The Common Ground thread

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

I disagree with SD on wind turbines. They are not animal killers and Renewable energy = homeland security

But can we all agree Feinstein needs to step down?

Windmills most definitely are animals killers. Everything has a cost/benefit calculation (even climate change has benefits) just have to determine if the benefit out ways the cost.

[BaltimoreSkins]

okay yes they kill a few birds every year. I should not deal in absolutes. That is such a weak argument against wind turbines. Domestic cats, glass buildings, domestic oil production from the Bakken oil fields all kill far more birds than wind turbines. It is an absurd and silly argument. Same for whales, seismic surveys for oil and natural gas are far more disruptive. We should be looking for quality solutions to providing long term energy not using false narratives.

If there are benefits to climate change I have not heard them and if there are they certainly do not outweigh the costs.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

okay yes they kill a few birds every year. I should not deal in absolutes. That is such a weak argument against wind turbines. Domestic cats, glass buildings, domestic oil production from the Bakken oil fields all kill far more birds than wind turbines. It is an absurd and silly argument. Same for whales, seismic surveys for oil and natural gas are far more disruptive. We should be looking for quality solutions to providing long term energy not using false narratives.

If there are benefits to climate change I have not heard them and if there are they certainly do not outweigh the costs.

I wasn't arguing the point I just said there are costs and benefits. That said they really do need to pay attention to where they put them - Texas put them in a migratory path for a few bird populations and more than just a few were killed. I have no issue putting them off the NJ coast from what I understand it is low risk there. But the North East are full of nimbys so doubt they will get put there.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

okay yes they kill a few birds every year. I should not deal in absolutes. That is such a weak argument against wind turbines. Domestic cats, glass buildings, domestic oil production from the Bakken oil fields all kill far more birds than wind turbines. It is an absurd and silly argument. Same for whales, seismic surveys for oil and natural gas are far more disruptive. We should be looking for quality solutions to providing long term energy not using false narratives.

If there are benefits to climate change I have not heard them and if there are they certainly do not outweigh the costs.

There are actually very major benefits to climate change or specifically a warming climate (If it was getting colder that would be bad), but yes they probably don't outweigh the costs (yet people can be stupid and make no mistake there are some climate change activists that definitely would implement policies that would outweigh the costs if they could - heck just yesterday a congressman was pushing for a policy (stopping all fossil fuel production) which costs would be far (far!) greater than doing nothing for climate change).

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...warmer%20world.

[BaltimoreSkins]

I guess my point is there are actual cons to wind turbines such as battery storage and infrastructure upgrade that limit them. Animal kills are red herring argument when there are far larger culprits out there for animal kills. We can't be pro domestic oil and anti wind turbines and the argument be that they kill animals because domestic oil kills more birds than wind turbines.

In terms of benefits of climate change is a potential short term increase in a growing season in some regions really a benefit? For the last 12,000 years our global temp has fluctuated in a 1.5 oC range. Every seed and animal we have selected genetics for has been cultivated in that narrow range. The current generation being born is the first generation that will live their lives out of that 1.5 oC window. Are we willing to risk our agricultural production and hope that science and technology will be able to modify organisms in a warming world? I feel like that is human hubris to me.

Anyways we could have this discussion till we are blue in the face and probably not see eye to eye. Can we at least agree Feinstein needs to step down?

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

I guess my point is there are actual cons to wind turbines such as battery storage and infrastructure upgrade that limit them. Animal kills are red herring argument when there are far larger culprits out there for animal kills. We can't be pro domestic oil and anti wind turbines and the argument be that they kill animals because domestic oil kills more birds than wind turbines.

In terms of benefits of climate change is a potential short term increase in a growing season in some regions really a benefit? For the last 12,000 years our global temp has fluctuated in a 1.5 oC range. Every seed and animal we have selected genetics for has been cultivated in that narrow range. The current generation being born is the first generation that will live their lives out of that 1.5 oC window. Are we willing to risk our agricultural production and hope that science and technology will be able to modify organisms in a warming world? I feel like that is human hubris to me.

Anyways we could have this discussion till we are blue in the face and probably not see eye to eye. Can we at least agree Feinstein needs to step down?

Feinstein - yes sure, but you do know that will help the GOP? Many think it would help Dems, but it's doubtful the GOP would allow a replacement on the Judiciary committee which would lock in their ability to block nominees thru Jan 5 2025.