On a new McKibben editorial 18

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Kif Scheuer Posted 4:20 am
   21 May 2007

   and if this is what you had grown up looking at...http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/4551/Mountaintop_Removal.jpg
   you might think all the discussion over wind turbine siting was a little narrow minded.
   In fact you'd probably trade your view for a windmill filled view just about anyday

   Permalink

2. 

   miles44 Posted 4:40 am
   21 May 2007

   Exactly rightWe all have our individual concerns, but we need to stay united on the larger goal of reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050.
   
   http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com

   Permalink

3. 

   wiscidea Posted 4:45 am
   21 May 2007

   and...the concern over whether GMOs are natural  or a significant threat to the environment pales in comparison to the manufacture and use of pesticides, the erosion of soil due to excess tilling, expansion of agricultural land and displacement of threatend ecological systems as exhausted land is abandoned, the inability of Third World families to send their children to school because they are needed in the fields, and the huge amounts of fossil fuel required for manufacturing and distributing fertilizer.
   Have a pleasant day.
   
   Forward!

   Permalink

4. 

   Peter Viola Posted 4:58 am
   21 May 2007

   Keeping the big picture in mind.Bill McKibben and others have been calling for us to focus on the big picture for decades.
   Kif's comment is completely apt; the unspoken word here is sacrifice, and I'm not talking about the birds. While I don't think siting issues for any wind project should be dismissed out of hand, most of the serious opponents to wind projects I'm hearing about seem unusually out of touch with the big picture and a little too attached to illusions of landscapes locked in time. I'm only 22, and so perhaps I can't blame someone 40 or older for wanting to preserve a location they've known so long unchanged - but at this point, change is imperative.
   While many of our elders seem to have such a kneejerk reaction to it, there's a reason the youth within the environmental movement are so supportive of wind power.
   I want my kids to have that view, and if it's with wind towers, so be it - then I can explain to them that we did what we could to prevent the destruction of another mountain in another state, where people, birds, and other lives also matter.

   Permalink

5. 

   sunflower Posted 5:02 am
   21 May 2007

   mercurynews link broken

   Permalink

6. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 5:11 am
   21 May 2007

   Badda Bing !
   
   If this is what you saw growing up:
   http://www.levity.com/brooklyn/Queens/ozone.jpg
   You'd be dreaming about good canoles.
   Yum..
   
   John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
   
   
   You Read It Here First

   Permalink

7. 

   wiscidea Posted 5:25 am
   21 May 2007

   PrioritiesAre we preserving the climate to preserve ourselves or to preserve wildlife? The birds killed by wind generators -- if they understood why they were making the ultimate scarifice -- might not care so much about us, the birds living elsewhere, or those birds and other animals displaced by mountain top removal.
   When we decide one species -- for example, the species harmed by wind generators -- is less important than another, how do we know we are making the Correct decision? Is it really appropriate for use to do so? Would you mind if 51% of Americans decided that the greater good would be served if you were chopped up in a giant blender this afternoon?
   I realize such decisions are made every day, but if we are going to make such decisions, we should be mindful of what we are really doing... condemning some creature to a violent death so that others might be saved. And we should, perhaps, ask ourselves: Is there a way to save all species?
   
   Forward!

   Permalink

8. 

   Peter Viola Posted 5:36 am
   21 May 2007

   re: PrioritiesWiscidea, I think you misinterpreted my comment, which perhaps wasn't phrased clearly. I'm implying that we need to make sacrifices in terms of our comfort zones and attachments. I'm not implying in anyway that we should dismiss the impacts of our decisions on wildlife - on the contrary, as McKibben stated, "the threat to that landscape, and to those birds, comes far more from rapid shifts in temperature than from a few dozen towers," which is why I asserted we need to reevaluate our attachment to those hills without turbines in order to prevent further destabilization of the climate, which would result in a tougher time for our avian friends and ourselves. This assumes those towers will have an affect - and no energy revolution is flawless or without problems, but wind power is too significant a measure to pass up if we're to do something about mitigating the damage caused by fossil fuels.

   Permalink

9. 

   wiscidea Posted 5:55 am
   21 May 2007

   TriageHi Peter,
   I wasn't reacting to your comment, but to the McKibben quote presented in the original post. It is clear that you are concerned about wildlife and, I think, would prefer human beings sacrifice "views" before we sacrifice the global climate that sustains life as we know it. I fully agree with you on this matter.
   My concern is the apparent move toward species triage. Given that the bird species affected by wind generators are not necessarily the same species affected by global climate change, it is somewhat frightening that a respected environmentalist is prepared to put more or less value on certain populations of birds.
   I could not read the original article. My comments are based solely on the information provided by the Grist commentator.
   
   Forward!

   Permalink

10. 

    wiscidea Posted 6:16 am
    21 May 2007

    Equally Frightening?WiscIdea wrote...
    "...it is somewhat frightening that a respected environmentalist is prepared to put more or less value on certain populations of birds."
    Perhaps it is equally frightening that someone who onced called himself an environmentalist and is still very interested in preserving Earth's current ecosystems, is comfortable resorting to GMOs to reduce and repair damage to natural ecosystems.
    Sacrifices must be made. First... the view. Then... nostalgic attachment to the notion that agriculture is even remotely "natural". And finally... our materialistic culture. It would be nice to change our culture sooner, but I don't think we have time for that.
    TWO QUESTIONS FOR ALL:
    The decision regarding energy  (via wind) or view is pretty simple. It reduces fossil fuel use.
    The decision regarding energy (via wind) or birds is a little more complicated. Perhaps there are better options.
    ARE THERE ANY DEEPLY HELD VALUES YOU ARE PREPARED TO LET GO OF TO SAVE LIFE AS WE KNOW IT?
    AND WHICH SPECIES ARE YOU COMFORTABLE SACRIFICING FIRST IN THE INTEREST OF PRESERVING THE REST?
    
    Forward!

    Permalink

11. 

    Peter Viola Posted 6:45 am
    21 May 2007

    Re: TriageHmm. I only have as much info as you Wiscidea, but now that I see what you're saying, I'm not sure describing it as "species triage" is entirely helpful. Triage, at any rate, is one of the most humane practices possible given very inhumane (or in this case wildlife-unfriendly) circumstances. I share your sense of sadness and can understand how disturbing it seems, but that's the problem - if we don't act to prevent harm to all bird species by means that may or may not affect certain species in the short term, then we risk seeing all species suffer, because the nature of global climate change is, well, global.
    And in fact, that's what makes this so complex. What we're trying to save is not even just the patients most likely to survive if treated (that would be triage, strictly speaking), but the whole planet that all future patients, sick or not, directly at risk or not, will inhabit.
    In that sense, the kinds of actions McKibben and others are proposing qualify not so much as triage but as the ultimate precaution: "Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities" (Earth Charter II-6-c). There are few easy decisions - but still, I think the nature of the problem trumps even our standard notion of "triage."

    Permalink

12. 

    Gary Gifford Posted 7:11 am
    21 May 2007

    PrioritiesThe problem of generating enough electricity cleanly is a much more difficult problem to solve than the bird issue.  I fully believe that an effective, low cost "bird deterrant" is just over the horizon that will solve this dilemma.  Build the windfarms.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Gary Gifford

    Permalink

13. 

    wiscidea Posted 7:18 am
    21 May 2007

    AestheticsPeter wrote...
    "In that sense, the kinds of actions McKibben and others are proposing qualify not so much as triage but as the ultimate precaution: "Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities" (Earth Charter II-6-c)."
    If it has come down to this... if it is really necessary to sacrifice certain species to preserve the whole, rather than trying to preserve  the complete natural web of life...
    Then after we sacrifice the view, it is time to sacrifice all aesthetics. There should be a global ban on all human activity engaged in purely for art or entertainment -- I don't think we have reached this point and hope we never do. But if the situation is so dire that we are prepared to intentionally toss species overboard, then should we first discard items like building materials that improve only the appearance of a structure, dyes that make clothing more appealing, extraction of gold or other materials that are used only for decoration, production of decorative paint, manufacture of sporting goods, manufacture of all high-tech entertainment devices, et cetera?
    I do hope we never reach this point. And I sincerely believe our species is capable of finding a way to save all species, not just a select few.
    
    Forward!

    Permalink

14. 

    caniscandida Posted 8:02 am
    21 May 2007

    "triage"That is not at all the right word.  But never mind.  WiscIdea does very well to raise the essential ethical question: How can we do something, even for a good purpose, knowing that what we do will inevitably result in the death of an innocent sentient creature?
    Birds, as well as bats and other animals, are NOT nothing more than a "natural resource," or a bit of aesthetic pleasure, which we may choose to sacrifice for the sake of some greater good.  Sure, let us build our bird-killing wind turbines, even as we have built our even more bird-killing tall glass-windowed buildings, to suit our purposes.  And sure, we understand that global warming is more dangerous to entire species of birds than the presence of wind turbines is to individual birds.  Nevertheless, whatever we do, however we want to justify it, we must acknowledge our responsibility in causing the death of living sentient beings.
    
    Chickens are our cousins!
    
    So are other sensitive animals!
    
    Enough is enough!
    
    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

15. 

    spaceshaper Posted 9:56 am
    21 May 2007

    "species triage"I'm glad Caniscandida finally made the obvious call on the difference between the death of individual birds and species destruction. A wood thrush broke its neck yesterday flying hard into a glass door in my small single-story home. Death of the individual, including ourselves, is an indispensable part of life: premature bird deaths from any cause are regrettable but large-scale species loss from anthropogenic habitat destruction and climate change is irreparable, unforgivable and many orders of magnitude more damaging to the ecosystems on which we all depend for our continued existence.
    
    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

    Permalink

16. 

    SMLowry Posted 9:57 am
    21 May 2007

    A thoughtAbsolutely, Canis and Wiscidea. While I am not opposed to every wind turbine, I believe there are certain places that should remain as untouched by humans as possible. Not because of the view, because of the wildlife impacted. It's not just a matter of what looks good or even beautiful to us, it's a matter of what works to sustain an ecosystem over time. I understand that climate change means drastic action and major transformations, but that should not mean that we become willing to sacrifice other species so that we can have a certain lifestyle. Wind is part of the sustainable picture, certainly. And certainly we'll need more turbines than we have right now. But we can't go sticking these things on top of every hill or mountain either, any more than we can dam up every stream and river. And I do understand where the young folks are coming from on this. I have three sons and I've heard similar sentiments from them on occasion. But what needs to be understood, is we can't take it all. It's not just about humans. We are the most adaptable species on Earth, so we are the ones who must make the most changes in order to preserve and protect as much of what's left of nature, wild nature, as possible. This is important for physical, emotional and spiritual reasons. (Sorry, but that's the best I can do right now to express what I mean.)

    Permalink

17. 

    wiscidea Posted 10:44 pm
    21 May 2007

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts.SMLowry wrote:
    "But we can't go sticking these things on top of every hill or mountain either, any more than we can dam up every stream and river."
    Perhaps what the older generation -- yikes, I have to admit I'm entering that stage of life -- understands but the younger generation does not understand is that apparently sound environmentally-friendly solutions to problems often have unintended consequences... like the daming of rivers for hydroelectric power. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but now we have to live with the unintended consequences or repair the damage done by past generations. I fear the same results from wind power. Seems like a good idea, but decades from now we will be wondering where all the birds or bats in an area have gone... and we'll find out that they were important for some valuable ecosystem service in the region or that another dozen or so species were dependent on them.
    SMLowry also wrote:
    "We are the most adaptable species on Earth, so we are the ones who must make the most changes in order to preserve and protect as much of what's left of nature, wild nature, as possible. This is important for physical, emotional and spiritual reasons."
    Thank you for the reminder.
    I would like to add, based on Tom Paine's remarks in The Age of Reason, that the best way to show appreciation for God's gifts to our species is to follow His lead and display the same love and generosity toward our fellow creatures... not sacrifice their lives for our vision of the greater good. We must try to save everyone (e.g., birds in windy areas as well as birds in other areas). And although I display great pessimism at times, although I'm on the verge of giving up several times each day, I have not yet given up.
    
    Forward!

    Permalink

18. 

    SMLowry Posted 9:25 am
    22 May 2007

    I'm thereWiscidea, re: "And although I display great pessimism at times, although I'm on the verge of giving up several times each day, I have not yet given up." - I'm there with you.

    Permalink