[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Also, the article this thread is about points out a very old, outdated windmill.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.