[Mr.Kimball]

You may have never said anything against "green sources" but this post does have an anti-green energy message.

Id say that the laws would be up to each state to enforce, and im sure if a protected species was killed, the company would be fined, or asked to scrap the project, just like the one you metioned in WV.

And I like how you are up in arms about this apparent double standard, im sure that oil companies, or any big company for that matter have never been given unfair tax breaks, or had a blind eye turned to some dirty business, or anything of that sort to help their efforts. Just recently president bush changed the Endangered species act, to allow companies to assess their own damages to the environment, and allowed them to bypass around laws. He also changed some wording in the clean water act, which allowed coal companies to do things that should where previously illegal. This was an unfair advantage, and gave preference to fossil fuels for energy, but you didnt mention anything about that.

Double Standards appear everywhere, but I dont really think this applies here, theyre are too many wacko peta members to let a large number of animal killings go unnoticed.

My, My, My. Now isn't that some interesting choice of wording.

But, I know exactly what you mean. I once did a study on that. Those types are everywhere, aren't they?

[Coach_Owens87]

My, My, My. Now isn't that some interesting choice of wording.

But, I know exactly what you mean. I once did a study on that. Those types are everywhere, aren't they?

they sure are!

(Again you just come back with sarcasm, and nothing of substance)

[Mr.Kimball]

they sure are!

(Again you just come back with sarcasm, and nothing of substance)

The response that fit the bill, there bud.

[Old School]

You may have never said anything against "green sources" but this post does have an anti-green energy message.

Id say that the laws would be up to each state to enforce, and im sure if a protected species was killed, the company would be fined, or asked to scrap the project, just like the one you metioned in WV.

And I like how you are up in arms about this apparent double standard, im sure that oil companies, or any big company for that matter have never been given unfair tax breaks, or had a blind eye turned to some dirty business, or anything of that sort to help their efforts. Just recently president bush changed the Endangered species act, to allow companies to assess their own damages to the environment, and allowed them to bypass around laws. He also changed some wording in the clean water act, which allowed coal companies to do things that should where previously illegal. This was an unfair advantage, and gave preference to fossil fuels for energy, but you didnt mention anything about that.

Double Standards appear everywhere, but I dont really think this applies here, theyre are too many wacko peta members to let a large number of animal killings go unnoticed.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a federal law, so the terms of the act should not change regardless of the state.

You and I have discussed Bush and the Clean Water Act before, and we both know the only thing Bush done was to clarify the meaning of the word "fill".

It appears that your ok with double standards as long as they are in your best interest. I still believe that when a law is enforced on a few, it should be enforced on everyone equally.

[Coach_Owens87]

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a federal law, so the terms of the act should not change regardless of the state.

You and I have discussed Bush and the Clean Water Act before, and we both know the only thing Bush done was to clarify the meaning of the word "fill".

It appears that your ok with double standards as long as they are in your best interest. I still believe that when a law is enforced on a few, it should be enforced on everyone equally.

He changed the wording of the law in order to help coal companies, that's unfair IMO, if you change one law to help coal companies, why not change all environmental laws to help everyone else? Why show preference to certain energy sources? He was also guilty of a "double standard", IMO.

Also, the article this thread is about points out a very old, outdated windmill. The author even mentions that. As I showed earlier, when compared to other energy sources, windmills rank near the bottom in avian deaths.

And exxon wasnt only fined over killing birds, they where fined for violating several laws, like contaminating water, and damaging the habitat, but the author doesn't mention that. So this whole crap about unfairness is wrong. When a windmill starts dumping toxic waste into streams and rivers, destroying the local ecosystem, and still continues to kill birds, then this argument may hold some water. But until then why don't we just fine car companies, and airplane manufactures for making bird killing machines, because they kill more birds than windmills.

This debate over a double standard is really weak, and is just a weak way of attacking renewable energy, whether you want to admit to it or not.

[vundy33]

Shut up.

[nky]

coal is killing our kids, ?

What are those darn kids working in the mines again? :help:

Ethel get those kids out of the mines!:eyeroll:

[nky]

Oh by the way we should exploit, use, consume all domestic sources of energy-coal,oil,wind,solar, cow wind

All avenues should be used to end the importation of energy from foreign sources:USAFlag:

[OrangenowBlue]

They have already developed a cure for dead birds. Viagra.

[Cardsftw2010]

Birds that are dumb enough to fly into a wind turbine need to die. Thats evolution for ya.

[nky]

Birds that are dumb enough to fly into a wind turbine need to die. Thats evolution for ya.

Maybe it's a flaw in their "intelligent design":AngelPray:turnbad:

[Old School]

He changed the wording of the law in order to help coal companies, that's unfair IMO, if you change one law to help coal companies, why not change all environmental laws to help everyone else? Why show preference to certain energy sources? He was also guilty of a "double standard", IMO.

Also, the article this thread is about points out a very old, outdated windmill. The author even mentions that. As I showed earlier, when compared to other energy sources, windmills rank near the bottom in avian deaths.

And exxon wasnt only fined over killing birds, they where fined for violating several laws, like contaminating water, and damaging the habitat, but the author doesn't mention that. So this whole crap about unfairness is wrong. When a windmill starts dumping toxic waste into streams and rivers, destroying the local ecosystem, and still continues to kill birds, then this argument may hold some water. But until then why don't we just fine car companies, and airplane manufactures for making bird killing machines, because they kill more birds than windmills.

This debate over a double standard is really weak, and is just a weak way of attacking renewable energy, whether you want to admit to it or not.

They need to either enforce the law or not enforce the law, in other words if they fine the oil companies and electric companies for killing birds then they should fine everyone. As far as the clarification of the Clean Water Act it goes for everyone, the problem is that for the most part, only the coal companies are required to obey the CWA.

While the Altamont turbines may be older, it doesn't mean the newer turbines don't kill birds, as a matter of fact the article you referenced said that these new turbines also kill birds.

Since the article doesn't mention Exxon's other violations, maybe you could elaborate. What were these other violations? Where did you fined that information?

There's no double standard here, I say if you fine one, you fine everyone.

[nky]

There's no double standard here, I say if you fine one, you fine everyone.

Don't fine me I didn't kill any birds. I flip one every now and then but..............