What do the Greens want? 17

[Roadbridge]

I was searching the net today and found this article on wind energy.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=466372005

On the one hand you have Green parties all over Europe saying we must switch to alternative flues soucres such as wind energy and on the other their saying what a blight they are on the country side.

What way do the Greens they want it?

I live near two power generating stations one coal one oil which both spit out tonnes of gasses each day, recently a wind farm went up near them say ten miles.

On a clear calm days you can see the trail of smoke for miles and then you look at the wind mill turning gracfully.
I can not think of a better image to promote the use of wind energy.

 

[Heckler]

"We can have wind energy without decimating imperiled wildlife populations""Altamont Pass is the most lethal wind farm in N. America for raptors" I say we make the propellers out of large feathers....Every industry is faced with groups, individuals, or government officials that dislike a certain technology but what I've read is none of them can offer any practical alternative.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html

http://www.wind-farm.org/

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/

http://www.bwea.com/

 

[TheTick]

Perhaps if we start using DDT again, there wouldn't be so many raptors getting whacked by wind turbines.

 

[jmw]

Check out this link for one view of the problem.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

Now one wind turbine may not be such a problem, no more than one car, one anything. It's when you need a mass of the things that life gets messy.
As you will see from this report, wind energy seems the least damaging of the "green energy" solutions; that doesn't seem to be saying much.
There is a great deal of hype about "green energy" not least the costs and the costs of wind power aren't cheap. They are especially not cheap when you take them offshore as Europe proposes. Of course, in the UK they propose to install a few hundred (thousand?) of these things in an area of low population and high winds.... the Lake District.

One of the prime motivators for these wind farms is the "global warming" issue.
However, despite the perception fostered by the popular press, and now it seems also the scientific press, that there is almost universal agreement that man is responsible for global warming there are voices raised in opposition including:

http://www.lomborg.com/articles.htm

There are suggestions that there have been attempts to supress this voice.
Yesterdays British Sunday Telegraph claims "Leading scientific journals "are censoring debate on global warming"".
Journals cited include "Science" and "Nature". One article in question was about the degree of concensus on man's contribution to global warming: apparently a December edition of Science claims complete agreement among climate experts that not only is global warming a reality but man is to blame (article by Dr Maomi Oreskes).
No point in regurgitating the whole argument, i will simply refer you to the thread on this site re the dangers of Dihydrogenmonoxide (DHMO) and i will stand by my comments there with the addittion that I now don't know who to trust.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[GregLocock]

I'm sure the climate experts completely agree that their funding is dependent on further studies of global warming!

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[sms]

Back to the original question, "what way do the greens want it?" The answer is very simple, they want all industrialization to disappear, 99% of the human population to disappear, and they want the small population that is left to go back to living in caves, cooking over an open fire, peacfully farming a small bit of land, and living in harmony with nature.

 

[crossframe]

sms,

They'll want that right up until they understand just how much hard work farming really is. Then there'll be another industial revolution...

 

[davefitz]

sms:
Maybe so, but associated with the idyllic concept of the pre-historical lifestyle was routine crop failures or droughts, followed by the need to immediately invade a neighboring clan , and to kill or enslave all opponents following an elaborte torture protocol. Makes video games seem tame.

 

[metengr]

Um..., we still have droughts and crop failures today. The summary above reflects parts of urban life today.

 

[aspearin1]

We greens want change that will not create change. You cannot put in a dam, because you will destroy the existing aquatic area ecosystem. You cannot remove the dam because you will destroy the aquatic ecosystem that adapted to the dam installation. Use wind energy, but don't block my view. Use wind energy, but don't take the wind out of MY sails. Use solar energy, but don't take up my land. Use oceanic wave energy, but don't disrupt the coastal ecosystem. Use oceanic wave energy, but don't disrupt the Gulf stream. Use geothermal energy, but don't cool down the earth.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[TheTick]

I think the Greens, like most liberals, mostly just want a good fight.

 

[Roadbridge]

A star for you aspearin1 you have sumed up Green policy so aptly.

 

[QCE]

Americans bashing left wing political parties.

Isn't this an interesting posting.

What are we talking about again?

Did anyone read the article?

It is about a walking club that says that the wind turbines are wrecking the view.

Did this same walking club protest for alternative energy?

This thread is ridicules!

By "Green Parties" you meant "Walking Clubs".

Those darn walking clubs - they are the definition of evil!

 

[corus]

I believe that the Rambler's Association is labelled as being green because of the colour of their wellies, oh and they take walks in the countryside, though I'm sure that the right wing conservative Sunday Telegraph will label them as being to the left of the marxist Tufty Club. It's sad the way the right wing press has become so laughable.

corus

 

[SacreBleu]

1) If we start using DDT again, there will be less ticks.
2) If you really like DDT, maybe eating all the produce imported from Mexico and South American countries can satisfy that urge.
3) Davefitz, that sort of scenario is still going on. Causes a lot of wars. Not necessarily for food crops, but resources in general, such as oil. The main reason for the old USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to secure an oil pipeline route. After 10 years, they gave up. It seems no one ever learns from past history.
4) I never get into liberal vs. conservative arguments, because I am neither. But I am glad the Ramblers Association hasn't attacked Holland's windmills yet.
5) Finally, I never engage into a battle of wits with an unarmed person. That is why I never argue with 51% of the USA's population.

 

[TheTick]

Maybe I should back off just a little from my stance. It is based only on my interaction with the Greens I know personally.

My interest and participation in the local folk-music scene has brought many interesting people into my life. Lots of old hippies with a mile-wide anti-establishment streak. Most of them are spoiling for a fight with "the man". They like to go to where the action is. Most of them are Greens.

I was somewhat drawn to the Greens when I first learned of them. I was turned off by the attitude of many of the active members. I would like to work toward a solution. I was disturbed by how many seemed to get jazzed by the fight, not by the prize.

 

[TheTick]

Lighten up just a tad, SacreBleu. Your sense of humor could make a German seem Irish.

 

[jmw]

Please don't confuse ramblers with environmentalists, nor let us get into the "right to roam" debate.
Like many another group they may enjoy the countryside but do not all contribute to it. Indeed, too many ramblers are a nuisance and do actual damage to the environment. Much of the rights of way maintenance is to make good the wear and tear due to ramblers.
Of course, some may be environmentalists and some who do not appreciate "greens" are not anti-environment.
As to wind turbines, the articles cited above say it all and it is not all about spoiling the view though this is a serious consideration, i would suggest, in an area such as the English Lake District and in other national parks.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ScottyUK]

The Greens are idealists. It doesn't make them bad people, but they do not, collectively, understand the concepts of compromise or of the 'least of the evils', and this makes them dangerous when they are allowed to set energy policy. Those with less blinkered views will see that a first-world economy can't be left to the vagaries of the weather, a natural phenomenon which is not fully understood and can't be modelled other than simplistically by our best supercomputers.

Reliable generation with capacity to underwrite the green generation on the days when it isn't available is still essential. Established generation comes from a variety of sources: coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro. The greens have one commercially viable option: wind. Until a more diverse portfolio of green alternatives reach larger scale and become commercially viable without subsidy, green energy for the first world will remain an expensive pipe dream.



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[SacreBleu]

Tick,
That's my sense of black humor. I try to be nice otherwise. I agree, many Green groups have questionable motives. On the topic of the OP, I don't see why wind turbines are so terrible. What does bother me is the smog in the air at the Grand Canyon of Arizona, for example. It is noticeably increasing.