Kill an Eagle, Felony for Your...not for "Green" Energy

"Under pressure from the wind-power industry, the Obama administration said Friday it will allow companies to kill or injure eagles without the fear of prosecution for up to three decades.

http://www.9news.com/news/world/367559/347/US-to-allow-eagle-deaths-to-aid-wind-power

Now that he global warming hoax has been exposed, how about saving a few eagles by stopping subsidization? This doesn't even expose how many OTHER birds are slaughtered for so called green energy. If Exxon and BP are slammed and fined for spilling oil and killing wildlife (rightfully so), why not wind farms?

"But all energy has costs, and the administration has been forced to accept the not-so-green sides of green energy as a means to an end."

 

This may be the solution to protect the birds.

http://www.gizmag.com/bird-friendly-wind-turbine/23961/

 

Great. So, despite the continued floundering of the eagle-killing "green" wind farms, Obama has just granted his campaign donors the power to KILL and/or INJURE BALD EAGLES, without penalty, for UP TO THIRTY YEARS:

For wind power, US extends permit for eagle deaths

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration said Friday it will allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty, an effort to spur development and investment in green energy while balancing its environmental consequences.

The change, requested by the wind energy industry, will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects for which companies obtain a permit and make efforts to avoid killing the birds.

An investigation by The Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. The White House has championed wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, as a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's energy plan.

In other areas, too, such as the government's support for corn-based ethanol to reduce U.S. dependence on gasoline, the White House has allowed the green industry to do not-so-green things. Another AP investigation recently showed that ethanol has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today

Under the change announced Friday, companies would have to commit to take additional measures if they kill or injure more eagles than they have estimated they would, or if new information suggests that eagle populations are being affected. The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they kill. Now such reporting is voluntarily, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information.

"This is not a program to kill eagles," said John Anderson, the director of siting policy at the American Wind Energy Association. "This permit program is about conservation."

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet's wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds of up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cellphones; they don't look up. As they scan below for food, they don't notice the industrial turbine blades until it is too late.

No wind energy company has obtained permission authorizing the killing, injuring or harassment of eagles, although five-year permits have been available since 2009. That puts the companies at legal risk and discourages private investment in renewable energy.

It also doesn't necessarily help eagles, since without a permit, companies are not required to take steps to reduce their impact on the birds or report when they kill them.

Conservation groups, which have been aligned with the wind industry on other issues, said the decision by the Interior Department sanctioned the killing of an American icon.

"Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind industry a blank check," said Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold in a statement. The group said it will challenge the decision.

The regulation published Friday was not subjected to a full environmental review because the administration classified it as an administrative change.

"The federal government didn't study the impacts of this rule change even though the (law) requires it," said Kelly Fuller, who formerly headed up the wind campaign at the American Bird Conservancy. "Instead, the feds have decided to break the law and use eagles as lab rats."









http://news.yahoo.com/wind-power-us-extends-permit-eagle-deaths-145931345--finance.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, I wonder how many of the "some companies" being allowed to kill bald eagles, are also, (by pure cinncidence, I'm sure ), on the Obama campaign donor list?

More highly dubious crap from the Most Corrupt/Inept Admininstration in History,IMO.


The Wind Lobby and American Domestic Policy


http://freebeacon.com/the-wind-lobby-and-american-domestic-policy/

 

Ooops! Dupe thread!


Here's the original:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=334800

 

Your starting to sound like a liberal.

 

This may be the solution to prevent bird deaths.

http://www.gizmag.com/bird-friendly-wind-turbine/23961/

 

The most conservation-proactive people in America, are hunters, fishermen, campers, etc.

"Liberal" has nothing to do with it; liberals PRETEND to "champion" environmental causes, but only for POLITICAL REASONS.

 

If it ever actually exists. I doubt that it is capable of any significant current generation, even worse than the already anemic production of wind power with the BIG turbines.

 

The Eagle is our National Symbol, it's the proof of American determination, spirit and eventually triumph even over any and all difficult obstacles. If Green Energy were proven to work, or if we indeed "balanced" conservation with trying to improve our Green Energy, that'd be one thing.

But this is pure slaughter, plain and simple and it's another low for the worst administration to have ever occupied the White House. This is indeed a blank check and one that is indeed ironic given Liberal outcries about "Global Warming"(Al Gore's HAX) or other "environmental issues".

Taxing people and killing animals to death will NOT help the environment, in fact such policies have proven to have the opposite effect.

 

I still think your viewpoint is very similar to a liberal viewpoint. Anytime someone wants to save an animal or bird or snail, it is considered a progressive/liberal viewpoint.

 

Only by the uninformed.

Is Ted Nugent a "liberal" in your mind?

He is , without a doubt, one of the most aggressive, informed and effective conservationists in America.

A "liberal environmental position" is "Global Warming"!!

An ACTUAL "environmental position", one held by the INFORMED, instead of the POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, is to clean up our air,soil,and water of the ACTUAL POLLUTANTS,such as heavy metals, toxic compoinds, etc., instead of the "War on CO2", which is a farce.

 

I found 12 scientific reports on the Compressed Air Enclosed Wind Turbine so far. You may be very disappointed.

[video=youtube;jB1LITS4Hbg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB1LITS4Hbg&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

On that issue, yes he is a super liberal.

 

Wow!!! "Computer models" and "projected results" !!

Now , there's some ACCURATE REPORTING !!!

Please cite the ACTUAL LIVE,PROVEN, REPEATABLE OUTPUT of the unit.

Not the "projected potential" output....
Der....

 

Am I the only one who thinks this is a non-issue?

I feel like this is only an issue because it's green energy. I couldn't care less about a bunch of birds, even if they are protected. Abolish the EPA.

 

You know, that's not really what the article says at all...

 

Easy for you to say, it's not your State Animal. What if Australia had a State Animal and your government proceeded to slaughter it, wouldn't you see that as slaughtering your own property?

 

No.

Feel free to chase after Emus and Kangaroos all you like, as long as they're not on my property.

PS: our government has already moved to make our national plant partially illegal. Why? Because it contains DMT - which can be used to trip. Go figure. This applies to many wattles in my state and on the East Coast.

 

Ethanol is also more damaging to your car and especially your boat. My neighbor at the shop is making a living on repairing ethanol damage these days. At least we are burning down massive portions of the rain forest to keep the ethanol supply up. Thanks Bush!

 

Hold on now. Wildlife gets protected. Not over people, but protected all the same and managed. Wildlife is the property of the public, such a valuable commodity should be properly maintained. Some people make a living capturing wild animals, lets not throw them under the bus.

 

Gotta break a few eggs if you want mayonnaise .

 

It is liberal to believe in the prophesy of global warming and spend hundreds of billions on technology that isn't ready yet to combat a problem that doesn't exist.

Managing government's own resources effectively isnt liberal. It is common sense, and therefore falls squarely in the domain of the conservatives. Our right to hunt and claim dominion over the wild is also another one of those God given rights we want to conserve.

 

I don't agree - they're the property of nobody. If you want to own a bird, catch it.

It's the bird's problem that it flies into wind turbines, not mine.

 

Nonetheless he's still a super liberal.

 

While I am nor sure that particular design is all that great, it does seem like a problem that technology should be able to fix or mitigate.

Large wind turbines are hazardous to birds and bats. However, petrol and coal powered energy are hazardous to birds, bats, and numerous others creatures, including humans.