TRUMP: "WIND POWER KILLS BIRDS"

He's really grasping at straws now, huh?
Why won't Pence talk some sense into him?
Or is Pence not allowed to speak until Trump says so?
Defend your candidate, alt-righters!

>thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wind-power-kills-all-your-birds

Other urls found in this thread:

instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
tagesspiegel.de/wissen/offshore-windkraftanlagen-vogelfallen-auf-hoher-see/11920266.html
sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/geothermal-power-plant-triggers-earthquake-in-switzerland.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No, it does. Google it.

Does solar power kill plants too?

It actually does
instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/

No, they're just really expensive per kilowatt hour

nah, just wildlife habitat on the scale of ~1,200 acres at a time

It does though, there's videos of it on youtube.

Dude, windmills are the #1 bird killer out there

You mean wind turbines?

Any bird that gets killed by wind is a faggot

It's not the wind, it's the giant spinning blades
However I did have bird knock itself out flying into my window once. He was a faggot.

It's true though. Placing fields of turbines in actual fields is akin to deforestation. You remove so much of their habitat, for such little gain.

It actually does you fucking idiot.. it's a massive problem because they can't evaluate the distance between the huge wings and the speed they're going due to the rotation so they get sliced/hurt so badly they die.

So huge windmill farms actually can do that.

Windmills decimate bird populations, and basically require the land around them to be clearcut.

If we use too many turbines, we will slow down the earth's rotation! wake up sheeple!

>being this stupid..
Why do leftists have to be so fucking stupid about even basic shit.. it's like they never bother researching a damn thing..

wtf i hate birds now
time to ban assault wind power

But i does. Thats a legitimate concern, accepted even in self-proclaimed renewable energy utopia Germany.
tagesspiegel.de/wissen/offshore-windkraftanlagen-vogelfallen-auf-hoher-see/11920266.html

>Windmills kills birds meme

....I'm generally on board with Trump's shit, but this is actually legit stupid.

you got wrecked faggot

We should put windmills everywhere and cull the dumbest, weakest birds. Accelerate their evolution.

With the huge wings, they can't evaluate well enough where they will be due to the rotation.

M8 they are a few wind mills in a field near my village and birds get rekt all the time

also
>1 post by this ID

>The wind industry has challenged Trump’s previous statements about wildlife deaths, including his contention earlier this year that turbines kill more than a million eagles a year.
Can we not elect someone who thinks climate change is a hoax, vaccines cause autism, and turbines kill a million eagles yearly.

He can defend himself. I'm voting for him so I can watch liberals cry. The more he upsets you between now and election day, the happier I'll be. Good luck!

You don't even know it's true? find someone who works for siemens or vestas or something in dk and go ask them if you really doubt it that much.

He's right, them dumb birds smack into the things and die all the time.

>Donald Trump makes a comment about saving animals
>"WHAT A MONSTER! HOW CAN SOMEONE BE SO EVIL!"

People are fucked.

Yep - we've had projects that could not get through the EIA process because they kill birds

I would argue only the stupid ones, but apparently others think all bird lives matter

>1 post by OP
>obvious shilling
>all you tards replying without sage

Saged and hidden, fucking Ctr fags

This is a slide thread from ctr

It even kill more people than nuclear.

It does kill birds, jackass. It also has a shitty EROEI. That alone means that it should be done away with.

>Trump wants to denies something entirely on fact and research
>HURR DURR HES SO STOOOOOOPID GUYS
>Hillary denies something despite all fact and research
>#IMWITHHER

This only goes to 2003, but windows and cats kill more birds compared to wind energy.

sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

Yeah it does kill birds.
This is distracting from the MUCH bigger problem.
There both science deniers, hopefully Hillary has the common sense to apply the Socratic method in the debate.

Actually, yes. The rare earth elements used in photovalic panels are mostly mined in China, which has the lowest health standards in the world. Tons of mercury are poured directly into the ocean because of this shit.

He's correct.

There's a case of solar Farms out west that concentrate sunlight so efficiently that it causes the alien life out there to combust mid-flight the people that work the Farms call them streamers

REMEMBER TO SAGE
It's good in many cases though so it shouldn't be scrapped, but it's terribly inefficient with regards to space aswell as EROEI it's mostly the bigger windmills that kill birds, and it's not like a bug zapper or anything but it does have a tendency to happen..

TL;DR trump is not just talking out of his arse.. People who say windmills don't kill birds whatsoever don't have a clue what they are talking about.

It's domestic cats actually.

Sorry I meant to say avian

Not to mention the shitty EROEI of solar. China burns a shitload of coal building photovoltaic cells.

Lefties are forbidden to do their own thinking until a Jewish comedian thinks it for them.

Kind of like geothermal. The libfags whimper about "muh earthquakes" caused by fracking, but ignore the fact that geo wells cause the same goddamn micro-quakes.

treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/geothermal-power-plant-triggers-earthquake-in-switzerland.html

Libfags and solar are even more amusing. "We're doing this for the environment... as long as it's an environment we like! Fuck the desert! Fuck it to death! Those animals are all creepy and shit! Fuck every square inch of desert and cover it in solar panels!"

It's pointless to even argue with a lib about power because you can't even get them to understand the difference between passive and active generation. Solar has it's use for rooftop installations and reducing transmission losses on the grid, but having an entire city be fucked when a cloud passes over is the reality. You need on-demand generation.

The only clean option that is scalable and efficient enough to keep cities lit is nuclear, but libfags won't have it.

you unbelievable buffoon.. there's obviously more cats and windows than fucking windmills aren't there..

That's like the retarded argument that cars kill more people than terrorists.. yeah but those are accidents, terrorists are people who deliberately try to fucking kill you..

Left and logic, don't meet very often even when they fail miserably at it they oftentimes can't even detect it themselves till somebody points it out.

>50,000 birds die a year by wind turbines
>far less than are killed by cats and buildings
>because it's less this somehow justifies their deaths

brain dead """"environmentalist"""" groups have actually protested and gotten wind and solar projects cancelled on these grounds

>liberals say that global warming is killing polar bears and we must devote billions to save the polar bears
LIKE OMG CONSERVATIVES HATE THE ENVIRONMEMT AND WILDLIFE
>Trump has concerns about wind power affecting the environment and wildlife
OMG WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT SOME BIRDS I HATE CONSERVATIVES

Wind turbines are wiping out some Scottish Highland birds on their own mate. It's a fact.

If I build the wall, will you nuke China?

We either grab our sacks and develop full fuel cycle nuclear plants and use that for all of our energy needs, including manufacturing fuels for transport, or we revert to water wheels at best.

Solar, wind, electric cars, etc... are all just distractions.

>this

I was with you in basically everything you said till you mentioned nuclear as the only option for active generation.

I think we need to look at thorium reactors instead which might replace nuclear without the risky downsides that nuclear plants have, way too little technological research into them. Also coal with proper filters is still way safer than nuclear. Nuclear just have too many problems.

>Trumpfags are so brainwashed they'll defend a climate-change denier

OP here, wow! got a lot of nice fishes today!
Must be this quality bait.
Im sooo glad you all live either outside the USA or in small towns in the middle of bumfuck nowhere.
You are what's holding this country back.
Well, you and so-called "moderate" muslims who choose to stay silent.

Funny, ime anti trumpers are the ones who never look into a damn thing but just goes with whatever the media says.

Also remember to sage.

I'm sure your only pretending to not understand basic causality.
Let me correct you anyways
The warming planet will is causing large scale ecological regime change, crippling the natural systems that support human life.
This is most apparent in coral bleaching.
The rising sea level will displace hundereds of millions of people by the end of the century, climatic shifts caused by the warming planet are already causing massive damage to crops, and again causing large scale ecological regime change.
This is an existential crisis for civilization, yet another sink in a world of dysfunctional ecosystems is a comparative flea bite in every way.
This isn't about birds, this is about trump denying the existence of the greatest challenge mankind will ever face. (Except for scarcity driven consumption)

What policies has Trump laid out to tackle climate change and improve the environment?

it's funny cause cats kill gorillians more birds than wind farms.

>media
Nobody mentioned the media, you retard.
The media is a big reason for legitimizing this science denial in the eyes of the public.

No but it kills birds too

Windows and cats don't kill Eagles and other large protected birds

Coal plants spew shitloads of uranium into the environment. The problem with nuclear plants today is that they only burn a small fraction of the potential fuel, leaving a lot of transuranic waste that is not only really nasty, but it also hangs around for 100k+ years. This is an engineering problem that can be solved, however.

BTW, thorium reactors are nuclear reactors. Their downside is that they need a fissile material to bootstrap their operation. Their upside is that you do not need to enrich the thorium. Full fuel cycle designs make the waste problem for both thorium and uranium reactors much less complicated.

They surely do through causal relationships.
This isn't about birds this about climate change. opie is a retard for mentioning birds and completely forgetting to address the bigger problem.

There are no *politically* viable strategies to both save industrial society and tackle climate change. There are technical means, but the political will is not there with any candidate, nor will there be until people cannot afford to operate their ACs and refrigerators.

And I'm sure you're only pretending to not understand that my post has nothing to do with the arguments for and against climate change and everything to do with liberal hypocrisy.

Please, point out the part of my post where I personally deny climate change.

But it's true. The best places to put them are smack dab in the middle of migratory pathways.

Cell towers kill more, but rare species still get ripped up.

>save industrial society
what a crock of shit, fossil fuels is being BTFO by green energy in economic growth.
Industrial society is much less important than the natural systems that it depends on anyways.

You were reducing the problem down to "polar bears"
That's not pointing out hypocrisy, that's a strawman argument.

I think water power should be heavily invested in. Noone gives a shit about dirty river fish.

Except for the millions of people that depend on them for their lively hood and primary source of protein.
Or anyone with a basic understanding of ecology.

>Drank the Kool aid

EROEI on "green" energy sucks balls. You have to burn a shitload of fossil fuels to mine the materials for, manufacture and transport things like photovoltac cells and wind turbines. They don't survive without government subsidies because they suck. Stop mining fossil fuels tomorrow, and between 5 and 6.5 billion people will be dead by the end of the year, and it is those fossil fuels that our physical economy is built on, not "green" energy.

>somewhere between 140,000 and 328,000 birds die each year from collisions with wind turbines

He's not wrong. Your move, OP

>There are no *politically* viable strategies to both save industrial society and tackle climate change.

If the old manual labour jobs die out due to automation and shifts towards renewable energies, that's a good thing. I couldn't give a fuck if some 55 year old southern blue collar worker doesn't like it, that's the way the world is heading. Technological advances are more important to creating a sustainable future then promising to 'put the coal miners back to work' when Trump knows damn well he can't achieve that. In that sense Trump is a regressive and is lying to people to gain votes.

What people need is access to further education so they can gain the skills needed to work the new jobs which will crop up in the next 10-15 years. All of the STEM fields essentially.

5-6.5 billion people will be dead by the end of the year
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If you are going to make up statistics, atleast make them believable. Ffs, fossil fuels are heavily subsidized aswell.
You got to burn carbon to mitigate carbon, of course their are BIG problems with green energy. Those BIG problems don't even come close to the effects of dumping trillions of tons of co2 into our atmosphere and oceans.

Nigga im talking about real polluted fish. Noone eats new york catfish you dumbfuck. Nooone eats the fish in chinese rivers. There are a lot of polluted rivers where an energy farm is viable because they are already ecologically fucked. Now sit the fuck down you dirty river hippy.

Is geothermal really not viable in the long term? I'm not hearing much about it nowadays

Just tape hunting rifles to the windmills, then it'll be acceptable.

I'm not making shit up. The carrying capacity of the planet WITHOUT the use of fossil fuels or a suitable replacement is between 500 million and 2 billion. The tractors that plow the fields that produce the food that you eat do not run on unicorn farts. Nor do the trucks and trains that ship them to your local supermarket in our Just In Time supply chains. They run on diesel. And that's just the very tip of the iceberg. Stop mining fossil fuels, and your supermarket would be out of food within a week from the time that the existing fuels ran out.

The shills are not very educated here, maybe read about something before trying to make a thread faggot.

While I agree with you, you really shouldn't talk down on the southern blue collar workers.
This is why they like trump so much anyways, because he is the only canidate in many decades to even try to appeal to poor whites. Working class white people are up in arms because of elitist attitudes like yours.
So we should probably avoid the marginalizing rhetoric.

Well then we would finally have agricultural reform to local, sustianible food produced in a close loop system.
I think that is just as necessary to our long term survival as ditching fossil fuels. It's not going to happen overnight anyways so that's a moot point.
>carrying capacity
we've already overshot our carrying capacity bub. Unsustainable practices like you just described are the culprit.

Actually the damning of Chinese rivers like the 3 gorges is an even greater ecological problem than pollution.
And millions of people in Southcentraleast Asia and around the world depend on those heavily polluted and fragmented rivers.

I'm all for local agriculture. I'm even breeding my own locally adapted cultivars. I even have a few pepper plants derived from local stock that sets fruit during July, which is a huge deal around here, because even mature pepper plants don't normally set fruit due to the heat during July.

But that aside, I live where the local population could conceivably support itself without heavy industry. It would be a massive shift in lifestyle, but it could be done.

NYC and LA? Yeah, getting off of our current lifestyle requires letting people starve to death. Lots of them. Do you want to be responsible for that? That's the problem. We've backed ourselves into a corner, and we're not in the worst position over here in the new world.

That will happen sooner or later.
Climate change will do all those things in a worse way, don't you agree?
So I think it is better to take incremental, but big steps now to ensure our future viability. Than to continue down a path we know will destroy use.
>grows food
Good for you man, I actually own I 10 acre farm and 125x30 ' Aquaponics greenhouse.
I know many people do not have anything close to that luxury, and are basically slaves to consumerism.
We innovate and use what we have wisely, or we crash and burn down the road.

>trump actually ends up educating you on the fact that there's no actual clean energy
Amazing.

What kind of peppers you growing anyways?
Plant some of these, they're called fish peppers and they're amazing.
Where do you live that's so hot anyways?

I think that CO2 emissions are a moot point now. What is done is done, and sometime between now and ~2022, we are going to start a precipitous drop in their use. This is because we are running up against economic barriers with regards to resource extraction - i.e. we need cheap oil for our economy to function and oil producers need expensive oil to produce oil, and due to the depletion rates of the wells from the shale "revolution," that source of oil will peak around then if we don't see an economic crisis first.

What's done is done, but how can you advocate doing expointally more?
The worst effects can still be mitigated if not outright avoided.

NuMex cultivars. They're part of the culture, and they're fairly drought tolerant. But, due to commercialization, some of them have lost some of the flavor that they used to have.

*Exponentially

he's been completely destroyed anyway, might as well say whatever he wants

Healthy soil traps CO2. Not as much as we've spewed out, but enough to make a difference. Even if we do manage to save industrial society, we need to see the hubris of trying to outright control nature. It is better to look at nature and nudge it one way or the other to our advantage.

Well it does. But it's not my job to defend him.

But it does.

There actually is a large impact on bird populations due to turbines, also local farmers livestock, motors work on the principles of inductance and that has a lot to do with unlhealthy livestock m, large magnetic fields are generated around those things and we still don't know the long term effects of such technologies employed around people. Solar panels also leave a larger carbon footprint in their manufacturing process than the footprint the reduce during their lifecycle

Because we should be learning how to recycle CO2, not avoiding it altogether like faggots. Instead of advancing science and using our CO2 to create beautiful, oxygen-making arboretums, we cry and bitch and try to monopolize energy for the people that own "green" companies.

This doomsday attitude is exactly why we don't currently have tons of nuclear plants giving us 50X more energy than we need.

>Defend your candidate, alt-righters!

defend something liberals have been saying for years?

The problem with industrial society is its intrinsically unsustainable to begin with.
Why "save" that rather than save ourselves?
A massive reduction in carbon and a massive reduction in the destruction of carbon sinks (like healthy soil) is what we need to do.
The worst possible thing we can do is let business continue as usual and hope it all sorts itself out. Which is what you seem to be purposing

You say that, but co2 emmisons imperil the largest carbon sink we have
Phytoplankton, ocean acidification is causing a massive population drop for shelled life.
Nature will fix co2 better than we ever will, so why try to "nudge nature" when we should just work as part of the system? Everything we have is ultimately dependent on natural processes anyways, we are nature and don't delude yourself into thinking humanity is a separate entity.
let's not forget how slowly nature will adapt to the changing conditions due to the massive loss of biodiversity either.