagles to match what human hunters did to their population.

        1. Ah, you can’t hunt eagles anymore there Tulpa. And the country kind of likes eagles and spent a huge amount of money and time bringing them back. You can’t just now come back and say “too bad, to the birdomatic for you”. It makes more sense to save the eagles and use coal or something civilized for power. And as an added bonus the coal actually provides cheap reliable power.

          1. “birdomatic” broke me up. You really do get about one in a million, John.

          2. “”too bad, to the birdomatic for you””

            They’re called Eagle Shooters.

            http://images1.americanlisted……467940.jpg

        2. Wind farms would have to cover a sizeable percentage of the area of the country to kill enough eagles to match what human hunters did to their population.

          Why if it weren’t for GOP obstructionists we’d be well on our way to achieving that goal.

          1. Serious question: How many eagles does a corporation have to kill before they get hammered with fines?

            1. It depends. How much did said company donate to the Obama Victory Fund?

            2. Well Paul that would depend on the corporation. You see, my voting base consists of fucktards that can simultaneously bitch about corporations and their influence in government, while praising me for hiring the CEO of GE as my jobs czar. So,um, I would say if the wind turbine has a GE logo on it then it should be immune to fines because they’re helping us move forward and create jobs.

              1. I give this reasoned, thoughtful, productive response two enthusiastic thumbs up!

            3. Assuming they are on the endangered list, one unless they have a Biological Opinion for the Fish and Wildlife Service.

              1. ^^This^^

                I read about wind projects that were halted due to whooping crane flyways.

        3. Wind farms have to cover a sizeable percentage of the area to provide meaningful energy.

    5. Re: Tulpa,
      I don’t happen to like anything the enviros like, because a) They’re not really environmentalists and b) Their solutions are based in pseudo-science and bad economics. Or just pure socialism – take your pick.

      I prefer the conservationists who actually go out and buy the land to conserve it; they put their money where their mouths are. The watermellons, instead, want the government to socialize the costs for their benefit.

      1. (a) is an ad hominem attack, the content of which is dubious to begin with

        (b) is a valid argument but it’s not the one Dalmia makes wrt wind farms.

        1. Um, I think you’re confused.

          Shikha is not herself arguing “Wind farms are bad because of the eagle genocide.”

          Shikha is arguing, “Eventually the Green movement will turn on itself, because there are Dumb Greens out there who think that wind farms are causing an Eagle Genocide.”

          1. Bull. The second quote has her arguing that wind farms shouldn’t be there. (the final sentence is hers, not the interviewee’s)

            1. No, she’s paraphrasing the second clause of the anti-wind-farm argument.

              The headline of this story isn’t “Wind Farms Are Bad”. It’s “Get Ready for the Green Civil War.”

            2. This should be especially obvious since the rest of her article is a complaint that green groups can’t prioritize costs correctly.

              The problem for the environmental movement is that, in contrast to its original conservationist roots reflected in the thinking of Aldo Leopold, it has decided to protect nature from humans rather than for humans. However, unless humans make a collective pact to simultaneously commit suicide, they will need energy, and if they need energy, some creature of god is going to get hurt.

    6. I wrote more logically reasoned position papers when I was in sixth grade.

      What happened since then?

      1. Auto-erotic asphyxiation one too many times….

    7. I’m not sure of the genesis of her automatic, unthinking hatred for anything that environmentalists appear to like, whether it’s an ideological tic or something less wholesome, but seriously, I wrote more logically reasoned position papers when I was in sixth grade.

      Indeed.
      c.f. Ron Bailey. There seems to be some need to make environmentalists “the enemies of liberty” despite the fact that environmentalism is perfectly compatible with libertarianism AND capitalism.

      1. Environmentalism may be theoretically compatible with libertarianism and capitalism, but the brand we have in this country is not.

        1. This.

          There’s a lot of tunnel vision and Asperger-ish fixation on minor facets of issues.

          1. And tribalism, and hubris, etc. All the tragic human qualities.

            1. And the fact that they expect someone else to pay for the consequences when their beliefs are realized.

      2. No. It isn’t. Conservation is, but environmentalism is most certainly not.

        1. Bingo. Conservationism is really about as “conservatarian” and capitalistic as you can get, since it provides a means to perpetuate the resources that drive economic activity.

          Environmentalism is more akin to a religious belief, displaying all the vices and very few of the virtues that mark traditional, established religions. It’s a reactionary, philosophically repressive mindset with all the archetypes of religious belief in place, lacking only a canonical text of scripture as the collective binder of its dogma.

        2. Conservationists are particularly large and influential part of the broader environmental movement. Anything that can be said of them is true of the vast majority of environmentalists. Don’t let ELF and company fool you into thinking they represent “environmentalism” or its basic tenants.

  11. Does this mean that O-bomb-a’s green jobs push makes him the most anti-environment of any Prez?

  12. Lulzy interview with Pete DeFazio will probably not get him invited to the next WH party.

  13. Tulpa: Are you paid by someone to troll Reason or do you do it pro bono out of the goodness of your heart? You don’t wait a nano second to discharge your crap. Seriously, do you have a job? Wife? Family?

    1. Dude, that goes for most of us. Too cruel.

    2. I’m not trolling at all. This is my sincere position.

      Don’t you guys find it funny that I’m accused of being “contrarian” about one set of issues (public property use, police duties, abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc) but not on another set of issues (everything economic, eminent domain, gun rights)?

      Maybe … just maybe … I happen to disagree with most of you on some issues.

      1. Tulpa may be an idiot, but at least he’s a useful idiot.

      2. You fail the libertarian litmus test. Please report to the liquidation chamber.

    3. I’m thinking he’s an aspiring (and failing) law student who comes here to practice arguing.

      1. He’s not old enough to be in law school.

        1. If he really did use 5 1/4 floppies in 6th grade, that would make him plenty old enough to be in law school.

          1. Yeah, there are people who are currently entering law school who were born in 1989. They would have been in sixth grade in 2001, when even 3.25s were old technology. Heck, those kids were probably saving things on Zip drives.

            What’s really depressing is that most of the freshmen I taught last year were born after the USSR broke up.

            1. What’s really depressing is that most of the freshmen I taught last year were born after the USSR broke up.

              Unfortunately, quite a few of their professors are still old enough to have idealized it, and are still wondering how on earth their wonderful communist cat’s paw managed to fall apart at the end.

      2. He’s a math professor at Pitt. Have pity on him.

        1. I’m sorry. I didn’t know.

          1. I wonder if he has ever met Camile Paglia?

  14. I wouldn’t mind a windmill about 20 feet up inr the breezeway where my car is parked.

    I have to clean seagull shit off my car every couple of days.

    1. I was thinking the same thing. With the Hitchcockian bird conferences that spontaneously pop up around here, I’d love to have a wind farm like the blenderville east of L.A. nearby.

  15. Coal power destroy mountains and put CO2 into the air. Nuclear power will cause Chernobyls. Natural gas makes water catch on fire. Wind power kills majestic eagles. Solar power makes my anus hurt. etc etc etc…

    1. Solar power makes my anus hurt

      You named your dildo “Solar Power”?

  16. I’m pretty sure I prefer the birds over most of the people in CA. Maybe I should be an environmentalist!!!

    1. Hey! Some of us aren’t so bad. And the rest of the country would starve were it not for the central valley.

      559, wassup?

      1. We can get the food from the central valley the same way you do: Use undocumented Mexicans to harvest it.

        See, there’s no need for Californians.

      2. Fuck, I live in CA and I agree with “hmm”. I despise the majority of Californians that I know.

        Of course, I hate pretty much everyone else, too.

  17. JaneaneGarofolo puts head up own ass but still manages speech.

    Conspiracy theories, Kochtopus, homophobia and racism galore!!!

    1. I didn’t know this Cain person is a “person of color”, having never heard of him until recently. Now I do, thanks to Ms. Garofolo’s racism.

      1. Why don’t they just say “black?”. It’s not like they ever refer to Orientals, Indians or Spics as “people of color.

        How did that phrase even get started?

        1. I’m going to have to go with black not sounding special enough.

        2. “People of color” sounds like something you see on mushrooms!

        3. But my grandmother would have loved to know that colored people came back in vogue in the 21st century. Oh sorry, people of color.

          1. The “people of color” description is bizarro or even Orwellian Newspeak because black is the absence of color.

        4. It’s an evolved form of the term “colored people”.

          1. Damn you Ska!

            Also, lately I have been hearing PSA on the radio encouraging people to eat “colored foods” and my first thought was chitterlings and watermelon?

            1. “Chitterlings” for those unfamiliar should be pronounced, chittlins.

        5. I’m pretty sure when I’ve heard it they meant mostly the colors black and brown. Maybe red. But not yellow.

        6. What is with the “spic” comment? You said every other race correctly except hispanics.

  18. Now let me be clear: you can’t Win the Future without shredding some precious, endangered animals.

  19. Won’t the eagles that avoid giant, relatively slow-spinning blades have, like, a natural selection advantage over those that don’t?

    Perhaps we should paint the blades neon orange or hot pink or some other unnatural and highly visible color.

    1. “relatively slow-spinning blades”

      When I was in Spain a few years back I wss watching the wind turbines and realized that the 20 meter long blades were completing a rotation in about 1.5 seconds.

      Distance travelled by the blade tip per rotation = 2?r = 125 meters

      x 2400 rotations/hr = approx 300 kph!

      1. That’s about right.

      2. Tip speed is a bitch.

      3. Which is about 180 mph, slightly faster than a high speed train. Birds have no trouble avoiding those, no?

        and of course most of the blade has a much slower linear speed.

      4. The birds just need to become accustomed to the presence of the wind farm. It will take time.

  20. Really? No building in a fucking desert? If the desert is off limits where can you build? Thats why we have to go to the moon!

    1. There will be people arguing that you can’t mar our pristine moon with development.

      1. There already are, Fluffster. Go to any thread about manned spaceflight and some leftist idiot will post the stock response: great, we’ve messed up our own planet, now we’re going to mess up others…

        1. There was a funny link on Watt’s Up With That to a Guardian article based on a research paper. Apparently, aliens may detect that we have messed up our CO2 levels and get angry that we are ruining our planet and come destroy us.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie…..CMP=twt_gu

          1. Why would you bother to destroy a people who are in the process of destroying themselves?

      2. Isn’t there already an international treaty about that? Similar to the Antarctic Treaty iirc.

        1. There is, but no country that has any kind of spacefaring capability has signed.

  21. Does this mean I can finally sling real poo at you assholes instead of the digital stool I’ve been flinging about recklessly?

  22. I’m a little disappointed that “See My Vest” isn’t quoted as fervently as “Monorail.”

    1. sorry ska, the mob has spoken.

    2. My absolute faav!

      For your reading and humming pleasure:

      See My Vest

      Burns: Some men hunt for sport,
      Others hunt for food,
      The only thing I’m hunting for,
      Is an outfit that looks good…

      See my vest, see my vest,
      Made from real gorilla chest,
      Feel this sweater, there’s no better,
      Than authentic Irish setter.

      See this hat, ’twas my cat,
      My evening wear – vampire bat,
      These white slippers are albino
      African endangered rhino.

      Grizzly bear underwear,
      Turtles’ necks, I’ve got my share,
      Beret of poodle, on my noodle
      It shall rest,

      Try my red robin suit,
      It comes one breast or two,
      See my vest, see my vest,
      See my vest.

      Like my loafers? Former gophers –
      It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
      But a greyhound fur tuxedo
      Would be best,

      So let’s prepare these dogs,

      Mrs. Potts: Kill two for matching clogs,

      Burns: See my vest, see my vest,
      Oh please, won’t you see my vest.

      1. Thank you, such a good one.

  23. “Federal authorities are investigating the incident……”

    Just what the hell is there to investigate?

    Is this a Quixotic quest? And are they just tilting at the windmills?

    1. “After an internal investigation, we have concluded that the windmills acted properly and in accordance with established spinning procedures.”

    2. Seriously, what are they investigating? Isn’t it pretty fucking clear that the eagles were killed by the windmills?

      1. Windmills….with bullets!!! Where was the second windmill? On the grassy knoll?

    3. They’re investigating opportunities to receive bribes.

  24. Who knew that there were trade offs in life?

    ” Nor were the enviros super hot on solar because they involve placing acres of mirrors in pristine desert habitat. ”

    Among how many tens of thousands of square miles?

  25. They should cover the windblades with rubber so the eagles just bounce off.

    1. We like your line of thinking – want a lobbyist job?

    2. Please send me two weeks worth of whatever you’re smoking. I will pay handsomely, including shipping and handling.

  26. However, unless humans make a collective pact to simultaneously commit suicide

    You unwittingly stumbled upon the truth. The left wants us all to just die. Human life has no value to them. In fact, they see it as something evil.

    1. Both liberals and conservatives have this artificial construct where there is a “natural” world that is somehow different from the world which contains humans, as if humans are somehow non-natural.

      With liberals, this manifests as self-hatred of humans as a species and the elevation of all other species (collectively, of course) above humans.

      With conservatives, this manifests as hatred of homosexuals and the use of “natural law” as a substitute for the phrase “God’s will.” Also ignores observed same-sex attractions in non-human species.

      1. So have you stopped fucking you dog?

    2. You better leave the light on tonight when you go to sleep, Colin. There might be a leftist under your bed or in your closet.

      1. He’ll be in the closet, checking the light bulbs for compliance.

    3. In grad school, one of my classmates said that that planet would be better off without humans. I passed him my pocket knife and said, “You first.”

  27. SAVE THE PLANET!!!11!!1

  28. Pristine nature is a myth?

    Sigh.

  29. I’m pro salmon and pro eagle. They are both delicious.

    1. Just be sure to put bacon on the eagle breasts. They tend to be quite lean and dry.

  30. So is this the Reformation against the High Church of Holy Environmentalism?

  31. This should be titled: “The greens discover cost-benefit” imo.

  32. Get ready for the great environmental civil wars.

    Eeeexceeeellent

  33. The Utilities in California are not allowed to include Hydro-electric power as a renewable resource in their “Green Energy” portfolio. So the situation is more ludicrous than you think.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.