Submitted by SelectiveSanity t3_11fmvle in nottheonion
Comments
Ray_Pingeau t1_jakfmzc wrote
Because it’s being proposed that they be built on indigenous land
nobono t1_jalny62 wrote
The windmills have already been built, so they want to tear them down.
GreenBottom18 t1_jana6cy wrote
from article:
That changed on Thursday when, amid the ongoing protest, Petroleum and Energy Minister Terje Aasland apologized after holding talks with Sámi representatives.
“In these conversations, I apologized on behalf of the government to the reindeer herding districts in Fosen that the concession decision involves a violation of human rights,” Aasland said.
“The government’s message is clear and concise, we must follow up on the Supreme Court ruling so that the rights of the reindeer herding Sámi in Fosen are safeguarded,” Aasland said on Thursday. “They have been in a demanding and unclear situation for a long time. I’m sorry for that.”
The Norwegian government said it is assessing how to secure the Sámi’s rights in Fosen. “The Supreme Court has considered that the permits that have been granted are invalid, but it does not follow from the judgment that the wind turbines must be taken down,” Elisabeth Sæther, State Secretary in the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum, told CNN.
arcxjo t1_jal3nwd wrote
She's racist and thinks that white people don't deserve clean energy.
GreenBottom18 t1_janaa1u wrote
bro.. what?!
arcxjo t1_janoymx wrote
If she actually cared about the stuff she got famous for screaming about, she's be all for this thing that actually produces that end. Instead she just wants to scream at people that it's politically correct to scream at.
She doesn't actually have principles, she just wants attention.
Calamitous_Stars t1_jaoirwy wrote
The weird part is your so cognizant of the behaviors of others yet don't introspect as to why absolute strangers are so important for you to analyze their behaviors and assign whatever narrative fits your idealizations of that person....
Ray_Pingeau t1_jakg0yh wrote
They are protesting wind farms being built on indigenous lands. For the love of god, can you fucking people read an article before commenting, just once?
GenPhallus t1_jakgar0 wrote
No, but we thank you for summarizing the article.
mackinator3 t1_jamda7r wrote
He didn't summarize it. They want to tear down already built windmills.
Creative-Kiwi-1700 t1_jaslagd wrote
All land is fucking indigenous, what the fuck does she want? The reindeer can negotiate the god damn wind turbines so we don't have to burn coal to keep the hospitals on. Jesus christ.
Ray_Pingeau t1_jat0boc wrote
>all land is fucking indigenous
Willful ignorance. Gotta love it.
Safe_Peanut74 t1_jakg6bf wrote
europe: "how america treats black people is abhorrent!"
europe: >this comment section (or worse) whenever indigenous issues or anything related to the romani gets brought up
what a circus
[deleted] t1_jak4e1t wrote
[deleted]
KaisarDragon t1_jal836z wrote
She isn't protesting wind farms. She is protesting where they proposed to build them. A little reading goes a long way, folks...
karstadtt t1_jaly62t wrote
Wherever you build them, there are problems. Build near-shore, costs explode and seagulls get whacked. Build on land, locals complain (noise, health-issues, tourism rate decline, reduction of property value) and hawks and buzzards get whacked.
Same discussion as with nuclear energy. People want clean energy, but please, do not leave the waste near us. Hypocrites everywhere.
Greta is a fool for getting used as a public figure for some local interests. Having only demanded things for years without thinking of the downsides of each solution, she lost all credibility. Her most famous quote is something along the lines of "Our job (as activists) is to demand , not to propose solutions." What a joke.
KaisarDragon t1_jamdxbx wrote
Everything you just said is irrelevant to the article. The point was she isn't protesting wind farms.
karstadtt t1_jaobobx wrote
She is protesting existing wind farms. This means she IS protesting wind farms. Make it harder to build these things and they won't be built at all. She is asking to remove working turbines from a certain area (thus wasting tonnes of precious resources) without suggesting where to put them instead, with all the financial and legal implications that it would have. For example, how to enforce raising turbines near villages where peoples health would be compromised or how much it costs to compensate those people. Again, she is demanding things like a toddler, not proposing a solution.
KaisarDragon t1_jaojarj wrote
She is still protesting where they are built, not wind farms. Look, no matter how you twist it, you need to get rid of that hate boner. You look pathetic.
CascadianExpat t1_jak8soh wrote
This is why I understand why climate change skeptics don’t trust environmentalists. If someone really thinks carbon emissions are going to kill flipping everything on Earth, they wouldn’t be bitching about whether windmills interfere with caribou grazing, or whether dams interfere with salmon spawning, or whether nuclear power plants present some small risk of a meltdown. Why do you expect me to believe you when you tell me I need to get my electricity from more expensive sources or all the caribou will die, if you complain when I try to build a windmill somewhere a caribou might eat?
Edit: ITT, myopic partisans proving my point. Thanks, y’all, you’ve managed to further reduce my faith in humanity.
Flimsy-Cap2224 t1_jak9apc wrote
Wow, you're deeply misinformed about climate change.
CascadianExpat t1_jakckbf wrote
Really? How. Explain why caribou grazing is more important than developing alternative energy generation capacity from a climate change perspective.
AtLeastThisIsntImgur t1_jakdfvy wrote
It called taking a holistic approach. There are downsides to every action. We don't need to cover the entire world with turbines.
jerzd00d t1_jalvzw3 wrote
But we do need to place the wind turbines where there is wind, starting with places where the return on investment is close to the best to increase the percentage of renewable energy as quickly as possible.
Flimsy-Cap2224 t1_jakkgpk wrote
Wow, you're deeply stupid.
CascadianExpat t1_jakmoeg wrote
Please, explain to me how what I said is stupid. If you’re so much smarter, you should be able to.
Flimsy-Cap2224 t1_jaky07b wrote
>Explain why caribou grazing is more important than developing alternative energy generation capacity from a climate change perspective.
Because we can build enough wind turbines to power society without killing caribou that the sami rely on to survive. They're not mutually exclusive. What so hard to figure out?
CascadianExpat t1_jakzfpq wrote
- Windmills aren’t going to kill off the caribou. That’s nonsense.
- We can’t build enough windmills if we scrap every project every time someone comes up with some objection.
- We can’t solve climate change if we won’t allow anyone to have their lives impacted in some way. NIMBYism is bad enough when the stakes are affordability; it’s not acceptable when the stakes are ecological collapse.
fodahmania t1_jalgwc5 wrote
Except you are wrong, because they WILL kill off the reindeer, as the development of windmills and other large scale infrastructure reduce the reindeers grazing areas, which means more reindeer will graze in the same areas, meaning there won’t be enough lichen to sustain all of them. This in turn means that you also kill the livelyhood of many sami. Also, the NIMBY argument is especially ridiculous, since the people who actually want the windmills are putting them very far away from their own neighborhoods.
CascadianExpat t1_jali93m wrote
Windmills have small footprints, and there's no claim in this article that the windmills or associated infrastructure is killing any caribou, let alone a substantial number.
And windmills work better in some areas than others, and not everywhere can support a meaningful number of turbines.
fodahmania t1_jalvgyy wrote
The windmills physically have small footprints, but it is the noise that drive the reindeer off.
Ray_Pingeau t1_jakfut9 wrote
If you read about it, you’ll find that they are protesting them being put on trial indigenous land. People really need to read before commenting on such things.
CascadianExpat t1_jaknpi7 wrote
I understand that. You’re missing the point. If you think climate change is going to lead to massive ecosystem collapse and extinction, worrying about minor disruptions to grazing patterns on “indigenous land” (not actually owned, just ancestrally claimed) is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. There’s literally not one place on the planet where someone can’t make some objection to building power plants. If we stop everywindmill every time someone doesn’t like the location, we are all going to fucking die. It’s the height of idiocy.
Ray_Pingeau t1_jal58od wrote
Your way off topic but, ok. Let’s roll with this.
We have killed off 70% of wildlife.
Ocean temperatures have been rising faster than scientists thought.
Just google fishermen and climate change.
The implications for ecological and economical are there if you look.
CascadianExpat t1_jal63aa wrote
I know. That is why building green power generation is more important than disrupting caribou grazing. You know what else disrupts caribou and arctic indigenous societies? Global warming.
Carbon dioxide emissions are causing a mass extinction, and people who believe that are more worried about bothering a few caribou. It’s insane. These people should be jumping up and down to build every turbine, solar array, reactor, and dam we can muster.
Ray_Pingeau t1_jal75a4 wrote
Let’s just continue killing more animals instead of putting them in places that won’t?
Gotcha
CascadianExpat t1_jal7myp wrote
Please, name me some places in Norway where there will be no environmental impact at all from constructing wind farms. Then explain to me why the possibility of building there is better than actually building windmills here.
This is the problem with environmentalists. Any time we build something, there's going to be an environmental impact. So if solving our CO2 problem is going to require building more zero-emission power generation, we're going to have to tolerate some degree of environmental impact.
The only alternative is to just give up on modernity, blow up the majority of our infrastructure, and ride out the collapse of civilization as we know it. Between that and annoying some caribou, I'll annoy the caribou.
Ray_Pingeau t1_jal7sq4 wrote
You’re going way off topic to make a point. You can have it. Enjoy your victory.
CascadianExpat t1_jal8ejx wrote
I feel like I'm very squarely on point, talking about caribou and wind power in a thread about caribou and wind power.
Ray_Pingeau t1_jala9h9 wrote
I get it. You think that it’s fine to strip another country of its natural habitat for wildlife since the rest are barely hanging on. Kill a few more animals. It’s fine. So long as I can charge my iPad.
Good day
Bitter_Guidance5382 t1_jam7wm8 wrote
“you want to kill animals so you can charge your iPad”
You can’t articulate your point so you throw a tantrum. Wow, very amazing!
Godvivec1 t1_jakpglp wrote
Okay?
Indigenous people aren't effected by climate change? They don't get to do their part? Only non-indigenous people deserve to have their land used for wind energy?
Who knew they were exempt from a life ending crisis. The more you know...
[deleted] t1_jal5fna wrote
[removed]
Vegetable_Foot3715 t1_jake8bn wrote
Yeah I mean you can make a bad faith dumbass argument against anything. Shouldn’t be the job of the people actually trying to change things to handhold you towards the plain truth. Climate skeptics have google and can read the basic facts of climate change themselves. I would call them more like “climate conspiracy theorists.” It’s hard to convince a conspiracy theorist that they’re wrong about anything, as they’re always bending the truth and moving the goalposts. While the skeptics are googling climate change, they can also google why it’s important to respect/protect indigenous peoples’ lands and the wildlife that live on those lands. I’m sure there’s other places that they can put the windfarm.
Climate change is an existential threat. Full stop. It’s not an immediate “right now” threat to the lives of those who live in non coastal, non equatorial countries with modern infrastructure and relative economic stability. Unless you count the lives lost in the increasingly intense storms that are caused by warming waters. We’re already seeing “climate refugees” ie people displaced from their homeland because of the unlivability of their current situation. People are already dying because of climate change. It’s going to get worse and worse if we don’t do anything. It’s that simple, just look it up and read about it
CascadianExpat t1_jako52v wrote
I get all that. That’s why it’s stupid to protest green energy over fucking reindeer grazing. If you tell someone that you think everyone will die off they don’t give up their cheap, reliable electricity, but then throw a fit about windmills because of fancy elk, you lose credibility.
Vegetable_Foot3715 t1_jamejol wrote
You can chew gum and walk at the same time. I disagree with you wholeheartedly. It’s simply not stupid to protest about such things. Why? Because respecting indigenous people matters. Because preserving ecosystems and respecting wildlife matters. It’s possible to prevent/reverse climate change and also do those things. You’re drawing a false equivalence and letting your hate boner for Greta cloud your vision. You’re oversimplifying the issue and trying to make it seem like Greta is undermining peoples efforts to save the climate because of some petty issue she has; while in my view she’s doing the opposite, she’s showing that it’s morally important to her and many others (including myself) that, in the process of creating green energy and getting the planet back on track, we don’t continue to fuck over indigenous people and local wildlife that we have fucked over throughout all of history.
charshine t1_japqw86 wrote
Respecting the earth AND the human beings on it are both equally, and incredibly important
PlantfoodCuisinart t1_jak99th wrote
You don’t think it all kinda comes from the same place? Maybe having a sense of humility about your place in the world, and a desire to be more accommodating to the systems that make the world function?
CascadianExpat t1_jakm8q2 wrote
If the stakes are extinction-level, worrying about disrupting some caribou grazing is insane. If you’re working about caribou grazing, then clearly you’re not really worried about them all going extinct due to habitat loss and ecosystem collapse. If you really do think all the caribou are at risk of extinction, but you insist that any solution not have comparably irrelevant consequences because of some prideful “humility”, then you’re an idiot.
PlantfoodCuisinart t1_jaksfx0 wrote
Some “prideful” humility.
I wish you were satire.
CascadianExpat t1_jakvmhq wrote
I mean it. At the point you’re standing in the way of people trying to prevent catastrophic climate change and ecosystem collapse because you are so wise and humble, it’s not really humility.
PlantfoodCuisinart t1_jakwhlu wrote
You began your little diatribe with “ This is why I understand why climate change skeptics don’t trust environmentalists.”
Something tells me that you “understand” them because you are them. I’m too lazy to search your history, but I bet I wouldn’t have to search too far. You people are painfully disingenuous, and far more transparent than you think that you are.
CascadianExpat t1_jal0owi wrote
> You people are painfully disingenuous, and far more transparent than you think that you are.
And you’re not nearly as smart or perceptive as you think you are. I mean, talk about an ad hominem. “I bet you’re the wrong kind of person because you questioned my political tribe, therefore you’re wrong.”
No, I do believe in climate change. Which is a bummer, because the people I agree with about that are too chickenshit to go after real solutions, and torpedo their credibility by opposing hydro, nuclear, and even wind and solar if they aren’t 100% happy with the location.
Look, if I go with a colleague to convince a neighbor that their pesticide is killing the local bees, and that neighbor offers to switch to an alternative, and my colleague says “absolutely not, my cat might sneeze occasionally if you use that one,” then I can hardly blame my neighbor for thinking my colleague and I are full of shit. It’s the same with climate change.
Greens could have had nuclear and hydro power coming out of their ears 20 years ago if they pitched it as a win-win for climate and “energy independence.” But, in typical fashion, they let perfect be the enemy of the good and insisted that we get rid of existing clean, renewable energy. You can’t do that and then expect people to believe you that climate change is an existential threat.
PlantfoodCuisinart t1_jal431k wrote
Oops, I looked at your history.
You’re a “walk away” total fraud.
CascadianExpat t1_jal5d8v wrote
Back to the ad hominem. You got me, though. Nothing says “doesn’t really care about the environment” like…
checks notes
…occasional participation in subs about distrusting government and industry. No overlap there. Never mind that my last comment there got downvoted because I pointed out that the post was ragebait.
You’re right though, they believe some cRAzy sHit over there. Like some folks really believe COVID leaked from a lab in Wuhan. Total nutters.
Seriously, buddy, take off the political blinders. Just because someone agrees with you about something doesn’t mean they’re going to agree with you about everything. They’ve got you so worked up you’re lashing out at shadows.
PlantfoodCuisinart t1_jal77mr wrote
What are you wasting your time on? I already know what you are. I’m not engaging. You can head back to r/conservative or whatever and cry with your homies.
Bitter_Guidance5382 t1_jam8laa wrote
What an insufferable human you must be.
PlantfoodCuisinart t1_jam9hjh wrote
Here’s “one of the homies” now.
CascadianExpat t1_jal8gk3 wrote
>What are you wasting your time on?
Trying to make someone understand that their myopic polarization is foolhardy, in a vain attempt to maybe help build common ground in a toxic, polarized culture?
>I already know what you are.
That's a neat trick. I don't know what I am. Please, if you can point me to the tribe that is in favor of carbon taxes, nuclear energy, universal healthcare, gun rights, and Jesus, I'll be happy to find them.
>I’m not engaging.
You very clearly are engaging. You're engaging so hard your trawling through my post history to find subs you don't like so you can justify ignoring my good points about the environmental movement sabotaging itself.
obscureposter t1_jak9ngx wrote
You hit the nail on the head. If climate change is an existential threat, then everything else is secondary to that. But here it looks like a caribou grazing patterns are more important than the survival of the human race.
Vegetable_Foot3715 t1_jakemvc wrote
I replied to your comment first but then decided to reply to the other guy. But basically, stop making bad faith dumbass arguments. It’s not our job to handhold your baby smooth brain to the truth, which often has nuance and layers to it. Of course climate change is an existential threat—doesn’t mean that you should just cover the world in wind turbines without thinking critically about where to put them.
GreenBottom18 t1_janc9li wrote
the survival of our race is heavily contingent on the stability of our planets complex intervowen ecosystems.
changing one aspect never ends there. it's always a domino effect
"we don't need to be cautious or mindful, because critical analysis and complex thinking is hard" isn't an argument.
PimpmasterMcGooby t1_jakmw29 wrote
Would you like it if some big corporation started constructing wind turbines in your garden, before getting the proper permits to do so. Then after it's erected, a court ruling says it's illegal. But then nothing gets done about it in 500 days, and people say it should stay in your garden, because it's a nice wind turbine?
A wind farm in a nation that already produces 98% renewable energy, won't magically solve the climate crisis. Nor will letting corporations trample over citizens in pursuit of energy, save the planet.
[deleted] t1_jake3fd wrote
[deleted]
Square-War2619 t1_jal4q48 wrote
I think it's a matter of whether it will impact the indigenous way of life and the actions taken here are legal. IMO the natives should be able to lease the land the same way they lease land for turbines in the states, but that should be negotiated with the government extensively. Secondly, the EPA equivalent should produce studies of the ecological harm with geographical survey data, wind farms do decrease foot traffic, but not by enough.
​
Some basic reading material, not really a nail in the coffin can be found below, breaking down some of the negative impact.
See: HERE
​
The study does seem to support animals are likely to avoid the turbines, but that's by distances of 100s of meters, not kilometers. So, the ecological statement, "all the caribou are going to flee the area," is hard to really support. The next steps should be a public discussion about the implementation of the turbines and surveys of how the caribou are likely to react to a turbine.
Strontium_9T t1_jaswozp wrote
I thought she would have shown some concern over the fact that wind farms annihilate bird populations.
Oh well . .
dMarrs t1_jak3tyx wrote
For fucks sake. Graze around them.
Singer-Such t1_jak7zoc wrote
I think it's about the noise. They probably scare away the reindeer. I do think there is plenty of land elsewhere for them to use and they should respect these people's land
SamJSchoenberg t1_janvhnk wrote
And of course, the land elsewhere will have new and exciting reasons to not use it.
GetlostMaps t1_jak98di wrote
I bet the reindeer get used to it and then don't give a shit.
fodahmania t1_jakyamn wrote
They don’t.
GetlostMaps t1_jal1p76 wrote
How do you know
Citations only.
fodahmania t1_jal46nf wrote
Alright then: ”Results During construction of the wind farms, use of original migration routes and movement corridors within 2 km of development declined by 76 %. This decline in use corresponded to an increase in activity of the reindeer measured by increased step lengths within 0–5 km. The step length was highest nearest the development and declining with distance, as animals moved towards migration corridors and turned around or were observed in holding patterns while not crossing. During construction, reindeer avoided the wind farms at both regional and landscape scale of selection.
Conclusions The combined construction activities associated with even a few wind turbines combined with power lines and roads in or close to central movement corridors caused a reduction in the use of such corridors and grazing habitat and increased the fragmentation of the reindeer calving ranges.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-015-0210-8
And also:
”The establishment of the two small WFs in the calving range clearly changed reindeer habitat selection.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ece3.4476
And also:
”In order to examine the domesticated reindeer’s reactions to various disturbance sources, we reviewed 18 studies of the effects of human activity and infrastructure on 12 populations of domesticated reindeer and compared these to studies on wild reindeer and caribou; based on this, we discuss the effects of domestication and tameness on reindeer responses to anthropogenic disturbance. We also consider the relevance of spatial and temporal scales and data collection methods when evaluating the results of these studies. The reviewed studies showed that domesticated reindeer exhibit avoidance behaviours up to 12 km away from infrastructure and sites of human activity and that the area they avoid may shift between seasons and years. Despite a long domestication process, reindeer within Sami reindeer-herding systems exhibit similar patterns of large-scale avoidance of anthropogenic disturbance as wild Rangifer, although the strength of their response may sometimes differ. This is not surprising since current Sami reindeer husbandry represents an extensive form of pastoralism, and the reindeer are not particularly tame.”
capGpriv t1_jalj887 wrote
“Results during construction”
GetlostMaps t1_jalhgqj wrote
These do not demonstrate that they don't get used. to it. Did you even read what you copypasta'd?
When I asked for citations, implicit to that was that they be studies which demonstrated your point - not random citations for studies which do not demonstrate your point. I apologise. It didn't occur to me that you would fail to understand that the studies needed to agree with, support or demonstrate your point and not be tangentially related but irrelevant. Given you missed the point entirely, I won't bother reading your irrelevant copy pasta. I overestimated you. I'm sorry.
fodahmania t1_jallf3e wrote
It is funny that you specifically demanded citations and then try to make me appear lazy by saying that I just copypasta’d. What did you want me to do, write a little dissertation for you? Anyway: ”We also consider the relevance of spatial and TEMPORAL scales and data collection methods when evaluating the results of these studies.”, this in itself implies that the reindeer don’t ”get used to it”. If you wanted to know more, i included a link in which you’ll find the following information:
”Avoidance of an area with good pasture will evidently result in either increased animal density in alternative areas or use of areas that are otherwise abandoned and presumably of less good quality. Even if reindeer have access to seemingly (to the human eye) high quality pasture, there are large variations in nutritional quality between different plants and plant parts. White (1983) has elegantly illustrated the multiplier effect of the animals’ ability to select highly digestible forage. Using an example associated with reindeer grazing, the author demonstrates how a small increase in plant digestibility (14 %), more than doubles the projected body weight gain. High animal density, restricted availability of edible plants or a smaller portion of plants with high nutritive quality will ultimately impair animal nutrition and negatively affect future survival and reproduction.
During periods of nutritional stress, animals will be especially sensitive to disturbance. As described in Vistnes and Nellemann (2001), and Skarin et al. (2008, 2013), the calving period is a time when female reindeer are particularly sensitive to disturbance. The energy demand associated with lactation is high, and the growth of new vegetation has just started (White 1992). Any disturbance that prevents the female from using the available pasture will thus be detrimental. ”
And
”However, to date, there is little proof of increased tolerance among wild reindeer at the regional scale (Vistnes and Nellemann 2008). For example, wild reindeer in Norway were shown to avoid 10 alpine ski resorts during a 20-year period and did not come back to these areas until ski trails and associated cabins were removed (Nellemann et al. 2010). ”
These are from this study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00300-014-1499-5
riktigtmaxat t1_jaln037 wrote
I'm kind of surprised at the the findings in the last paragraph since in Sweden it's very common to see reindeer in the middle of big ski resorts like Åre.
In Vemdalen they even barricade the town during summer to keep the reindeer out. https://www.instagram.com/p/B0I5CTDoVjW/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
But then again we don't hunt reindeer.
[deleted] t1_jalmlhf wrote
[deleted]
Empathetic_Orch t1_jak68e1 wrote
I mean yeah why can't they? I get that there are some access roads but those shouldn't be very busy.
fodahmania t1_jak7ddo wrote
Wind farms are very noisy and reindeer are very sensitive to disturbances. This in combination with continuous governmental exploitation of colonised land in Sápmi, makes for a good reason to protest this.
SilentSonOfAnarchy t1_jakci7m wrote
Greta stays mad. Poor lady.
newsman0719 t1_jakepm5 wrote
Don’t care. Keep your name in the headlines no matter what the issue
whama820 t1_jakgw2b wrote
There’s just no fucking pleasing some people.
Either the environment is important or it’s not. Don’t the indigenous people live on Earth as well? Are they not equally affected by climate change? Which is it, Greta?
Dry_Grade9885 t1_jalyw0s wrote
I don't get it does she want green energy or not can she just make up hér mind geez because you can't have it both ways either we fill the land with those iron trees or we use energy that pollutes you can't have both
GreenBottom18 t1_janb5x7 wrote
read the article.
we can mindfully place windfarms that aren't disruptive to natural ecosystems or encroach on native reservations.
one of the many lessons we've learned is how fragile our planets essential systems of life are.
there's absolutely no good reason to proceed with haste and wrecklessness
restore_democracy t1_jakbxqh wrote
We don’t care what she does.
[deleted] t1_jakaus6 wrote
[deleted]
Doc-Internet t1_janettf wrote
The deep state are downvoting your comments friend. Keep yelling louder, you'll prove them wrong.
CustosEcheveria t1_jakbqq1 wrote
How does a windmill stop reindeer grazing? Reindeer aren't even endangered. Stupid move.
Liewvkoinsoedt t1_jak6f6x wrote
This, but also the carbon emissions that are created to produce the materials for wind turbines is not worth the clean energy the turbines produce.
HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_jak6s6h wrote
There was a time that this may have been true, but wind farms are definitely net negative on carbon in this decade.
If we're going to discuss this further, we need a source for the claim that they're still net carbon positive (not from an oil company propaganda website).
SunBlindFool t1_jak90y9 wrote
"here's why", got a non-clickbait version?