I have followed this controversy with wind farms and agree that it is hard to come up with an exact figure of birds that have been killed. Interestingly, the California Condor is an endangered species and we have spent huge sums of money to try and increase the population. I recently heard an interview on talk radio of an “activists” from California who alleged far more than 28 dead condors and golden eagles have been found underneath the turbines. I am in no position to verify the claims but there is obviously something to it.
Stossel covered this on his program a few years ago and I looked for a transcript but could not find it. In addition to the loss of large birds there is plenty of evidence that bats are being slaughtered by these things.
The rule of unintended consequences is always present in the environmental movement.
These are all supportable statements -
The ban of DDT led to many thousands of malaria deaths in Africa.
The ban of regular lightbulbs will lead to mercury filled landfills as the new bulbs are discarded. How long before a child is diagnosed with mercury poisoning after breaking a bulb?
The push towards electrical cars does not reflect the increased costs (economic activity creates greenhouse gases) required to offset the higher costs. It also does not account for the disposal problems created by such large batteries using current technology.
The introduction (some say reintroduction) of wolves in the west is leading to the decimation of large grazing animals.
I don’t support the oil company creating an oil filled pond and it is reasonable that they should make an effort to clean it and prevent it. However, like others have pointed out, the hypocrisy of this action if it’s really about “the birds” illustrates a major cancer affecting our nation.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2009/09/09/green-double-standards
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376543308399048.html
This is not a new problem. Both of these articles addressing the same thing are from 2009.
Just to clarify, in case there was a misunderstanding, my intention was to source your statement, out of curiosity, not to dispute it. In those efforts, I came across the article I cited.
I can't agree with your posts more, except to say you give EPA a greater benefit of the doubt than I do as to their falling prey to the law of unintended consequences.
The EPA is an agency out of control and drunk with power. Their use of science is dubious at best, and most often deliberately negligent. In fact I would go so far as to say often criminal.
Case in point is an example you cite:
"The ban of regular lightbulbs will lead to mercury filled landfills as the new bulbs are discarded. How long before a child is diagnosed with mercury poisoning after breaking a bulb?"
This infuriates me far more than the subject under discussion. How could the EPA NOT be aware of the consequences of filling out landfills with mercury and proliferating a known toxin into the environment where our children, the most vulnerable to mercury's toxic effects, spend the greatest amount of their time---their homes?
While compact fluorescent lamps used in homes are not legally classified as hazardous waste....
WHY NOT? We all know why, and we all know that that will SURELY be the next step when this regulation goes into full implementation.
If a compact fluorescent lamp breaks in your home, open nearby windows immediately to disperse any mercury vapor that may escape, carefully sweep up the glass fragments, and wipe the area with a disposable paper towel to remove any remaining fragments. Do not try to pick up glass fragments with your hands, and do not use a vacuum. Place all glass fragments in a sealed plastic bag and dispose of them with your other household trash.