Wind farm gets extended leeway on eagle deaths. So much for caring about the environment and Eco systems.

Killing Bald eagles (and dozens of other birds species)is okay with President Obama as long as it doesn't interfere with advancements in wind energy. Just curious, does anyone at all have a problem with this?

For decades the oil and coal companies have been chastised for their impacts on wildlife and the planet. Am I believe as long as a company is on the right side of the political fence, it's a non-issue?

Views: 38

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Less killing is better than more killing, IMO. If wind farms kill fewer animals than other forms of power, then it's better than those other forms. Not perfect, but I mean, even the plants we eat are usually involved in death--small mice, etc. get run over when clearing fields and such. There may not be much that we can do to make it better.

Your correct that all energy is developed at a cost to the planet but I disagree beyond that.

I don't believe there have been studies that "measure" the impacts on the environment that definitively state wind power kills less than any other form of energy production.

Also, bald eagles have been brought back from the brink of extinction over the past 40 years. Why would we stand by and allow this, not even question it, to happen again for our own selfish reasons? Liberals have cried outrage when banana slugs are threatened by small farmers in this country. Is it all bullsh!t? I wonder if we can really wrap our minds around the impact a BALD EAGLE has on the Eco system. I'm gonna guess most can't

To have an administration, any administration "quietly" relax regulations on bad behavior to suit their own agendas, especially when they're so invested in being the party of the planet, exposes them for the hacks they truly are IMO. To go along with such a notion opens us up to tolerating the same hypocrisy when the other side is in office and does something you don't like. If it weren't for more conservative news sources picking up the story, democrats would barely know there was a story.

As veg@ns, we're suppose to stand for creatures who can't stand for themselves, and call out BAD policy regardless of who writes it. If you're going to make excuses when your guy signs off on stuff like this, you need to stop claiming to corner the market on global peace and harmony. Where animals are concerned, we can't have a "lesser of two evils" attitude.

Since most Veg@n's identify themselves as democrats... Or liberal I thought it would be interesting sociologically to see if the same outrage were present when their guy turns a blind eye to the killing off theses beautiful, innocent creatures, not to mention our country's symbol of greatness. I know had a republican done such a thing, there would be outrage. A few years back Obama "quietly" signed BACK into law a bill that reinstated horse slaughter for human consumption and at the time, you could have heard a liberal pin drop. Interesting only one person had the courage here to express anything at all about this story and that was complacency.

I want to be part of a group that puts politics and energy consumption 2nd to the rights and plights of innocent animals. I would hope that is a basic creed we can all agree on.

If it's at all relevant, I'm a democrat but really don't care who it is doing whatever on this topic and I loathe the implication that I do not care because it's a dem. I would have the exact same reaction if he were republican. Do NOT put words into my mouth or assume my stance. I don't think that animals should be dying.

But if we can't have "lesser of two evils", we get the worse evil, in this case--our society is absolutely immersed in energy consumption, if you haven't noticed. People need their energy, so until we can find an alternative where an absolute minimum of animals are hurt, the "lesser" is probably favorable. I say "absolute minimum" instead of "none" because there is probably almost nothing we can do as humans about anything to eliminate animal pain entirely.

Settling for a "lesser" at the moment doesn't mean we can't also push for and come up with a less harmful way of doing things. 

As for horse slaughter, is that really going to increase meat consumption overall? Is it more important just because it's a horse? It's just a different sort of animal getting hurt. I don't care what sort of animals are getting hurt--if something man-made is hurting or killing them, it's wrong anyway. I don't care if something little like that happens in the meat industry--it just needs to quit being an industry.

But if you have an idea that would continue to get us energy and switch our society over to green energy in a way that doesn't hurt animals and works for the omnivores, go for it. I don't. So long as animal pain is reduced, there is something positive in there.


Support Us


© 2021   Created by Xiao Kang.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service