Comments UncleMoose has made

  • Merits of an offshore wind farm

    The point I was trying to make is that preserving small fishing and clamming interests for local consumption could be part of a strategy to combat global warming.

    I hadn't thought that putting the windmills farther offshore might create a barrier capable of keeping big trawlers out while allowing locals to keep fishing while hopefully helping the fish and their habitat recover.

    However, I'm still not convinced that this is economically feasable, plus there is still the specter of fuel and chemical leaks from the transformers. Plus, won't the windfarm become an underwater windfarm as sea levels rise from melting ice caps? Better to locate the windfarm on higher ground inland.

    Maybe use a portion of the profits to build a fence of nautical "cal-trops" like the one the Sea Sheperd deployed near Newfoundland to keep the trawlers out? ;> A man can dream....On Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

  • Merits of an offshore wind farm

    The point I was trying to make is that preserving small fishing and clamming interests for local consumption could be part of a strategy to combat global warming.

    I hadn't thought that putting the windmills farther offshore might create a barrier capable of keeping big trawlers out while allowing locals to keep fishing while hopefully helping the fish and their habitat recover.

    However, I'm still not convinced that this is economically feasable, plus there is still the specter of fuel and chemical leaks from the transformers. Plus, won't the windfarm become an underwater windfarm as sea levels rise from melting ice caps? Better to locate the windfarm on higher ground inland.

    Maybe use a portion of the profits to build a fence of nautical "cal-trops" like the one the Sea Sheperd deployed near Newfoundland to keep the trawlers out? ;> A man can dream....On RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

  • Put the Wind Farm on shore!

    To further clarify my position:

    • RFK's idea of putting the windfarm farther out at sea is ridiculous
    • Putting it where proposed is not a great idea, as it may harm fish and birds
    • Bill McKibben et al are being too myopic

    Perhaps a better idea would be to put the Wind farm on shore nearer to where the majority of the power is needed and in an area that is not a major flyway. (It is well documented that migratory birds use coast lines and major waterways as flyways) In this way, losses to transmission and bird and fish casualties are lessened.

    The point about oil platforms is also good, but does not address the reality of flyways or fishing.On Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

  • Put the Wind Farm on shore!

    To further clarify my position:

    • RFK's idea of putting the windfarm farther out at sea is ridiculous
    • Putting it where proposed is not a great idea, as it may harm fish and birds
    • Bill McKibben et al are being too myopic

    Perhaps a better idea would be to put the Wind farm on shore nearer to where the majority of the power is needed and in an area that is not a major flyway. (It is well documented that migratory birds use coast lines and major waterways as flyways) In this way, losses to transmission and bird and fish casualties are lessened.

    The point about oil platforms is also good, but does not address the reality of flyways or fishing.On RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

  • More on "Getting it"

    Bill McKibben says:

    "It's just that when [other environmental] efforts come into conflict with the imperative need to act urgently on global warming, they have to take second place."

    If Bill is right - that everything else has to take a back seat - is the question really that we need more generating capacity, or is it that we need to conserve severely and get local? Living as I do, without electricity and with extremely efficient wood heat, I am notice that most people are thinking more about the former and less about the later. In order to succeed, I think we will need both approaches.

    However, in order for the latter approach to succeed, we will need to preserve the ecosystems which can support our less technological existance.

    Lets consider food, for example. One of the lowest impact forms of protein is individually harvested wild meat and fish. Certainly, there is not enough for everyone, but if rural people better used these resources sustainably rather than trucking in meat from feedlots (industrial ag is a huge CO2 source!) we'd all be better served.

    However, if in our haste to defeat global warming we build windmills where they destroy important wildlife habitat, then local people become that much more dependant on fossil fuels.

    Yes, Global Warming should be our priority, but success lies in more than just putting up wind mills - we need a wholistic approach. This is incompatable with the myopic authoritarian statements of Mr. McKibben and others.

    P.S. I also think Kennedy's statements reak of entitlement, but its not the real heart of the matter.On Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

  • More on "Getting it"

    Bill McKibben says:

    "It's just that when [other environmental] efforts come into conflict with the imperative need to act urgently on global warming, they have to take second place."

    If Bill is right - that everything else has to take a back seat - is the question really that we need more generating capacity, or is it that we need to conserve severely and get local? Living as I do, without electricity and with extremely efficient wood heat, I am notice that most people are thinking more about the former and less about the later. In order to succeed, I think we will need both approaches.

    However, in order for the latter approach to succeed, we will need to preserve the ecosystems which can support our less technological existance.

    Lets consider food, for example. One of the lowest impact forms of protein is individually harvested wild meat and fish. Certainly, there is not enough for everyone, but if rural people better used these resources sustainably rather than trucking in meat from feedlots (industrial ag is a huge CO2 source!) we'd all be better served.

    However, if in our haste to defeat global warming we build windmills where they destroy important wildlife habitat, then local people become that much more dependant on fossil fuels.

    Yes, Global Warming should be our priority, but success lies in more than just putting up wind mills - we need a wholistic approach. This is incompatable with the myopic authoritarian statements of Mr. McKibben and others.

    P.S. I also think Kennedy's statements reak of entitlement, but its not the real heart of the matter.On RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

  • Correction - please check your facts

    Bill Rodgers was 40, not 70.(see his support website: http://supportbill.org/ and the Seattle times:(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002700316_suicide23m.html)

    The Times story also points out that:
    "He was charged in the burning of a federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service facility outside Olympia, which caused $1.2 million in damage."

    NOT the Vail Arsons.

    If I recall, the APHIS facility was doing GMO tree test trials. (GMO trees could be very environmentally damaging if released)

    He was listed as a suspect in other acts of sabotage - but not charged. (A clever way for the government to drag his reputation through the mud.) It is also unclear if the government had any real evidence.

    It is probably true that the ELF does not exist as a group. The government's claim (also in the times article) that there ever was a meeting of ELF members is probably bunk.

    But people ARE sabotaging environmentally damaging operations. Saying they don't exist is ridiculous.On What's the real reason the feds are spying on enviros? posted 3 years, 10 months ago 4 Responses

  • The truth is much more complicated...

    While it is true that the Anti-Environmental("wise-use") movement has created a convenient boogeyman out of the ELF, the reality of it is much more complicated.

    Apparently, in the early eighties, members of Earth First! sometimes sabotaged environmentally damaging projects directly. As time progressed, this became more wide-spread.

    However, in the late eighties, the authorities began to catch on. Several Earth First! members were jailed, including EF!'s high profile founder Dave Foreman. Then in the early nineties, Judy Barry was car-bombed and then charged with transporting a bomb.

    The bombing was somewhat of a turning point. A consensus emerged among Earth First!ers that, while sabotage was often necessary to protect the environment, those called to committ sabotage should do so outside of and away from Earth First!.

    At the same time, a group called the "Earth Liberation Front" started committing acts of sabotage in the UK. Presumably, they were inspired by the example of the Animal Liberation Front, by then well established in Britain.

    By the mid-nineties, acts of sabotage were being claimed by the ELF in the United States.

    The website alluded to in the above article, www.earthliberationfront.com, does not even claim to be affiliated with the ELF. On the News page they explain that, "the owners, management, webmasters, affiliates, or other participants of this website are not spokespersons, members, or affiliates of The Earth Liberation Front in any way;" and further that "The intention of this web site is journalistic in intent: to inform and chronicle issues related to ELF."

    They further explain that:
    "* The Earth Liberation Front "ELF" is an underground movement with no leadership, membership or official spokesperson.
    There is no ELF structure; "it" is non-hierarchical and there is no centralized organization or leadership.

    • There is no "membership" in the Earth Liberation Front.
    • Any individuals who committed arson or any other illegal acts under the ELF name are individuals who choose to do so under the banner of ELF and do so only driven by their personal conscience."

    It is also important to note that, to date, no one has been physically hurt in an ELF action. If fact, one earlier pro-ELF website proclaimed that one could only claim an action for the ELF if no animals - human or otherwise - were hurt. (Sorry, I don't have the link for this - I think it no longer exists) This is quite a bit different than the practices of most other groups labeled terrorist. Of course, whether a group should be called terrorist depends on your definition of "terrorism."

    While it is certainly possible that some ELF actions were committed by the FBI or industry to discredit the environmental movement and create a pretext for oppression, it is doubtful that all of them are. Would the wise-use activists or government agents really set fire to the headquarters of two major logging companies (Superior Lumber and Boise Cascade, if I recall) causing tens of millions of dollars of damage? Doubtful.

    No, the reality is that some people are tired of seeing the things they love destroyed, feel the ecological situation to be very dire, and see the current political remedies as ineffective.
    They have simply decided to take things into their own hands. "ELF" is just a convenient banner for acts of sabotage that, arguably, have been occuring since North America was colonized. (First by native peoples, then by disgruntled farmers, etc.)

    Nor is this an isolated phenomena. The widely popular French farmer, Jose Bove, and his french farmer's union routinely sabotage GMO crops and multinational corporations, as do farmers' movements in India and other parts of the developing world.

    Certainly, the mainstream environmental movement should speak out against government repression, and against the scare mongering of the anti-environmental movement, but we should also understand that groups like ELF are principled political actors pursuing similar ends, not mere criminals.On What's the real reason the feds are spying on enviros? posted 3 years, 11 months ago 4 Responses