Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

0

Flimsy-Cap2224 t1_jak9apc wrote

Wow, you're deeply misinformed about climate change.

8

CascadianExpat t1_jakckbf wrote

Really? How. Explain why caribou grazing is more important than developing alternative energy generation capacity from a climate change perspective.

2

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.

6

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.

2

Flimsy-Cap2224 t1_jakkgpk wrote

Wow, you're deeply stupid.

0

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.

−2

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?

5

CascadianExpat t1_jakzfpq wrote

  1. Windmills aren’t going to kill off the caribou. That’s nonsense.
  2. We can’t build enough windmills if we scrap every project every time someone comes up with some objection.
  3. 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.
2

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.

5

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.

0

fodahmania t1_jalvgyy wrote

The windmills physically have small footprints, but it is the noise that drive the reindeer off.

5

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.

7

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.

0

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.

5

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.

1

Ray_Pingeau t1_jal75a4 wrote

Let’s just continue killing more animals instead of putting them in places that won’t?

Gotcha

5

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.

2

Ray_Pingeau t1_jal7sq4 wrote

You’re going way off topic to make a point. You can have it. Enjoy your victory.

8

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.

2

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

5

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!

0

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...

0

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

3

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.

−3

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.

2

charshine t1_japqw86 wrote

Respecting the earth AND the human beings on it are both equally, and incredibly important

1

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?

1

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.

2

PlantfoodCuisinart t1_jaksfx0 wrote

Some “prideful” humility.

I wish you were satire.

−1

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.

2

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.

1

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.

2

PlantfoodCuisinart t1_jal431k wrote

Oops, I looked at your history.

You’re a “walk away” total fraud.

2

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.

1

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.

2

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.

1

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.

−1

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.

9

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.

4

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.

2

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.

−1