re: Wind energy company pleads guilty to killing 150 eagles in the US

quote:

---

Oil has done far more damage than wind farms will ever approach.

---

Link?

quote:

---

Link?

---

really man? REALLY?

quote:

---

really man? REALLY?

---

That’s Democrat’s way of saying I concede your point. he’ll never give you links bc he knows there aren’t any to provide so all he has left is making you prove your point. Take it as a win

Wind farms have back up generators (that are used quite often)run by NG

quote:

---

Wind farms have back up generators (that are used quite often)run by NG

---

I'm sure there's a point somewhere.

quote:

---

really man? REALLY

---

Yeah man, really

quote:

---

bats

---

These animals dying in the turbines in the dark don’t get enough attention.

This whole thread is a terrible "gotcha" attempt. Self awareness and context have completely gone out the window.

Seriously, what, exactly, can be done by wind farms to reduce deaths of eagles and other protected birds?

I mean, besides not putting them where these birds fly?

Oil companies get charged for similar crimes against birds. CITGO was charged for "taking" birds that landed in open-air equalization tanks when it knew the likelihood that leaving the tank that way would result in bird deaths.

But the conviction was tossed by the federal appeals court for TX, LA, and MS. The appellate courts are divided on the issue, but this one held that "incidental" taking of birds is not a crime under the MBTA.

quote:

---

The fundamental issue—which has been litigated to different conclusions around the country—is whether a migratory bird that flies into otherwise legal industrial equipment and dies or is injured is a “take” by the operator of the equipment. Put another way, does the MBTA criminalize activities that have a legitimate purpose unrelated to impacting birds?

The Fifth Circuit rejected the lower court’s interpretation of MBTA liability. The court agreed with the Eighth and Ninth Circuits that MBTA liability is “limited to deliberate acts done directly and intentionally to migratory birds.”

... The court ultimately concluded that it would be an absurd result to criminalize “all acts or omissions that directly kill birds, where bird deaths are foreseeable” because it could then mean that “all owners of big windows, communication towers, wind turbines, solar energy farms, cars, cats, and even church steeples may be found guilty of violating the MBTA.”

---

LINK

Other courts disagree, and there has been some effort since to amend the regulations in response to Citgo. Not sure where it all stands now, but it has been a bit of a mess, with the law different depending on which part of the country you were in.