Sounded Good at the Time...

Dr. David Horn, bird “expert,” has an article in the latest issue of Wild Bird News®, titled “The impact of wind farms on bird populations.” (Sorry, article does not seem to be available online or I would have linked to it here.) He states, “The presence of wind turbines…can negatively impact bird populations if turbines are not properly placed.”

“What’s a proper location?” you ask. Good question, but complex answer.

Dr. Horn explains it this way:

In order to determine whether proposed wind farms will have an adverse impact on bird populations, it must first be determined whether proposed wind-farm areas contain bird populations that are endangered, threatened, or considered of local importance. Information is needed about where a wind farm would be located relative to migratory flyways and if the area serves as a stopover site for migratory birds.

We’re talking years of Environmental Impact Studies here.

Of course, Dr. Horn isn’t too thrilled with coal as an energy alternative, either:

The use of coal and other nonrenewable resources adversely impacts bird populations by contributing to global warming, promoting acid rain, emitting mercury, and causing the loss of thousands of acres to mining activities.

Definitely, this biology professor is spouting bad science. See the following sampling of articles obtained with simple Google searches (there are plenty more where these came from):

• Global Warming Bombshell
• Global Warming: Charges and Responses
• Wild Species Threatened By Low-Yield Farming, Not Global Warming, Expert Says (Dr. Horn should read this one if he really cares about wild birds.)
• Popper, Hayek and Environmental Regulation
• Victimless Catastrophes
• Senate Barely Squelches Mercury Panic (in the “Junk Science” section)

He also notes “the estimated 1 to 10 fatalities per building per year due to window/bird collisions.”

Maybe the next step is to have windowless buildings – that is, buildings that have no windows in the walls or openings with no panes (“wall-holes”). Gee, maybe we could have bars on the “wall-holes” to keep out the burglars and screens to keep out the bugs (wind, rain, cold, and heat are another matter) – unless, of course, the birds would get harmed flying into either of these. The bars could come in designer styles and colors. Imagine, the Ralph Lauren Polo or Vera Wang line of “wall-hole” bars with matching screens. What we do about the glass and steel office buildings is another dilemma.

Maybe we should all get used to sitting in the dark in our windowless houses without TVs, computers, refrigerators, etc. In other words, like the recent hurricane victims have had to do.

On second thought, let’s put humans back at the top, priority-wise.

Man seems to be increasingly taking a back seat to Nature. The Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Protection Agency are the most adamant about shoving us towards “the back of the bus” (to borrow a civil rights phrase). Houses, offices, stores, schools, churches, roads, etc., cannot be built without an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), holding up construction for months or even years and quite often halting it altogether.

Think I’m exaggerating? Okay, here’s an example:

A couple of years ago, I heard of a man who had purchased land in California with a view of the Pacific. He had recently retired and started planning to build his dream retirement home on his land. He had the house designed, the exact location selected on his land to give him and his wife the perfect “view.” However, the biggest hurdles lay ahead.

You may not know this, but the coastlines of the U.S. are guarded not just be the Coast Guard, but by Coastal Commissions. The California Coastal Commission is particularly vigilant. Unless you have very deep pockets to keep paying the fees they require, you don’t have a hope of building along the coast or even, as the retiree found out, within view from the ocean. Since the planned house would have been visible to boats on the ocean, the commission demanded that the house be moved back. They also didn’t want it to be seen from the road.

Then came the Endangered Species study. Lo and behold, there was an endangered species on this poor retiree’s land. (Big surprise, considering how the list has bloated up since it’s inception.) Some snail or slug was discovered. It had to be preserved no matter what the cost to the retiree who had worked hard all his life, saved his money, purchased this land, and dreamed of a carefree retirement, enjoying that house and the ocean view with his wife. The long driveway to the house had to be redesigned to route around this critter’s habitat. Of course, this increased construction costs by about a third, not to mention the extra surveying and civil design fees.

One after another, roadblocks were put in the retiree’s way to keep him from building on his land. Cost estimates kept rising while he continued to pay fees just to get an approved design. After about a year, the ultimate goal was accomplished. The retiree gave up trying to build on the land and sold it. Let some other poor sucker deal with these tyrants. He had had enough.

This is not just an isolated incident, but one of many examples. I’ll be presenting more in future blogs as time permits.

Let’s face it. There is no way for man, nor any other creature, to exist on this planet without having a negative impact on some other creature (plants included). If we don’t call a halt to such burdensome regulations and restrictions, man will be squeezed, despite higher population numbers, into increasingly smaller areas while the rest of the planet lies fallow, useless, and “protected.”

Now, that’s a “Brave New World.”

If you have a tale similar to the retiree above, please post it here. I'd love to hear about it. Thanks.

Copyright © 2005 A.C. Cargill