[briandear]

How is “protecting birds” a conservative straw man? Non-conservatives routinely block all sorts of projects because of endangered fish or frogs. How often do non-conservatives use the Endangered Species Act as a tool to prevent projects with which they ideologically disagree? It’s like they oppose a project and then find whatever legal means they have available to block it. It isn’t like non-conservatives in California have a profound desire to protect the delta smelt; if they did, then why wouldn’t they oppose the Altamont Pass wind farm that kills 114 golden eagles each year? How about the death of highly endangered condors because of of California wind farms? A skyscraper has never killed a condor but a wind farm has.

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-...

Non-conservatives use the same straw man by somehow suggesting fossil fuels harm wildlife. But their own pet projects seem to escape the same scrutiny with which they apply to fossil fuels. My theory is that by restricting fossil fuels they can redirect the balance of economic power towards a direction that is more in line with their particular ideology. My point is that “environment” itself is being used as a straw man with the ultimate goal of changing wealth distribution.

Oil spills definitely harm wildlife and windmills also definitely harm wildlife.

It’s fair to point out the ecological effects of fields of windmills just as it’s fair to point out the harms of oil spills.

Also, we aren’t talking about skyscrapers— we are talking about energy generation. Whether or not skyscrapers harm wildlife and to what degree isn’t relevant because skyscrapers already exist and people aren’t suggesting we cover the countryside with skyscrapers. If that were the topic under debate, then the effects of skyscrapers on wildlife would be a relevant point.

[ZeroGravitas]

Various international bird (and bat) societies support wind power as a net positive for their particular species, while contributing expert guidance on siting and design to minimize bird casualties and opposing individual projects that they feel are poorly designed or sited. (Of relevant interest to HN are computer vision projects that track rare birds and stop nearby turbines when they come too close)

So, if conservatives are really opposing wind power on the basis of "saving birds" then they're massively misinformed and ignoring the relevant experts.

Since they don't actually care about the birds, it's obviously a cynical ploy to protect fossil fuels that on balance are a greater threat to the very birds they claim to want to save.

And in doing so they're choosing not only an environmentally destructive option, but one which is more costly to society, just because the special interests who receive the benefits will provide kick backs to politicians that help them.

You couldn't really summarize modern conservative thought better if you tried.

[seqastian]

If you want to protect birds, you have to ban people from keeping cats and letting them loose in rural areas. Good luck with that.

[njarboe]

When complaining about loose cats, no one ever seems concerned about all the rats that are also killed.