Unfounded claims about offshore wind threatening whales have surfaced as a flashpoint in the fight over the future of renewable energy.
In recent months, conservatives including former President Donald Trump have claimed construction of offshore wind turbines is killing the giant animals.
Scientists say there is no credible evidence linking offshore wind farms to whale deaths. But that hasn’t stopped conservative groups and ad hoc “not in my back yard”-style anti-development groups from making the connection.
The Associated Press sorts fact from fiction when it comes to whales and wind power as the rare North Atlantic right whale’s migration season gets underway.
If a conservative is against it:
- their claims are likely untrue
- the thing they’re against will cost them money
- the thing probably helps you or others like you
- the thing isn’t something they’re invested in, otherwise they’d be for it
- taken out of the context of politics, a normal, well adjusted person would probably be in favor of the thing
And they don’t actually care about the criticism they levee at it. Who honestly believes they gave a fuck about the whales?
And how many animals have oil spills killed?
Also, military sonar pings.
deleted by creator
Asteroids still #1.
Even ahead of domesticated cats.
Lol!
Fucking asteroids… Outdoing my kitty.
There are valid concerns about building these in sensitive coastal ecosystems (such as kelp forests), but this is the first time I’ve heard someone suggest that whales could be endangered.
I don’t really follow Donald Trump, but that doesn’t surprise me.
I’m concerned, too, but I guess relying on fossil fuels will devastate the ecosystems even further eventually.
There are probably plenty of areas to use that aren’t as sensitive.
Concussions.
But also probably will be some noise signature to these things.
Sure they kill whales. All whales that jump several hundred feet up in the air right into the blades.
Kill whales? What the fuck???
Chop chop chop.
Can whales jump 100 feet out of the water?
Well how else would they get chopped up by a wind turbine?
Since when did conservatives care about whales?
When they could weaponise it against people trying to make the world better.
Contrary to politicians claims
Eh? What politician would clai…
Oh, right, as you were, it’s them again 😂
But it use up the wind 🤪
Like Republicans are anti-whaling anyways… 🙄
The selective outrage over animal rights is such manufactured bullshit. But if I am being honest, democrats, progressives and leftists are all equally culpable in these do nothing virtue signal outrages. If you are wearing leather, eating meat and financing animal factory farming, I don’t wanna hear about your crocodile tears when an imaginary whale or a fictional dog is hurt.
deleted by creator
Not quite, the whole “Enlighten centerist” is a crap feel good argument to side with oppressers out of personal convience, far from a legitimate political perspective.
But this isn’t politics, it’s me as part of the <1% outsider vegan community in a EXTREMELY carnist world. I’m just so bloody tired of people talking about the horrors of “animal abuse” as they pay others to perpetuate it. It’s less centerist, and more annoyance at large scale cognitive dissonance from a historical norm.
people talking about the horrors of “animal abuse” as they pay others to perpetuate it.
no one does that
Paying others to pay others to do something is, via the transitive property, paying others to do something
no one is paying anyone to abuse animals.
If you are … financing animal factory farming,
only bankers do that
What exactly do you think happens to the money you spend at the grocery store on bacon? It goes to the people producing it. And then they make more.
they were already paid before the store bought or received the bacon. and after you spend money, it’s not yours and you can’t decide what happens to it.
Lmao. I hope you are just trolling because that’s a 2nd grade answer. There is no way you are a serious person who has serious opinions about the world.
you can’t decide what happens to it.
But what DOES happen with it? The store restocks.
Removed by mod
5 responses in 3 minutes? Yeah, no. I’m not engaging with whatever tf this is. Using debate terminology does not mean you have a logical argument and I’m not about to go through economic semantics while you play ignorant. Think as you please and I encourage you to tell/show as many people as you can about this interaction.
this is a thought-terminating cliche.
packing 3 appeals to ridicule and a personal attack into 2 sentences is impressive in its own right.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
But what DOES happen with it? The store restocks.
what happens when you buy beans on june 25? the store takes your money, and increases their orders of hotdogs and hamburgers using your money in preparation of july 4. the fact that the store is making that decision is not your fault, it’s theirs. it’s their decision to make.
There is no way you are a serious person who has serious opinions about the world.
this is a personal attack… and an appeal to ridicule, not a rebuttal
I know it’s hard for the communist mind to understand commerce, but when you buy something from the store, that store buys more of that thing to fulfill the demand.
While it’s true that the money I spend on soy milk and tofu goes into the same bank account as the money that pays for bacon and goat brains, stores are aware of what people are buying, and will likely not spend my lentil and black beans money on more dead animals.
The money that you give them for your dead three month old chicken is money that they will spend on more three month old chickens, which those chickens’ producers will spend on making more chickens to kill at three months old. They will spend the money I gave them for my kale and spinach on more kale and spinach.
they don’t segregate the money. it’s fungible and all goes in the same pool. no one is responsible for the decisions they make except the people making the decisions.
This is nonsense, and I think you know it. If you buy a chicken from the store, they will take your few dollars that you spent and spend it on another chicken to replace the one you bought. They may not keep track of which dollar bills were spent on chickens and only use those dollar bills to buy more, but that’s a meaningless distinction. You bought a chicken, and gave the company some number of dollars and now the company is going to spend some number of dollars more on chickens than it otherwise would have. You have paid the company to pay a farm to kill another chicken. You have, via the transitive property, paid for a farm to kill another chicken.
If you buy a chicken from the store, they will take your few dollars that you spent and spend it on another chicken to replace the one you bought.
assuming they are open long enough to place another order, and that they don’t decide to change their inventory levels and become vegan. frankly, i’m not responsible for what they decide in the future. they could take the money and close shop. it’s entirely up to them.
If you keep buying chickens, they will not decide to become vegan. It is entirely up to them, just like it’s entirely up to my friend whether he buys me a burrito from taco bell after I cashapp him $5 for a burrito from taco bell. Worth noting, even though I only transfered $5 from my cashapp to his, and he spent $5 in paper money, I have still facilitated the transfer of $5 into taco bell’s bank account
this is totally disanalogous: no such contract exists between me and the store that has sold me something. I already have the product and they already have the money. if they close shop and run away with the money, that is just as valid as continuing to act as a retailer.
You bought a chicken, and gave the company some number of dollars and now the company is going to spend some number of dollars more on chickens than it otherwise would have.
than it otherwise would have.
this is a counterfactual. it cannot be proven
You have paid the company to pay a farm to kill another chicken.
no. i paid for the food they had at that moment. there is no other transaction for which i am responsible.
You have, via the transitive property, paid for a farm to kill another chicken.
there is no transitive property, unless you think the people running the store and the farm have no free will. i don’t make their decisions for them.
I know it’s you, commie, you’re the only one who replies like this. Did you get banned or something, and had to switch to an alt account?
you’re the only one who replies like this
cogently, on-topic, and without personal attacks?
Imagine being a leftist and not opposing animal exploitation.
iknorite?
Cows are the finest example of the proletariat. The only service they provide to the economy is their body itself, so they are literally stripped of it to enrich others with more power, just an endless cycle of suffering.
Cows also give us milk, which is a massive industry with lots of different products.
The amount of cheese I had last night says otherwise
one has nothing to do with the other
Not only are these claims not true, they are made in bad faith. https://www.aaronhuertas.com/a-field-guide-to-bad-faith-arguments-7-terrible-arguments-in-your-mentions/
Only during whalenados
Last night someone was telling me that the resin they use to make the blades deteriorates over time and covers the area in microplastics. Oh and each turbine needs 40 tonnes of cement which is not carbon neutral.
They main contributors for micro plastics are polyester clothing and car tires. Those people likely use both.
I just want to jump and say that that’s not a good argument. It’s next to impossible to get away from that kinda stuff, same as how saying that a person using an iPhone to write about capitalism being bad is just silly.
The absolute majority of my clothes is 100% cotton. I get jackets and stuff being synthetic, but how often if at all do you even wash them unless you’re going hiking a lot of whatever? And yes, it’s absolutely possible to get away from a lot of this stuff. Just like it is also complete bullshit to claim that wind turbines are major contributors for microplastics. That’s literally flat Earth levels of stupid.
Sure ok. This guy drives Australian road trains. Typically 15 axles, 58 tyres.
we gonna get you on board the fuck cars movement if microplastics are a big enough concern to not build renewable energy? Cus boy let me tell you about tire wear and microplastics.
The old “silver bullet” argument, eh? “X is not a perfect one size fits all solution with no downsides, so must be equally as bad as not doing anything”
I mean thats not really wrong but it reminds me of one of the dipshit oilfield guys I worked with in the wind industry.
“*hyuk hyuk* whats that greasing the gearbox? is that oil? in a so called green energy turbine?”
yeah dude a 2MW tower going through a few dozen gallons of lubricant a year is the same an oil fired plant burning 10,000 barrels in a year for a similar power output(napkin math explained here). You’ve exposed the big secret man, these things are equivalent because there are oil products in both. Numbers are a scam made up to trick god-fearing texans.
The only actual solution is to consume less power, but no one wants to talk about that yet.
What a silly thing to say.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t want to use less power.
I suspect what you really mean is that you want to reduce power requirements by some authoritarian policy.
No, there are many people who explicitly don’t want to use less power. They usually point towards a correlation between societal development and power usage, and imply that using less power would mean we’re sliding back.
A very obvious example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I’ve never heard anyone believe that, certainly not a majority.
I’ve only heard it in the negative. “Economists used to believe that economic progress was tied directly to increased energy use but this data from the last ten years shows otherwise”
It’s not a common position, but it definitely occurs. I’ve seen it on Lemmy a couple of times, and much more often on Hacker News.
What I want is to save the world from overconsumption, and yes, that’s going to require governments rationing power and enforcing efficiency.
Calling that “authoritarian” is nonsense, though. It doesn’t require the army going house to house and killing people with incandescent lightbulbs or something. Grow up.
Sure mate, I guess the question of whether it’s authoritarian is subjective. Suffice to say rationing would be daft. What about roof top solar?
We can’t do that without an extremely exploitative supply chain that uses child slaves to mine for cobalt and lithium, that is built on an imperialist supply chain that subjugates nations under the boot-heel of the likes of the US and France, that releases massive amounts of CO2 and causes huge amounts of deforestation from mining and shipping and manufacturing and installing this “green” technology.
We also can’t do that on a reasonable timeline that will prevent catastrophic warming. The majority of estimates put us past 2040.
Also? You aren’t going to get rooftop solar to replace coal and gas without “authoritarian” measures like mandates and penalties.
What?!? Astro turfed NIMBYism lied to me?
I’m shocked.
I think a great way to offset a windmill’s presence in the ocean bed is to integrate it as an artificial reef. I wonder what other ways it could be a benefit.
Fund whale concussion research, CTE effects on whales, etc.
Do they only kill flying whales or are the others at risk of accidently jumping into the blades, too?
