WIND POWER TO BE MADE ILLEGAL IN USA?

[snappyturtle]

Yep. The 110th Congress has a section on H.R. 2337 (Title II Subtitle D)

Last action: May 31st, 2007 Referred to the subcommittee on Energy and Environment part of Committee of Science and Technology

Title of resolution: To promote energy policy and public accountability,alternative energy and efficiency (underlining mine..PUBLIC accountability)

To read bill: www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2337


NOTE: under Title II, subtitle D, sec. 235 Definitions: "(4) Wind project: The term wind project means any project in the U.S. that uses wind to generate electric power."




Article summarizing subtitle D:
http://www.relocalize.net/wind_power_to_be_made_illegal_in_usa

May 21, 2007
New Legislation Would Bring Wind Power to 'Grinding Halt'
by Carl Levesque, American Wind Energy Association
Legislation just introduced and slated to move quickly in the U.S. House of Representatives would bring new wind energy development in the U.S. to a grinding halt, AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher warned on May 18.
AWEA is asking its members to contact their respective Representative and urge him or her to oppose the anti-wind provisions of H.R. 2337.
Introduced this week by Congressman Nick Rahall (D. WV), and scheduled for action in early June at the House Resources Committee which he chairs, H.R. 2337 would burden wind power with sweeping new requirements that have never applied to other energy sectors, Swisher said, noting:
-- Subtitle D of the bill would direct the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review every existing and planned wind project, a mandate far beyond the agency's resources and capabilities, and criminalize operation of wind energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS.
-- Under the legislation, landowners and farmers with wind turbines on their property would be subject to invasive inspection requirements.
-- Landowners and farmers could face jail time or a $50,000 penalty for putting a wind turbine, regardless of whether it is for personal use or of a commercial scale, on their property without certification by the USFWS director."

More at link........

List of sub-committee members-lefthand side of pg: http://science.house.gov/subcommittee/energy.aspx

Petition to sign: http://www.petitiononline.com/rme4319/petition.html
Members of subcommittee http://science.house.gov/contact/default.htm
(then click on submitting a comment) Notice picture of Wind turbine on top of page!!

My comment is that I think this bill section is a slimey method for the gov't to take away wind energy from the individual.....probably setting up a way for the big guys to charge us for the wind!! imho

[dysfunctional press]

1. i think that you're reading more into this than there is.

regulation is a long way from making it "illegal"...i'm guessing that they wnat to make sure the things are safe, and that they don't interfere with migratory bird patterns.

[HereSince1628]

2. Representative from major COAL producing state pushes wind regulation

Paint me jaded, but that seems a bit beyond the interest of average West Virginians in migratory bird collisions with man made obstructions.

As always, you can't let down your guard for a minute when dealing with capital interests.

[truedelphi]

6. I mean, in W Virginnie,they don't even care about

Human beings that are in the mines. Safety regulations for the miners have ever gotten less stringent - I would think if this guy was concerned about birds or mammals, he would first be concerned about the human mammals.

[leftchick]

14. exactly

it is about lining his pockets. period.

[snappyturtle]

3. Read it.

Nope...it's government control. The word illegal is in the title of the article....but when you read the bill....we're not just talking the huge turbines, we're talking ALL turbines. When you have time, read it. However, if you feel compassionate about it please contact sub committee members at link provided or your congress critter.

[leftchick]

4. I suspect worse

Congressman Nick Rahall (D. WV).... It is called COAL MONEY......

http://www.ilovemountains.org/action/coalcontributions/


pretty well divided between dems and repukes

[Skidmore]

5. It's also called coporate lobbying.

I'm really becoming very angry with this party right now. Yup, the more things change the more they stay the same.

[cascadiance]

9. It's the same crowd that are pushing Obama and Gephardt in supporting coal liquification

Read more here!

http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/002788.html

Looks like their lobby is out in full force! So much for stopping global warming! At least Gore is against this!

We need to demand that Obama support public campaign financing NOW! If he really wants his grass roots support to continue to support him!

[leftchick]

12. Obama hardly needed pushing

I believe he is in it up to his neck! He is backing it.....


The Green Gripe With Obama: Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html

<snip>

So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in energy independence -- and his interest in downstate Illinois, where the senator's green tinge makes the coal industry queasy.

The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline.

Environmentalists say focusing on coal does nothing to arrest climate change. Instead, they say, lawmakers should back cleaner alternative fuels and stricter automobile and industrial emissions standards.

"The rationale is, 'We have a lot of coal in the ground, let's put it to some use,' " said Frank O'Donnell, president of the D.C.-based nonprofit group Clean Air Watch. "It's not the best use of the coal and it's one that's almost certain to exacerbate the global warming problem." Obama's advocacy of coal liquefaction, he said, might have to do with his getting "hammered" by Illinois coal interests.

[cascadiance]

27. Not to mention let's let strip mining destroy more of our Appalachians!

and poison the water supplies around there too which gets into the water supply and adds more mecury content to our fish that we eat. As RFK Junior noted in a while back, there are studies that show now that one if every six women in this country has mercury levels that are too high to have kids without some form of cognitive birth defects! Do we want that? And he gave that speech two years ago!

[leftchick]

37. it is Always about their "interests"

of which we are not a part. :(

[snappyturtle]

15. Absolutely...THAT too....but what pissess me off is that it will

effect anyone.....and you know that if the gov't gets involved there will be permits,inspection fees and taxes......instead, the gov't should be giving us tax relief for being responsible and reducing our need of non-renewable sources. again.....imho.

[cui bono]

10. No, I think it's about making sure you have to pay a big company

for your energy. We will have no self-sufficient citizens thank you very much. That would disrupt the whole corporate capitalist structure. We can't have that now can we?

[cascadiance]

11. Yup, pretty soon they'll try to stop solar panels for "burning bird toes"...

... or something ridiculous like that!

[Shallah Kali]

19. or call them an eyesore and ban them like clothslines like some communities do

look at how edwards had to get special permission to have solar installed :rolleyes: I was reading here on DU recently a post by someone who's city would not let people plant vegetables in their yard and stupid things like that. If the person got caught s/he would be fined. Heaven forbid someone grow some healthy vegetables instead of cultivating grass with a plethora of chemicals to make it thrive only to constantly chop it back down. if i recall correctly lawn grass is the 2nd largest watered 'crop' in the US of A. it is kinda crazy when I stop and think about it.

[snappyturtle]

55. Isn't is sad? I don't know if you're old enough to remember the tax

credits President Carter offered to people taking energy responsibility however,if I remember correctly this was also about the time we started seeing energy ratings on appliances...if not just then, it was the catalyst. It's a whole different story today....money,money,money. Back then too even the women's magazines were full of solar energy supplied homes.

edit: incomplete sentence---drives me nuts!

[gatorboy]

7. Pffft! They can pry the paper airplanes out of my cold dead hands!

[sam sarrha]

8. i read a while back a farmer wanted to build a big mill, the courts said he could not use the power

if he sold any of it to the power company

[TheWatcher]

13. There may come a time when anything helpful, useful, or practical

Will be Illegal, and legislated out of existence.

We move Closer to the ultimate destination everyday.

If you want to see what that destination is, watch the movie Idiocracy.

We are already most of the way there.

[undergroundpanther]

16. The assholes will

not let anyone take away their goddamn economic dream. Their control. Because that is what their fucking dream is founded on they NEED people dependant, poor, helpless, ignorant and desperate.That's how they keep CONTROL.

The root of the economic dream these pigs refuse to give up is their own hegemony and domination of people.

Time to take down the hired mercenary thugs,and knock the man off the fucking box.


The box is full of salmon, and a man sits atop the box. Long ago this man hired armed guards to keep anyone from eating his fish. The many people who sit next to the empty river starve to death. But they do not die of starvation. They die of a belief. Everyone believes that the man atop the box owns the fish. The soldiers believe it, and they will kill to protect the illusion. The others believe it enough that they are willing to starve. But the truth is that there is a box, there is an emptied river, there is a man sitting atop the box, there are guns, and there are starving people.
http://ranprieur.com/readings/jensenbox.html

Under the rule of a repressive whole, liberty can be made into a powerful instrument of domination.

-how can they "liberate themselves from themselves as well as from their masters? How is it even thinkable that the vicious circle be broken?"
http://www.new-thinking.org/journal/totalitariandemocracy.html

Land of the free MY ASS.

The US Constitution states.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



That **slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,** means in other words..A PROVISION for Prison SLAVERY and for VOLUNTEER Slavery has been left IN the constitution...


And what of that loophole in the constitution allowed for slavery, that..**VOLUNTARY Servitude? ** Who in their right mind accepts voluntary slavery..? Think about it,you'd be surprised when you observe how the lie is laid like a trap From Every citizen from childhood on,for voluntary slavery,and if you look at the many corporate webs of control that force the public to depend on corporations..The system,infantalizing us taming us..making us dependant and servile to the corporate master "maker" as "consumers" of products.Masses of people accepting and REINFORCING the idea of voluntary servitude as a requirement,showing a person's value(My son is so smart he should be a lawyer when he grows up, Or questions like "what do YOU do?", The puritan work ethic & horatio Alger myths..normalize voluntary servitude)
What of those not volunteering to "produce" or sell themselves to the corporate class? They are seen as lazy,less than human,outcasts.Since Dehumanization,atomization and the breakdown of relationships and diversity is the end result of this coercion.
And when one believes one CHOSE to be dependant upon a system designed deliberately to exploit human beings,limit consciousness, removing your choices all without YOU even realizing it and manipulating you to consume and ties consuming to well being emotionally and socially..are the people being hoodwinked by companies they really do not trust but are forced by the illusion of choice to depend upon,are they really free?

A license is defined as "permission given by a competent authority to do something that would otherwise be unlawful." The question is, do you, as most people believe, need permission (license and permit) to contract, work, get married, use the public roads (liberty of movement), own property, open a business, choose their own destiny, worship, defend themselves, etc.? The answer is ... you don't. That is unless you voluntarily, by your own free will and volition, apply for, are granted, and accept the fictitious privilege or benefit being offered. Thereby placing yourself into a state of "voluntary servitude."
http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm

By way of endorsing this fact, the constitution of the United States of America clearly states that the condition of "involuntary" servitude shall forever be prohibited. The key word here is "voluntary."
(so is a manufactured choice offered by a manipulator that is really NOT a choice EVER truly Voluntary? or is it COERCION?)

http://www.iff-ifoundfreedom.com/freedom/idcards.html
http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2006/06/26/let-the-consumer-beware-part-1/
http://www.constitutionalguardian.com/federalist_papers/fed103.htm

[ComerPerro]

17. here's my question: Why are you spinning this bill to say that it makes wind power illegal?

Moreover, what do you have against protections for wildlife?

[undergroundpanther]

22. If this bill can be construed this way

It will be. These pigs want CONTROL and if people become too self sufficient they will not be dependant enough on corporations to be oppressed by them anymore.
They are terrified of people having free energy,and extra energy to give away.
It's all about maintaining the ruling classes Hegemony.
So if the language of the bill can be twisted to serve corporate hegemony it will be.Guaranteed. And if it looks iffy they leave loopholes and things unsaid to screw us when we did not fully grasp the bills intentions. Has happened before will happen again.
The ruling class are terrified of free people.

[ComerPerro]

23. The idea of completely self-sufficient people is libertarian, Ayn Rand fantasy

[undergroundpanther]

31. I didn't say totally self sufficient individuals

Self sufficient individuals is an Ayn Rand fantasy I agree..But it isn't impossible for groups and communities to help each other share skills and learn to become self sufficient together, NOT under corporate hegemony.

Ever notice when people try to become disentangled from the corporate and state system of control they have a hard time doing it because the state and corporation(same thing these days basically)HAS to control every bit of space privatize it so they can CONTROL the people..If you dare drop out, you will be in for more shit than you ever thought possible.

http://www.diggers.org/
http://www.squatter.org.uk/
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/dec1999/nyc-d09.shtml
http://ranprieur.com/essays/dropout.html


Public officials (reflecting the unspoken desires of their constituents) naturally want the homeless to disappear. This isn't an unkind impulse. The assumption is that the homeless really want to disappear (at least the "deserving poor" among them)--by getting jobs, finding homes, and resuming a "normal" life. The role of officialdom is therefore to assist, prompt, and encourage the homeless to get about the business of resuming that normal life. Above all, nothing must be done that would encourage the homeless to remain homeless. In short, homelessness must be made as unremittingly difficult, degrading, and painful as possible, and you may be sure that our public guardians know well how to accomplish this.

Beyond Civilization

[ComerPerro]

35. again, libertarian nonsense

[undergroundpanther]

61. You disagree whatever?

All you have said so far is libertarian nonsense ayn rand fantasy blah blah.. Tell me what you are disagreeing WITH.If you fail to describe or at least SAY what you are disagreeing about you are nothing but a mindless mouth off and I might as well write you off as stupid.Prove to me you are not as stupid as you look to me right now.

I'm not libertarian. I hate ayn rand her "objectivists" are a cult as far as I'm concerned.I am an anarchist.Different creature entirely. There is not one flavor of anarchist there are many, if you don't know what anarchy is lookitup. Hint: a root word in Anarchy..Archon or Ruler I am Anti-Authoritarian.Check the link out.

http://a4a.mahost.org/moral.html

[snappyturtle]

25. I'm not spinning it. Notice the question mark and it is not MY

word, but a word in the title of the article. I know that bird kill is a major concern but what I've have found is that it is not as bad as you may be thinking. Yes, some birds are killed by turbines as they are by auto vehicles,glass window panes,airplane engines and natural predators. My husband and I are great bird lovers and have had to mount posts for our bird feeders way up high out of jump's reach from our neighbors cats. I don't want to see any birds, bats, whatever killed but....this is a renewable resource and probably about as pollution free as we can get.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snappyturtle]

41. I'm not taking your bait. nt

[ComerPerro]

42. well, after all, you did post it here with ALL CAPS!!!! !OMG THIS IS HUGH!!!!!!!!11!

[nashville_brook]

47. bill would "criminalize operation of wind energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS."

criminalize = illegal

it's a common myth that wind turbines kill birds -- cats are responsible for more bird deaths than wind turbines.

[snappyturtle]

52. Thank you....I've read other explanations but I like the bicycle

wheel analogy. Another point,to get through to folks who are upset about the word "illegal", it was not my word but appropriate since unapproved wind turbines would be subject to a $50,000 fine or less and/or a year or less in prison, which is how illegalities are often treated: fines and penalties.

Obviously, people reply without having read the posted links.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Besides, while windmills of a generation ago were very hazardous

to birds, the newest generation has eliminated a huge part of the problem by adjusting the vane rotation to a speed the birds can adjust to and avoid. The product has improved, and will continue to improve. The kind of fines they're talking about are draconian at the least.

[TheMadMonk]

65. Look at the figures before you go slapping faces.

You'll embarrass yourself a lot less often if nothing else.

Estimated bird deaths for large turbines ie. 100m jobbies, is .03 per year. That's acres per bird per year. Fair enough to keep turbines out of endangered species habitats, but otherwise it comes down to aesthetics and proximity to wind and demand.

Killing one feral cat for each turbine installed would compensate in spades for both commercial and domestic installations.

[nealmhughes]

18. Next thing you know, they will be pushing for patent restrictions on Dihydrous oxide. Water.

How about a blend of app. 80% Nitrogen, 18% Oxygen and traces of helium, argon, and various noble gasses? Air. Why not? Did anyone yet commercial uses for water and air? I certainly have.

Can a farmer not have a water wheel that grinds meal or flour next without regulation? How about a windmill that is driving a pump or a small aux turbine for when the power goes out?

Patently ridiculous, pun intended.

[TheMadMonk]

66. As a matter of fact, water wheels, dams, pumps, etc.

Anything which might affect water flows are usually quite regulated. It is also massively under-priced, but that is another thing.

But that is as it should be. Fresh water is a limited resource. There is essentially only so much to go around.

Air derived power on the other hand is intermittent, but to all intents and purposes it is unlimited. And the side effects, are a minor mitigation of wind strength (overall a good thing), and some turbulence.

Zonal regulation is all that is necessary to protect endangered species habitats, air ports and suchlike. That and design approval. Essentially exactly the same hoops you have to jump through to get approval to construct any structure.


The problem with this bill is that it attempts to remove local controls over such approvals, and concentrate the regulatory powers in the hands of a federal agency we KNOW will be placed under the control of "proven energy industry experts" ie those with a vested interest in fossil fuel supply and consumption.


I have no real problems with regulation per se, provided it is as much as is possible tailored to the locality and within those limitations to the desires of the locals.

[MistressOverdone]

20. I didn't muddle through the links

but can somebody explain their rationale for this?

Wildlife protection? Because they are unsightly? WTF??

[snappyturtle]

26. This is being done under the auspices of saving wildlife but why

then do they not require other energy "mills" to protect wildlife? This is aimed solely at wind power.

[MistressOverdone]

30. Yeah, what about the heat that is produced

in water by electric facilities? Kills the fish and enhances nasties that don't need to grow.

Not to mention the creature from the black lagoon and six eyed frogs.

[texastoast]

38. The unsightly issue came up west of Fort Worth

Folks were wanting weekend/second homes west of the Metroplex area and didn't want the "unsightly" windmills anywhere near property that might serve as second homesites. Developers want that last dollar, and don't want the windmills to "diminish the ambience."


:eyes:

[snappyturtle]

43. The unsightly issue is not part of this bill.......nt

[texastoast]

50. Well, we can only hope

that it won't be tacked on. I think those gleaming turbines are much prettier (and far more fragrant) than a pumpjack.

[snappyturtle]

53. I do too! In traveling back and forth between Tx and MN we

pass some wind farms that are absolutely mesmerizing! I really encourage everyone to read Subtitle D under Title II of the resolution. It's not long and extremely interesting.

[sandnsea]

21. Just like water or septic

When people develop their property, they have to do it an environmentally responsible way.

[undergroundpanther]

24. That would be fine

If that was the intent of the bill.Somehow knowing how different energy inventions and alternate energy methods has been ruthlessly suppressed historically by the energy corporations, I don't believe the intents of this bill are so benign. In other words I don't trust the ruling class.And I do not believe the ruling class gives two shits about the environment because the military can pollute to it's hearts content,and the clean air act did not clean any air.

[snappyturtle]

29. Everywhere I've lived development of property has been a

local issue.

[Xithras]

34. Try to infill a wetland without ACOE approval.

Even if you own the wetland, doing so will get you some very nasty fines.

[RB TexLa]

28. I wish everyone would defend my land rights against all the regulations of my oil and gas wells

like this.

[Xithras]

32. Before anyone knee-jerk reacts, this is a good thing.

Windmills, more than any other type of power generation, can have a devastating impact on the local environment if not sited correctly. Wind power can kill huge numbers of raptors and other bird life, and quite often the most windmill friendly locations (ridgelines, seashores) also happen to be the most bird friendly. In the Altamont Pass in California, a project is underway RIGHT NOW to replace and phase out nearly all of the windmills in the pass (one of the largest installations in the nation) specifically BECAUSE they were killing large numbers of endangered hawks and eagles.

This law simply says that you must have your windmill plans approved before building ANYTHING, so that your windmill won't adversely affect wildlife. Since many of the windmill kits on the market ARE harmful to wildlife (hint: thin blades and a high rotational speed), some regulation is needed. I can't think of any better agency to handle it than the Fish and Wildlife Service. A lot of people may grumble about the intrusion onto their properties and into their lives, but this is really no different than needing federal approval to fill a wetland on your property, or to build a pollution spewing power plant on your property.

No power generation method is impact-free, and that includes windmills. The increasing popularity of the windmills means that it's time to introduce some regulation to make sure it's being done in accordance with the very environmentally friendly principles its backers claim to be promoting.

[cascadiance]

40. This is like prosecuting Jefferson and no Republicans for corruption...

Yes, Jefferson is likely a bad egg and should be pushed out, but ignoring what's going on with Republicans, and by lowering Democrats power in congress to fix the fundamental corruption problem, if you just look at it by itself as a measure of success you are screwing yourself.

Same applies to wind power. The larger problems are global warming and other environmental effects of other competing carbon energy sources. If you applied the same "harmful to the environment" restrictions on these sources, we'd come to a screeching halt with energy. As I note in a post above, the coal industry also harms the environment, not only by putting forth more CO2 in the air that affects global warming, but also when strip mining affects ground water that goes into surrounding rivers that flows to the sea. When elevated mercury affects our fish supply that affects us. Now, do we see these same interests concerned about the environment banging on the coal industry to clean up their act and prevent disasters like Buffalo Creek, etc? NO!

It is also about decentralization of control over our energy resources. Wind power and solar power are examples of energy resources that don't need to be from a "centralized" and therefore corporate controlled source. That is one more reason why they would rather us switch from carbon fuels to nuclear instead of wind or solar, not so much because of the technology's ability to deliver energy efficiently and safely, but because they have less control over it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to find ways to protect wild life and other effects of wind power, etc. too. But we need to look at it in the larger context, and see what the real interests are at work in trying to push this legislation. I suspect that their true motivation isn't about protecting the environment but to use our concern for it to try to limit how we deploy this threat to their control over energy sources.

[snappyturtle]

44. Thank you. I have already said I love birds and I do not want to

see numbers reduced because of this technology on the other hand, you are so right in saying that these bird friendly regulations are not being applied to other energy resource industries. REGULATE, IF YOU WILL, THE MANUFACTURERS OF WIND TURBINES NOT THE INDIVIDUAL TRYING TO BE ENERGY OBSERVANT. This bill calls for inspections at the government's whim....you must give access anytime, anywhere....can we inspect their stuff? Not without a lot of effort. If people haven't seen "Who killed the Electric Car" I suggest they do to see how the gov't and the oil companies have made certain we will be reliant on them for oil or hydrogen...I think they (gov't types) looked for a way to control wind power and they went for environmentalists to help...odd isn't it? They usually don't give a hill of beans what environmentalists think. It's just too slick. All I was trying to do was point that the bill wants PUBLIC accountability. Whenever we try to hold them accountable for their acts, what happens? Something stinks.....probably coal.

[nashville_brook]

48. wind turbine deaths compared to utility wires, windows, cats, pesticides and communication towers

After dozens of studies spanning nearly two decades, we now know that the Altamont Pass situation is unusual in the U.S. The high raptor mortality there was the result of a convergence of factors, some of which were due to the bad siting in the local ecosystem while others were due to the wind turbine and tower technology used at the time. In fact, a very different situation exists not far away at the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farms near Palm Springs. A 1986 study found that 69 million birds flew though the San Gorgonio Pass during the Spring and Fall migrations. During both migrating seasons, only 38 dead birds were found during that typical year, representing only 0.00006% of the migrating population.

The Altamont Pass wind farm would have to operate for 500 to 1000 years to "achieve" the same mortality level as the Exxon Valdez event in 1989.

Compare this with bird death by other means:

Utility transmission and distribution lines, are responsible for 130 to 174 million bird deaths a year in the U.S. Many of the affected birds are those with large wingspans, including raptors and waterfowl. Birds are electrocuted when their wings span between two hot wires. Many other birds are killed as their flight paths intersect the power lines strung between poles and towers.

Collisions with automobiles and trucks result in the deaths of between 60 and 80 million birds annually in the U.S. As more vehicles share the roadway, and our automotive society becomes more pervasive, these numbers will only increase. Our dependence on oil has taken its toll on birds too.

Tall building and residential house windows -- best estimates put the toll due collisions with these structures at between 100 million and a staggering 1 billion deaths annually.

Lighted communication towers turn out to be one of the more serious problems for birds, especially for migratory species that fly at night. One study began its conclusion with, "It is apparent from the analysis of the data that significant numbers of birds are dying in collisions with communications towers, their guy wires, and related structures." Another report states, "The main environmental problem we are watching out for with telecommunication towers are the deaths of birds and bats."

One television transmitter tower in Eau Claire, WI, was responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 birds on each of 24 consecutive nights. A "record 30,000 birds were estimated killed on one night" at this same tower. In Kansas, 10,000 birds were killed in one night by a telecommunications tower.

Agricultural pesticides are "conservatively estimated" to directly kill 67 million birds per year. These numbers do not account for avian mortality associated with other pesticide applications, such as on golf courses. Nor do they take into consideration secondary losses due to pesticide use as these toxic chemicals travel up the food chain. This includes poisoning due to birds ingesting sprayed insects, the intended target of the pesticides.

Cats, both feral and housecats -- "recent research suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year. The most reasonable estimates indicate that 39 million birds are killed in the state each year."

[MadHound]

67. Do you really know a damn thing about wind energy?

Because your post indicates that you don't.

First of all, the best sites for harnessing wind energy isn't on the coasts, it is on the plains. Hell, a DOE wind energy survey found that one out back in '91. Second, Altamont is the one and only instance of a massive bird killing due to a wind farm. All other wind farms that have been put up since have learned from Altamont's example and been situated in ways that don't threaten birds. Third, wind technology has actually successfully been directed at lowering the tip speed of wind turbines so that they generate more energy out of lower rotation speeds. Fourth, private wind turbines on farms and homes have no been shown to be a threat to birds, only the large mass groupings of turbines found on a wind farm.

And this bill isn't designed to provide thoughtful regulation, it is designed to drive it into the ground. High fees, increased regulations, endless bureacracy all will make wind power increasingly unattractive to people. Thus we will continue to spew more pollution and greenhouse gases into the air, which, in the long run, will kill more birds than all of the turbines in the country.

[alfredo]

36. Let's see, what is WV's big industry?

[roamer65]

39. This is disgusting.

Typical pandering to a "pet" industry. Well, I'm fighting them as best I can. I've got my electric bill down to the lowest is been in quite some time. $20-$25 a month during non-cooling season.

[snappyturtle]

45. Good for you....we try hard too and it has helped. nt

[Igel]

46. How it applies to individuals seems to be a question.

It hinges on the definition of the word 'project'.

SEC. 235. DEFINITIONS.

"As used in this subtitle:
"...

"(4) WIND PROJECT- The term `wind project' means any project in the United States that uses wind to generate electric power."

If I put up a windmill in my backyard that generates electricity, is it a 'project' that triggers the siting, construction, etc., etc. provisions of the law? Would 2 windmills constitute a project? 3? 50?

Dunno. The word's not defined in that particular bit of legislation, and I'm not going to search Findlaw to see if there's some other definition lurking. Some enterprising anal-retentive legislator should offer an amendment defining the term.

[nashville_brook]

49. in addition to opposing this legislation -- here's some bills to SUPPORT!

go here to learn about all the legislation impacting wind energy... we need support for this form of energy in addition to opposition to wrong-headed legislation. I'm talking TAX CREDITS! Tax credits for reduction of a household's carbon footprint is the BEST way to popularize the use of this technology.

http://capwiz.com/windenergy/issues/?style=D


Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) - Urge your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 969, a bill to create a national RPS.

Extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) - Urge your Representative to cosponsor H.R.197.

Small Wind Investment Tax Credit - Urge your Senators to cosponsor S. 673 to create an investment tax credit for small wind systems.

Small Wind Tax Credit - Tell your Representative cosponsor H.R. 1772, a bill to create an Investment Tax Credit for Small Wind Systems

[snappyturtle]

57. This is great! NT

[Duppers]

51. only 348 signatures on the petition

Hey, folks, it's only a couple of clicks. Please help this cause.

[snappyturtle]

56. Thank you! There are seven more than when I signed.....it should

have more. Thank you for yours!

[lonestarnot]

54. SHOWERS TOO!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070606/us_nm/drought_losangeles_dc

[snappyturtle]

58. This is something we can all do.......shorter showers and water

saving shower heads! I also love energy saving light bulbs.

[Pacifist Patriot]

70. Not to gross anyone out, but I've been known to go a few days without a shower.

If I'm not going anywhere I figure it doesn't make much sense to gussy up. Something I would never have dreamed of doing when I was a young adult. Do we really need daily showers...especially with some of the sedentary lifestyles.

[Wednesdays]

74. In between those showers, do "sponge baths"

Every day get a washcloth & a pan filled with a single gallon of hot water, and you might not need a full shower for weeks.

Even with the 1.6 gpm "water saver" shower head, a 5-minute shower uses 8 gallons of water. If that's substituted with the sponge bath method I suggested, an individual can save more than 2,500 gallons of water per year, not to mention the energy used in heating the water.

[Junkdrawer]

59. I think you're seeing the first steps to insure wind remains a oh-maybe-someday solution.

We are ruled by energy barons and they will not give up their rule peacefully...

No ruling class ever has...

[snappyturtle]

60. Sad but true. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

62. Someone in Europe has developed a whole new smaller design

For a wind generator that is small enough to power individual homes. They used a computer to design the thing to maximize the use of wind and updrafts, and it looks nothing like a prop turbine.

[snappyturtle]

73. Interesting. Do you know what is looks like or where we

can find more information about it?

[Kansas Wyatt]

78. I seen it on the Science or Discovery channel last month.

The thing was around the size of a 55 gal. barrel (smaller dimension and a little taller), and it had like 3 dimensional blades in it, but it wasn't like a spoke pattern and it didn't really obstruct your view through it. Someone in a Norwegian country had designed it. They specifically designed it to catch the updraft from buildings and wind from any direction at all.

Sorry I can't be more specific, but I remember thinking that it looked very promising and exactly what this country needed to beat energy prices. If it could be sold like a major appliance to homes, it would be a technological advancement, and the plan was to have the energy companies purchase the unused power from the customers. You can imagine the loss of business for the energy companies if it ever became like a major appliance homeowners would have installed.

[nashville_brook]

63. CHECK IT OUT! == Lawmaker Backs off Rules for Wind Energy - AP

Lawmaker Backs off Rules for Wind Energy - AP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x98956

Source: Associated Press

Lawmaker Backs of Rules for Wind Energy

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

(06-06) 15:50 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

A House committee chairman from a coal-producing state backed away
Wednesday from requiring regulations for the wind energy industry to
protect birds and bats, rules the industry said would halt development
of wind farms as an alternative to coal.

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., had put into
an energy bill a requirement that the Interior Department regulate the
siting and operation of energy wind turbines to ensure the safety of
wildlife.

His action unleashed intense lobbying by the wind industry and renewable
energy advocates, who argued that such restrictions would stop wind farm
development at a time when wind is viewed as the most viable renewable
alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power for producing electricity.

As his committee began final crafting of the energy package Wednesday,
Rahall relented and agreed to support, instead, a less-sweeping measure
offered by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. It calls on the Interior Department
to develop "guidelines" for protection of wildlife from wind turbines, not
regulations.

[truedelphi]

64. Ah Goddess is back in her heaven and all is again right with the

World, and I can sign off and go beddy bye

Thanks for posting the AP story!

Carol

[snappyturtle]

68. THANK YOU! Wow......we had company who dropped in last

night and the hour was late when they left....I didn't get back here. THANK YOU so much for your wonderful reply. I guess I also need to write Rep. Markey for his input evolving the change. This change makes much more sense. I am not against guidelines...and I WANT to know what's the best choice in turbines. Again, thanks!


EDIT: Thanks too to Eugene...who posted this:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/06/national/w152953D55.DTL

More input into Rahal's back off.....good news!

[nashville_brook]

76. ain't it GREAT to see something positive happen -- just once in a while!

this really made my night, too.

by coincidence, we watched Inconvenient Truth last night, so wind power was a big topic of conversation.

[snappyturtle]

79. I actually had to read it twice looking for what I was missing, thinking

there had to be the typical something awful included!!!! It was so good to read. Yes, Inconvenient Truth is great too....I know wind power isn't the total solution but it can help a lot and it's acceptable and renewable! What's not to like?

[MadHound]

69. Thank goodness,

I'd better get that turbine of mine up PDQ before this comes around again and it is made illegal.

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. LOL! You have to love the irony and hypocrisy of someone...

who supports coal mining "worrying" about wildlife.

[snappyturtle]

72. My e-mail to Rep. Markey:

Dear Representative Markey,

Thank you so much for your decisive input into needed changes in Subtitle D of H.R.2337 yesterday! Wow!

Many of us at Democratic Underground were dismayed by Congressman Rahal's proposal..."guidelines" we want, to protect wildlife, however, excessive fines,possible imprisonment and more regulations we saw as detrimental to a viable renewable energy source: wind power. THANK YOU!

Sincerely yours,
*****************

[madokie]

75. if the powers to be could figure out a way to charge us for energy

from the wind or from the sun we would all be driving an electric car today, right now. methinks

[november3rd]

77. Thanks for snagging this

This is exactly the kind of thing the energy czars are going to poison any populist legislation with--just like they always do.

I will keep this item open and try to move it through my web network.\

Thanks for your brains, balls, and patriotism.

[snappyturtle]

80. We've got some good news...about eight or nine up from the

bottom....read what Rep. Markey has done....!!!