Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[Duane]

Don't even have to get to Europe.  I've been under a couple over 10 years
ago and know of others in sunny Arizona. They weren't the typical "farm" as
they vary in size. I hesitate to say many since I don't know the number and
been awhile since I've been there.

Duane


On Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 4:49 PM John Gregoire 
wrote:

> Many in europe and mandated in some areas. Terrific idea. Add dirt instead
> of asphalt and add more benefits.
>
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 1:18 PM sarah fern  wrote:
>
>> Have there been any trials of solar farms located over parking lots?
>> Double benefit: shade for the cars and use of space that otherwise is
>> driving up global warming.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 12:44 AM Colleen Richards  wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Dave for a clear, concise presentation that helps point out
>>> the multiple problems facing us in choosing how we want to live. Ultimate
>>> value choices may not be agreed upon by everyone, though. And that has been
>>> apparent in these posts.
>>>
>>> Thanks for being honest about how birds can be affected by each form of
>>> energy's procurement / usage. That perspective helps to "round out" the
>>> information needed for each person's decision-making.
>>>
>>> In the end, each of us is required to make our own choices, and perhaps
>>> to enter into the public, or political, arena to stand up for those
>>> choices. It has been good to voice our thoughts and to encourage one
>>> another to keep perspective.
>>>
>>> For now I am planning to continue to point out the beauties of nature to
>>> those around me and to educate young people (and older ones, too) to
>>> appreciate and understand our responsibility to care for and about this
>>> world that we have been blessed with.
>>>
>>> Colleen Richards
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: Dave Nutter 
>>> To: CayugaBirds-L b 
>>> Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology
>>> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:43:26 -0400
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carl makes a valid point about the destructiveness to flora and fauna of
>>> large scale solar arrays. Solar panels which cover huge fields should be
>>> called mines, not farms. The arrays’ extraction of energy is industrial,
>>> not biological, and it is done while trying to overcome natural systems, so
>>> the solar arrays disrupt biology. By contrast, a farm harnesses biology
>>> using our soil and rain, and it diverts some of the biological products to
>>> human purposes in a repeatable annual process. When agriculture is
>>> practiced on the scale of a family farm, it can do so in concert with
>>> plants and wildlife in hedgerows, along streams, and around ponds, and
>>> agriculture’s incidental waste products can be more easily absorbed and
>>> used by nature along all those edges. Factory farms differ from traditional
>>> farms because with “efficiency†of scale, they eliminate nature and
>>> nature’s ability to handle agriculture’s side effects. At large scale,
>>> the waste is no longer incidental and absorbed, it is toxic.
>>>
>>> If farm land is abandoned, it can be reclaimed by plants and animals.
>>> When the solar panels wear out in a couple decades, will the regulations
>>> make it worth the effort and expense to recycle the old ones and install
>>> new ones? Or will it be cheaper to abandon those arrays? On my daily walks
>>> I see metal playground equipment in the woods because the City of Ithaca
>>> took it from where the Children’s Garden was being built, and chucked it
>>> alongside the old railroad grade, which became the Black Diamond Trail. I
>>> imagine hundreds of acres of metal of a big solar array, but overgrown
>>> among trees, vines and shrubs.
>>>
>>> For a solar array to work in our climate, vegetation must suppressed.
>>> This can be done by pasturing sheep among them, which makes cute
>>> advertising video, but how often is this practice used? How often is plant
>>> suppression done instead by covering and/or poisoning the soil? This has
>>> effects of heating the ground and speeding rain runoff. How often is plant
>>> suppression among solar arrays done with fossil-fuel powered machinery
>>> which also wastes the plant material? Maybe folks think that’s no big
>>> deal because so much land area is already mown, wasting both plants and

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[John Gregoire]

Many in europe and mandated in some areas. Terrific idea. Add dirt instead
of asphalt and add more benefits.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 1:18 PM sarah fern  wrote:

> Have there been any trials of solar farms located over parking lots?
> Double benefit: shade for the cars and use of space that otherwise is
> driving up global warming.
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 12:44 AM Colleen Richards  wrote:
>
>> Thank you Dave for a clear, concise presentation that helps point out the
>> multiple problems facing us in choosing how we want to live. Ultimate value
>> choices may not be agreed upon by everyone, though. And that has been
>> apparent in these posts.
>>
>> Thanks for being honest about how birds can be affected by each form of
>> energy's procurement / usage. That perspective helps to "round out" the
>> information needed for each person's decision-making.
>>
>> In the end, each of us is required to make our own choices, and perhaps
>> to enter into the public, or political, arena to stand up for those
>> choices. It has been good to voice our thoughts and to encourage one
>> another to keep perspective.
>>
>> For now I am planning to continue to point out the beauties of nature to
>> those around me and to educate young people (and older ones, too) to
>> appreciate and understand our responsibility to care for and about this
>> world that we have been blessed with.
>>
>> Colleen Richards
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: Dave Nutter 
>> To: CayugaBirds-L b 
>> Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology
>> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:43:26 -0400
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Carl makes a valid point about the destructiveness to flora and fauna of
>> large scale solar arrays. Solar panels which cover huge fields should be
>> called mines, not farms. The arrays’ extraction of energy is industrial,
>> not biological, and it is done while trying to overcome natural systems, so
>> the solar arrays disrupt biology. By contrast, a farm harnesses biology
>> using our soil and rain, and it diverts some of the biological products to
>> human purposes in a repeatable annual process. When agriculture is
>> practiced on the scale of a family farm, it can do so in concert with
>> plants and wildlife in hedgerows, along streams, and around ponds, and
>> agriculture’s incidental waste products can be more easily absorbed and
>> used by nature along all those edges. Factory farms differ from traditional
>> farms because with “efficiency†of scale, they eliminate nature and
>> nature’s ability to handle agriculture’s side effects. At large scale,
>> the waste is no longer incidental and absorbed, it is toxic.
>>
>> If farm land is abandoned, it can be reclaimed by plants and animals.
>> When the solar panels wear out in a couple decades, will the regulations
>> make it worth the effort and expense to recycle the old ones and install
>> new ones? Or will it be cheaper to abandon those arrays? On my daily walks
>> I see metal playground equipment in the woods because the City of Ithaca
>> took it from where the Children’s Garden was being built, and chucked it
>> alongside the old railroad grade, which became the Black Diamond Trail. I
>> imagine hundreds of acres of metal of a big solar array, but overgrown
>> among trees, vines and shrubs.
>>
>> For a solar array to work in our climate, vegetation must suppressed.
>> This can be done by pasturing sheep among them, which makes cute
>> advertising video, but how often is this practice used? How often is plant
>> suppression done instead by covering and/or poisoning the soil? This has
>> effects of heating the ground and speeding rain runoff. How often is plant
>> suppression among solar arrays done with fossil-fuel powered machinery
>> which also wastes the plant material? Maybe folks think that’s no big
>> deal because so much land area is already mown, wasting both plants and
>> fossil fuel, but I think mowing should be drastically scaled back. A
>> reasonable sized personal lawn is the area a person can keep mowed with a
>> reel mower pushed by hand without using fossil fuel. It’s not worth
>> adding to the destruction of the natural climate, flora, and fauna in order
>> to have a bigger lawn than one actually uses.
>>
>> So, yes, I agree, big solar arrays are poor for plants & animals. I also
>> see at least 3 other parts to the equation as we evaluate the harm and
>> benefit of solar arrays. What did the solar arrays replace on the
>> landscape? What were the sol

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology, not a "vs"

[David G. Russell]

Bye everyone.  Can get this elsewhere.

On Jun 11, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Karen 
mailto:confergoldw...@aol.com>> wrote:


Aw. Come on. If you are going to carry out a prolonged discussion on this 
theme, at least you could get the definition of the main terms correct.  
Ecology is a science that tries to objectively describe the natural world, and 
derive predictions about objectively measured interactions. Conservation is a 
value-laden effort to protect one ecological interaction. They are not in 
conflict.

FYI

Human death rates

<1686510741334blob.jpg>




Estimated bird mortality by cause.
"There's no standardized way of doing it that everyone can agree to," says 
Garry George, renewable energy director for Audubon California – but when it 
comes to bird kills by the electricity industry, here's the approximate pecking 
order:


Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 
28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological 
Diversity.

Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, 
according to a December 2013 study 
 published 
in the journal Biological Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more 
birds.

Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil 
fields, the Bureau of Land 
Management
 said in a December 2012 memo.

Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, 
according to analysis 
 by 
Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. 
His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and 
climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour 
of energy generated by coal.


Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s 
calculations.

Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission 
lines, according to a study 

 published July 3 in the journal PLOS ONE.

All told, felines kill 1.4 to 3.7 billionbirds a year.


--
Cayugabirds-L List Info:
Welcome and Basics
Rules and Information
Subscribe, Configuration and 
Leave
Archives:
The Mail 
Archive
Surfbirds
BirdingOnThe.Net
Please submit your observations to eBird!
--
<1686510741334blob.jpg>



--

Cayugabirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsWELCOME
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsRULES
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/cayugabirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/Cayugabirds
3) http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/CAYU.html

Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

--

Re:[cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology, not a "vs"

[Karen]

 
Aw. Come on. If you are going to carry out a prolonged discussion on this 
theme, at least you could get the definition of the main terms correct.  
Ecology is a science that tries to objectively describe the natural world, and 
derive predictions about objectively measured interactions. Conservation is a 
value-laden effort to protect one ecological interaction. They are not in 
conflict. 
FYI
Human death rates




Estimated bird mortality by cause."There's no standardized way of doing it that 
everyone can agree to," says Garry George, renewable energy director for 
Audubon California – but when it comes to bird kills by the electricity 
industry, here's the approximate pecking order:


Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 
28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological 
Diversity.

Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, 
according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological 
Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more birds.

Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil 
fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.
Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, 
according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center 
for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining 
to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds 
per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.

Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s calculations.

Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission 
lines, according to a study published July 3 in the journal PLOS ONE.

All told, felines kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds a year. 


  
--

Cayugabirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsWELCOME
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsRULES
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/cayugabirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/Cayugabirds
3) http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/CAYU.html

Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

--

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[sarah fern]

Have there been any trials of solar farms located over parking lots? Double
benefit: shade for the cars and use of space that otherwise is driving up
global warming.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 12:44 AM Colleen Richards  wrote:

> Thank you Dave for a clear, concise presentation that helps point out the
> multiple problems facing us in choosing how we want to live. Ultimate value
> choices may not be agreed upon by everyone, though. And that has been
> apparent in these posts.
>
> Thanks for being honest about how birds can be affected by each form of
> energy's procurement / usage. That perspective helps to "round out" the
> information needed for each person's decision-making.
>
> In the end, each of us is required to make our own choices, and perhaps to
> enter into the public, or political, arena to stand up for those choices.
> It has been good to voice our thoughts and to encourage one another to keep
> perspective.
>
> For now I am planning to continue to point out the beauties of nature to
> those around me and to educate young people (and older ones, too) to
> appreciate and understand our responsibility to care for and about this
> world that we have been blessed with.
>
> Colleen Richards
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: Dave Nutter 
> To: CayugaBirds-L b 
> Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology
> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:43:26 -0400
>
>
>
>
>
> Carl makes a valid point about the destructiveness to flora and fauna of
> large scale solar arrays. Solar panels which cover huge fields should be
> called mines, not farms. The arrays’ extraction of energy is industrial,
> not biological, and it is done while trying to overcome natural systems, so
> the solar arrays disrupt biology. By contrast, a farm harnesses biology
> using our soil and rain, and it diverts some of the biological products to
> human purposes in a repeatable annual process. When agriculture is
> practiced on the scale of a family farm, it can do so in concert with
> plants and wildlife in hedgerows, along streams, and around ponds, and
> agriculture’s incidental waste products can be more easily absorbed and
> used by nature along all those edges. Factory farms differ from traditional
> farms because with “efficiency†of scale, they eliminate nature and
> nature’s ability to handle agriculture’s side effects. At large scale,
> the waste is no longer incidental and absorbed, it is toxic.
>
> If farm land is abandoned, it can be reclaimed by plants and animals. When
> the solar panels wear out in a couple decades, will the regulations make it
> worth the effort and expense to recycle the old ones and install new ones?
> Or will it be cheaper to abandon those arrays? On my daily walks I see
> metal playground equipment in the woods because the City of Ithaca took it
> from where the Children’s Garden was being built, and chucked it
> alongside the old railroad grade, which became the Black Diamond Trail. I
> imagine hundreds of acres of metal of a big solar array, but overgrown
> among trees, vines and shrubs.
>
> For a solar array to work in our climate, vegetation must suppressed. This
> can be done by pasturing sheep among them, which makes cute advertising
> video, but how often is this practice used? How often is plant suppression
> done instead by covering and/or poisoning the soil? This has effects of
> heating the ground and speeding rain runoff. How often is plant suppression
> among solar arrays done with fossil-fuel powered machinery which also
> wastes the plant material? Maybe folks think that’s no big deal because
> so much land area is already mown, wasting both plants and fossil fuel, but
> I think mowing should be drastically scaled back. A reasonable sized
> personal lawn is the area a person can keep mowed with a reel mower pushed
> by hand without using fossil fuel. It’s not worth adding to the
> destruction of the natural climate, flora, and fauna in order to have a
> bigger lawn than one actually uses.
>
> So, yes, I agree, big solar arrays are poor for plants & animals. I also
> see at least 3 other parts to the equation as we evaluate the harm and
> benefit of solar arrays. What did the solar arrays replace on the
> landscape? What were the solar arrays built instead of for energy? How much
> energy do we need?
>
> In our moist temperate region, the land was mostly forested until being
> cleared for agriculture, which was a big investment. Abandoned agricultural
> land can, through succession, become meadows, shrub fields, and secondary
> forest, all of which harbor a wide variety of birds, but that’s a value
> we take for granted, not one with a price tag on it. People generally like
> and are upli

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[Colleen Richards]

Thank you Dave for a clear, concise presentation that helps point out the 
multiple problems facing us in choosing how we want to live. Ultimate value 
choices may not be agreed upon by everyone, though. And that has been apparent 
in these posts. Thanks for being honest about how birds can be affected by each 
form of energy's procurement / usage. That perspective helps to "round out" the 
information needed for each person's decision-making. In the end, each of us is 
required to make our own choices, and perhaps to enter into the public, or 
political, arena to stand up for those choices. It has been good to voice our 
thoughts and to encourage one another to keep perspective. For now I am 
planning to continue to point out the beauties of nature to those around me and 
to educate young people (and older ones, too) to appreciate and understand our 
responsibility to care for and about this world that we have been blessed with. 
Colleen Richards

-- Original Message --
From: Dave Nutter 
To: CayugaBirds-L b 
Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:43:26 -0400


Carl makes a valid point about the destructiveness to flora and fauna of 
large scale solar arrays. Solar panels which cover huge fields should be called 
mines, not farms. The arrays’ extraction of energy is industrial, 
not biological, and it is done while trying to overcome natural systems, so the 
solar arrays disrupt biology. By contrast, a farm harnesses biology using our 
soil and rain, and it diverts some of the biological products to human purposes 
in a repeatable annual process. When agriculture is practiced on the scale of a 
family farm, it can do so in concert with plants and wildlife in hedgerows, 
along streams, and around ponds, and agriculture’s incidental 
waste products can be more easily absorbed and used by nature along all those 
edges. Factory farms differ from traditional farms because with 
“efficiency� of scale, they eliminate nature and 
nature’s ability to handle agriculture’s side 
effects. At large scale, the waste is no longer incidental and absorbed, it is 
toxic.  If farm land is abandoned, it can be reclaimed by plants and animals. 
When the solar panels wear out in a couple decades, will the regulations make 
it worth the effort and expense to recycle the old ones and install new ones? 
Or will it be cheaper to abandon those arrays? On my daily walks I see metal 
playground equipment in the woods because the City of Ithaca took it from where 
the Children’s Garden was being built, and chucked it alongside 
the old railroad grade, which became the Black Diamond Trail. I imagine 
hundreds of acres of metal of a big solar array, but overgrown among trees, 
vines and shrubs.  For a solar array to work in our climate, vegetation must 
suppressed. This can be done by pasturing sheep among them, which makes cute 
advertising video, but how often is this practice used? How often is plant 
suppression done instead by covering and/or poisoning the soil? This has 
effects of heating the ground and speeding rain runoff. How often is plant 
suppression among solar arrays done with fossil-fuel powered machinery which 
also wastes the plant material? Maybe folks think that’s no big 
deal because so much land area is already mown, wasting both plants and fossil 
fuel, but I think mowing should be drastically scaled back. A reasonable sized 
personal lawn is the area a person can keep mowed with a reel mower pushed by 
hand without using fossil fuel. It’s not worth adding to the 
destruction of the natural climate, flora, and fauna in order to have a bigger 
lawn than one actually uses.  So, yes, I agree, big solar arrays are poor for 
plants & animals. I also see at least 3 other parts to the equation as we 
evaluate the harm and benefit of solar arrays. What did the solar arrays 
replace on the landscape? What were the solar arrays built instead of for 
energy? How much energy do we need?  In our moist temperate region, the land 
was mostly forested until being cleared for agriculture, which was a big 
investment. Abandoned agricultural land can, through succession, become 
meadows, shrub fields, and secondary forest, all of which harbor a wide variety 
of birds, but that’s a value we take for granted, not one with a 
price tag on it. People generally like and are uplifted by wild birds, and some 
of us are passionate about them. But abandoned farmland is considered 
“unproductive� by those who tax the land, and therefore 
also by those who own the land, so this habitat is apt to be shredded and 
converted to a large scale solar array. I’ve certainly seen that 
happen. If we as a society can literally value land which supports a diversity 
of birds, then less will be turned into long-term non-bird-habitat.  My 
impression is that most agricultural land around here is for corn, and 
I’ve also seen some cornfields 

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[sarah fern]

About that trip to Mars: How can we justify spending $$ on Mars adventures
when we have so much to do to preserve this planet and keep it liveable for
generations of all species in the future? People in this country are dying
because of misspent funds, plus we are causing extinctions constantly.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 3:49 PM Regi Teasley  wrote:

> Dave,
>Thank you for this thoughtful response.  This is a very important
> conversation.
> I wanted to share something I saved from The NY Times,  Oct . 17, 2021 by
> Carin Einhorn.  I think it’s about the conference on Biodiversity (part of
> COP 27?):
>
> The debate underscores a central tension coursing through the biodiversity
> negotiations.
> “If this becomes purely a conservation plan for nature, this is going to
> fail,” said Basil van Havre, a leader, with Mr. Ogwal, of one of the
> convention’s working groups. “What we need is a plan for nature and for
> people.”
>   With the global human population still increasing, scientists say that
> transformational change is required for the planet to be able to sustain us.
> **  “We actually need to see every human endeavor, if you will, through
> the lens of biodiversity and nature,” Dr. Lariguaderie said.  Since
> everyone depends on nature, she noted, “everyone is part of the solution.”
>
> (** my emphasis)
> ———
>
> Frankly, my opinion, if anyone is interested, is that we should be
> very thankful to live on this marvelous planet with its thin film of
> biodiversity.   We should grow up and realize that we are one species among
> so many, and a latecomer at that.  Our myths must change now so that we can
> cooperate and self-restrain rather than foolishly thinking we can dominate
> nature.  Every other species has as much “right” to live here as we do.
> For those who are happy to live with humans on a dead planet, I urge them
> to plan to go to Mars.  That might be possible before too long.  Meanwhile,
> let’s love and cherish our Mother Earth now.  Here I quote a Turkish
> proverb:  “No matter how far you have gone down the wrong road, turn back.”
>
> ‘Nuff said.
> Regi
>
> 
> Creativity is the heart of adaptive evolution.
> Terry Tempest Williams
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2023, at 5:43 PM, Dave Nutter  wrote:
>
> 
> Carl makes a valid point about the destructiveness to flora and fauna of
> large scale solar arrays. Solar panels which cover huge fields should be
> called mines, not farms. The arrays’ extraction of energy is industrial,
> not biological, and it is done while trying to overcome natural systems, so
> the solar arrays disrupt biology. By contrast, a farm harnesses biology
> using our soil and rain, and it diverts some of the biological products to
> human purposes in a repeatable annual process. When agriculture is
> practiced on the scale of a family farm, it can do so in concert with
> plants and wildlife in hedgerows, along streams, and around ponds, and
> agriculture’s incidental waste products can be more easily absorbed and
> used by nature along all those edges. Factory farms differ from traditional
> farms because with “efficiency” of scale, they eliminate nature and
> nature’s ability to handle agriculture’s side effects. At large scale, the
> waste is no longer incidental and absorbed, it is toxic.
>
> If farm land is abandoned, it can be reclaimed by plants and animals. When
> the solar panels wear out in a couple decades, will the regulations make it
> worth the effort and expense to recycle the old ones and install new ones?
> Or will it be cheaper to abandon those arrays? On my daily walks I see
> metal playground equipment in the woods because the City of Ithaca took it
> from where the Children’s Garden was being built, and chucked it alongside
> the old railroad grade, which became the Black Diamond Trail. I imagine
> hundreds of acres of metal of a big solar array, but overgrown among trees,
> vines and shrubs.
>
> For a solar array to work in our climate, vegetation must suppressed. This
> can be done by pasturing sheep among them, which makes cute advertising
> video, but how often is this practice used? How often is plant suppression
> done instead by covering and/or poisoning the soil? This has effects of
> heating the ground and speeding rain runoff. How often is plant suppression
> among solar arrays done with fossil-fuel powered machinery which also
> wastes the plant material? Maybe folks think that’s no big deal because so
> much land area is already mown, wasting both plants and fossil fuel, but I
> think mowing should be drastically scaled back. A reasonable sized personal
> lawn is the area a person can keep mowed with a reel mower pushed by hand
> without using fossil fuel. It’s not worth adding to the destruction of the
> natural climate, flora, and fauna in order to have a bigger lawn than one
> actually uses.
>
> So, yes, I agree, big solar arrays are poor for plants & animals. I also
> see at least 3 other parts to the equation as we evalu

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[Regi Teasley]

Dave,   Thank you for this thoughtful response.  This is a very important conversation.I wanted to share something I saved from The NY Times,  Oct . 17, 2021 by Carin Einhorn.  I think it’s about the conference on Biodiversity (part of COP 27?):    The debate underscores a central tension coursing through the biodiversity negotiations.  “If this becomes purely a conservation plan for nature, this is going to fail,” said Basil van Havre, a leader, with Mr. Ogwal, of one of the convention’s working groups. “What we need is a plan for nature and for people.”  With the global human population still increasing, scientists say that transformational change is required for the planet to be able to sustain us.**  “We actually need to see every human endeavor, if you will, through the lens of biodiversity and nature,” Dr. Lariguaderie said.  Since everyone depends on nature, she noted, “everyone is part of the solution.”(** my emphasis)———    Frankly, my opinion, if anyone is interested, is that we should be very thankful to live on this marvelous planet with its thin film of biodiversity.   We should grow up and realize that we are one species among so many, and a latecomer at that.  Our myths must change now so that we can cooperate and self-restrain rather than foolishly thinking we can dominate nature.  Every other species has as much “right” to live here as we do.  For those who are happy to live with humans on a dead planet, I urge them to plan to go to Mars.  That might be possible before too long.  Meanwhile, let’s love and cherish our Mother Earth now.  Here I quote a Turkish proverb:  “No matter how far you have gone down the wrong road, turn back.”‘Nuff said.RegiCreativity is the heart of adaptive evolution.Terry Tempest WilliamsOn Jun 7, 2023, at 5:43 PM, Dave Nutter  wrote:Carl makes a valid point about the destructiveness to flora and fauna of large scale solar arrays. Solar panels which cover huge fields should be called mines, not farms. The arrays’ extraction of energy is industrial, not biological, and it is done while trying to overcome natural systems, so the solar arrays disrupt biology. By contrast, a farm harnesses biology using our soil and rain, and it diverts some of the biological products to human purposes in a repeatable annual process. When agriculture is practiced on the scale of a family farm, it can do so in concert with plants and wildlife in hedgerows, along streams, and around ponds, and agriculture’s incidental waste products can be more easily absorbed and used by nature along all those edges. Factory farms differ from traditional farms because with “efficiency” of scale, they eliminate nature and nature’s ability to handle agriculture’s side effects. At large scale, the waste is no longer incidental and absorbed, it is toxic. If farm land is abandoned, it can be reclaimed by plants and animals. When the solar panels wear out in a couple decades, will the regulations make it worth the effort and expense to recycle the old ones and install new ones? Or will it be cheaper to abandon those arrays? On my daily walks I see metal playground equipment in the woods because the City of Ithaca took it from where the Children’s Garden was being built, and chucked it alongside the old railroad grade, which became the Black Diamond Trail. I imagine hundreds of acres of metal of a big solar array, but overgrown among trees, vines and shrubs. For a solar array to work in our climate, vegetation must suppressed. This can be done by pasturing sheep among them, which makes cute advertising video, but how often is this practice used? How often is plant suppression done instead by covering and/or poisoning the soil? This has effects of heating the ground and speeding rain runoff. How often is plant suppression among solar arrays done with fossil-fuel powered machinery which also wastes the plant material? Maybe folks think that’s no big deal because so much land area is already mown, wasting both plants and fossil fuel, but I think mowing should be drastically scaled back. A reasonable sized personal lawn is the area a person can keep mowed with a reel mower pushed by hand without using fossil fuel. It’s not worth adding to the destruction of the natural climate, flora, and fauna in order to have a bigger lawn than one actually uses. So, yes, I agree, big solar arrays are poor for plants & animals. I also see at least 3 other parts to the equation as we evaluate the harm and benefit of solar arrays. What did the solar arrays replace on the landscape? What were the solar arrays built instead of for energy? How much energy do we need? In our moist temperate region, the land was mostly forested until being cleared for agriculture, which was a big investment. Abandoned agricultural land can, through succession, become meadows, shrub fields, and secondary forest, all of which harbor a wide variety of birds, but that’s a value we take for granted, not one with a price tag on it. People g

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[Dave Nutter]

Carl makes a valid point about the destructiveness to flora and fauna of large 
scale solar arrays. Solar panels which cover huge fields should be called 
mines, not farms. The arrays’ extraction of energy is industrial, not 
biological, and it is done while trying to overcome natural systems, so the 
solar arrays disrupt biology. By contrast, a farm harnesses biology using our 
soil and rain, and it diverts some of the biological products to human purposes 
in a repeatable annual process. When agriculture is practiced on the scale of a 
family farm, it can do so in concert with plants and wildlife in hedgerows, 
along streams, and around ponds, and agriculture’s incidental waste products 
can be more easily absorbed and used by nature along all those edges. Factory 
farms differ from traditional farms because with “efficiency” of scale, they 
eliminate nature and nature’s ability to handle agriculture’s side effects. At 
large scale, the waste is no longer incidental and absorbed, it is toxic. 

If farm land is abandoned, it can be reclaimed by plants and animals. When the 
solar panels wear out in a couple decades, will the regulations make it worth 
the effort and expense to recycle the old ones and install new ones? Or will it 
be cheaper to abandon those arrays? On my daily walks I see metal playground 
equipment in the woods because the City of Ithaca took it from where the 
Children’s Garden was being built, and chucked it alongside the old railroad 
grade, which became the Black Diamond Trail. I imagine hundreds of acres of 
metal of a big solar array, but overgrown among trees, vines and shrubs. 

For a solar array to work in our climate, vegetation must suppressed. This can 
be done by pasturing sheep among them, which makes cute advertising video, but 
how often is this practice used? How often is plant suppression done instead by 
covering and/or poisoning the soil? This has effects of heating the ground and 
speeding rain runoff. How often is plant suppression among solar arrays done 
with fossil-fuel powered machinery which also wastes the plant material? Maybe 
folks think that’s no big deal because so much land area is already mown, 
wasting both plants and fossil fuel, but I think mowing should be drastically 
scaled back. A reasonable sized personal lawn is the area a person can keep 
mowed with a reel mower pushed by hand without using fossil fuel. It’s not 
worth adding to the destruction of the natural climate, flora, and fauna in 
order to have a bigger lawn than one actually uses. 

So, yes, I agree, big solar arrays are poor for plants & animals. I also see at 
least 3 other parts to the equation as we evaluate the harm and benefit of 
solar arrays. What did the solar arrays replace on the landscape? What were the 
solar arrays built instead of for energy? How much energy do we need? 

In our moist temperate region, the land was mostly forested until being cleared 
for agriculture, which was a big investment. Abandoned agricultural land can, 
through succession, become meadows, shrub fields, and secondary forest, all of 
which harbor a wide variety of birds, but that’s a value we take for granted, 
not one with a price tag on it. People generally like and are uplifted by wild 
birds, and some of us are passionate about them. But abandoned farmland is 
considered “unproductive” by those who tax the land, and therefore also by 
those who own the land, so this habitat is apt to be shredded and converted to 
a large scale solar array. I’ve certainly seen that happen. If we as a society 
can literally value land which supports a diversity of birds, then less will be 
turned into long-term non-bird-habitat. 

My impression is that most agricultural land around here is for corn, and I’ve 
also seen some cornfields replaced by solar arrays. What’s the impact on birds? 
What do we lose when a cornfield is replaced by a solar array? Cornfields are 
lousy habitat for breeding birds, but blackbirds feed there in spring and 
autumn, and waterfowl may feed there in winter. If old-fashioned manure is 
spread, then Horned Larks, Snow Buntings, and a few Lapland Longspurs may visit 
to feed. And if they are quick about it, Horned Larks might nest on the bare 
dirt before farmers get too active there. Pesticides used on corn affects 
insects, birds, and aquatic animals beyond the fields. What is the corn used 
for? Regulations require ethanol to be added to gasoline. Ethanol is easy to 
make from corn, so lots of corn goes there, which helps keep corn prices high 
and lots of land in corn, even though corn takes so much energy to produce, 
what with pesticides & fertilizers & machines, that adding ethanol from corn 
increases the carbon footprint of the gasoline. Maybe the sway of 
corn-producing states, especially Iowa with its early caucus, is some of the 
politics Carl mentioned. Another big use of corn is for high-fructose corn 
syrup, a cheap sweetener which is a big ingredient of many processed

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[Kelly Sams]

I agree with Sarah... Conservation isn't really a wildlife issue, but a
"people" issue. Humans are part of Ecology. We need to figure out how we
can all get along.
Kelly

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, 6:27 PM sarah fern  wrote:

> Well, there are so many sides to this issue. But no one wants to address
> the elephant in the room. The most effective thing we can do is limit our
> reproduction. Period.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 1:13 PM Mary Cronk  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> I am finding that solar/wind is another topic and maybe this is not the
>> forum?
>>
>> I am on so many lists for sierra club... i was hoping this was not going
>> to be more debating or lobbying.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> But if it is ok with the club, then i can just not read all the posts
>> relating to energy.
>> But i must say,  oil and gas has not been so great... just saying...
>>
>>
>> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>> --
>> *From:* bounce-127449912-78135...@list.cornell.edu <
>> bounce-127449912-78135...@list.cornell.edu> on behalf of John Gregoire <
>> johnandsuegrego...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 4, 2023 7:45:02 AM
>> *To:* t...@ottcmail.com 
>> *Cc:* Carl Steckler ; CAYUGABIRDS-L <
>> cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology
>>
>> A few points on this discussion. Firstly, wind turbine siting is not
>> governed by law or even regulations. Instead there exist only
>> "suggestions". The American Bird Conservancy has been fighting for many
>> years to get the government to make the "suggestions" into "law" or
>> "requirements". If an Environmental Impact Study is called  for, then this
>> is the only recourse and the best way for individuals can comment. There
>> are a few wind power farms that have mechanisms in place to
>> shut down during heavy migratory flights.
>>
>> Perhaps activists were too absorbed to suggest safe nuclear power. I have
>> never understood why that industry has not hired ex Navy, or followed the
>> practices of our Navy which has run nuclear power safely for decades.
>>
>> Agriculture is no longer small farms where "the farmers are stewards of
>> the earth" but huge enterprises working on the principle of Economy of
>> Mass. Locally we see this in dairy farms and their manure slurry disposal.
>> To me that is a huge human health problem as well as the cause of the
>> disappearance of small wetlands, diversion of streams and destruction of
>> hedgerows and woodlots, all of which are highly imperiled by the recent
>> SCOTUS decision.
>>
>> I hope that we can have such discussion without attacking each other.
>>
>> Pax,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 10:05 PM  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> I see no need for any fire storm, but I do disagree with your premise.  I
>> want to be a climate activist precisely *because* I want to be a
>> conservationist preserving what we have locally on the planet as a whole.
>> Unless we can reduce climate change, it will wipe out many many more plants
>> and animals - it already is doing that.  The weather patterns that result,
>> including extreme droughts and resulting wildfires, increased summer heat
>> in many areas, warming oceans that increase the frequency and severity of
>> coastal storms, sea level rise, more intense inland storms due to warmer
>> air holding more moisture - all these factors lead to the destruction of
>> plant and animal life with dramatic effectiveness.  As you point out, even
>> though some animals can move (assuming there is time and opportunity for
>> them in a particular situation, and they have habitat to support them in a
>> different area), plants often can't.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that putting a wind turbine in the middle of a known
>> migration route and running it during migration is a good decision IMO.
>> Similarly, building solar projects without considering the overall needs of
>> grassland birds is not good conservation (although at least where I live
>> the grasslands are being gobbled up by new vineyards and new housing and
>> parking areas rather than solar projects).  People like you who see value
>> in conserving what is here can look at the options and help ensure that
>> green energy projects are designed and & sited in ways that protect as much
>> of the existing ecology as possible.  Only if people who care & are
>> knowledgeable about the damag

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[sarah fern]

Well, there are so many sides to this issue. But no one wants to address
the elephant in the room. The most effective thing we can do is limit our
reproduction. Period.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 1:13 PM Mary Cronk  wrote:

> Hi
> I am finding that solar/wind is another topic and maybe this is not the
> forum?
>
> I am on so many lists for sierra club... i was hoping this was not going
> to be more debating or lobbying.
>
> Mary
>
> But if it is ok with the club, then i can just not read all the posts
> relating to energy.
> But i must say,  oil and gas has not been so great... just saying...
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> --
> *From:* bounce-127449912-78135...@list.cornell.edu <
> bounce-127449912-78135...@list.cornell.edu> on behalf of John Gregoire <
> johnandsuegrego...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 4, 2023 7:45:02 AM
> *To:* t...@ottcmail.com 
> *Cc:* Carl Steckler ; CAYUGABIRDS-L <
> cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology
>
> A few points on this discussion. Firstly, wind turbine siting is not
> governed by law or even regulations. Instead there exist only
> "suggestions". The American Bird Conservancy has been fighting for many
> years to get the government to make the "suggestions" into "law" or
> "requirements". If an Environmental Impact Study is called  for, then this
> is the only recourse and the best way for individuals can comment. There
> are a few wind power farms that have mechanisms in place to
> shut down during heavy migratory flights.
>
> Perhaps activists were too absorbed to suggest safe nuclear power. I have
> never understood why that industry has not hired ex Navy, or followed the
> practices of our Navy which has run nuclear power safely for decades.
>
> Agriculture is no longer small farms where "the farmers are stewards of
> the earth" but huge enterprises working on the principle of Economy of
> Mass. Locally we see this in dairy farms and their manure slurry disposal.
> To me that is a huge human health problem as well as the cause of the
> disappearance of small wetlands, diversion of streams and destruction of
> hedgerows and woodlots, all of which are highly imperiled by the recent
> SCOTUS decision.
>
> I hope that we can have such discussion without attacking each other.
>
> Pax,
> John
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 10:05 PM  wrote:
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> I see no need for any fire storm, but I do disagree with your premise.  I
> want to be a climate activist precisely *because* I want to be a
> conservationist preserving what we have locally on the planet as a whole.
> Unless we can reduce climate change, it will wipe out many many more plants
> and animals - it already is doing that.  The weather patterns that result,
> including extreme droughts and resulting wildfires, increased summer heat
> in many areas, warming oceans that increase the frequency and severity of
> coastal storms, sea level rise, more intense inland storms due to warmer
> air holding more moisture - all these factors lead to the destruction of
> plant and animal life with dramatic effectiveness.  As you point out, even
> though some animals can move (assuming there is time and opportunity for
> them in a particular situation, and they have habitat to support them in a
> different area), plants often can't.
>
> That doesn't mean that putting a wind turbine in the middle of a known
> migration route and running it during migration is a good decision IMO.
> Similarly, building solar projects without considering the overall needs of
> grassland birds is not good conservation (although at least where I live
> the grasslands are being gobbled up by new vineyards and new housing and
> parking areas rather than solar projects).  People like you who see value
> in conserving what is here can look at the options and help ensure that
> green energy projects are designed and & sited in ways that protect as much
> of the existing ecology as possible.  Only if people who care & are
> knowledgeable about the damage that can be done by poor design or location
> speak up during the permitting process, and also are willing to comment
> during the regulatory process so that better regulations guide green energy
> projects, only then will those projects be undertaken in ways that minimize
> the effects on the local habitat.  This doesn't mean that every grassland
> can be protected, but it could mean that there is protection for enough
> grasslands in enough different areas to ensure plenty of nesting space
> available.
>
> I hope you will take another look at

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[Mary Cronk]

Hi
I am finding that solar/wind is another topic and maybe this is not the forum?

I am on so many lists for sierra club... i was hoping this was not going to be 
more debating or lobbying.

Mary

But if it is ok with the club, then i can just not read all the posts relating 
to energy.
But i must say,  oil and gas has not been so great... just saying...


Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: bounce-127449912-78135...@list.cornell.edu 
 on behalf of John Gregoire 

Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 7:45:02 AM
To: t...@ottcmail.com 
Cc: Carl Steckler ; CAYUGABIRDS-L 

Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

A few points on this discussion. Firstly, wind turbine siting is not governed 
by law or even regulations. Instead there exist only "suggestions". The 
American Bird Conservancy has been fighting for many years to get the 
government to make the "suggestions" into "law" or "requirements". If an 
Environmental Impact Study is called  for, then this is the only recourse and 
the best way for individuals can comment. There are a few wind power farms that 
have mechanisms in place to shut down during heavy migratory flights.

Perhaps activists were too absorbed to suggest safe nuclear power. I have never 
understood why that industry has not hired ex Navy, or followed the practices 
of our Navy which has run nuclear power safely for decades.

Agriculture is no longer small farms where "the farmers are stewards of the 
earth" but huge enterprises working on the principle of Economy of Mass. 
Locally we see this in dairy farms and their manure slurry disposal. To me that 
is a huge human health problem as well as the cause of the disappearance of 
small wetlands, diversion of streams and destruction of hedgerows and woodlots, 
all of which are highly imperiled by the recent SCOTUS decision.

I hope that we can have such discussion without attacking each other.

Pax,
John



On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 10:05 PM mailto:t...@ottcmail.com>> 
wrote:
Hi Carl,

I see no need for any fire storm, but I do disagree with your premise.  I want 
to be a climate activist precisely because I want to be a conservationist 
preserving what we have locally on the planet as a whole. Unless we can reduce 
climate change, it will wipe out many many more plants and animals - it already 
is doing that.  The weather patterns that result, including extreme droughts 
and resulting wildfires, increased summer heat in many areas, warming oceans 
that increase the frequency and severity of coastal storms, sea level rise, 
more intense inland storms due to warmer air holding more moisture - all these 
factors lead to the destruction of plant and animal life with dramatic 
effectiveness.  As you point out, even though some animals can move (assuming 
there is time and opportunity for them in a particular situation, and they have 
habitat to support them in a different area), plants often can't.

That doesn't mean that putting a wind turbine in the middle of a known 
migration route and running it during migration is a good decision IMO.  
Similarly, building solar projects without considering the overall needs of 
grassland birds is not good conservation (although at least where I live the 
grasslands are being gobbled up by new vineyards and new housing and parking 
areas rather than solar projects).  People like you who see value in conserving 
what is here can look at the options and help ensure that green energy projects 
are designed and & sited in ways that protect as much of the existing ecology 
as possible.  Only if people who care & are knowledgeable about the damage that 
can be done by poor design or location speak up during the permitting process, 
and also are willing to comment during the regulatory process so that better 
regulations guide green energy projects, only then will those projects be 
undertaken in ways that minimize the effects on the local habitat.  This 
doesn't mean that every grassland can be protected, but it could mean that 
there is protection for enough grasslands in enough different areas to ensure 
plenty of nesting space available.

I hope you will take another look at this and see if maybe you don't see a role 
for yourself in ensuring that the long term survival of the plants and animals 
you clearly are devoted to is protected, and that projects are designed and 
sited with sensitivity to the local ecology.

Best wishes -

Alicia Plotkin


On 6/3/2023 5:05 PM, Carl Steckler wrote:
Well, let me state right out front that I am about to ignite a fire storm.

Are we conservationists or are we ecologists? Hope to instruct things like 
green energy and the impact on wildlife.

For the ecologists among you, you place a high value on green, renewable 
energy, but at the same time you are ignoring the fact that green energy is 
detrimental to wildlife and plant life

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[John Gregoire]

A few points on this discussion. Firstly, wind turbine siting is not
governed by law or even regulations. Instead there exist only
"suggestions". The American Bird Conservancy has been fighting for many
years to get the government to make the "suggestions" into "law" or
"requirements". If an Environmental Impact Study is called  for, then this
is the only recourse and the best way for individuals can comment. There
are a few wind power farms that have mechanisms in place to
shut down during heavy migratory flights.

Perhaps activists were too absorbed to suggest safe nuclear power. I have
never understood why that industry has not hired ex Navy, or followed the
practices of our Navy which has run nuclear power safely for decades.

Agriculture is no longer small farms where "the farmers are stewards of the
earth" but huge enterprises working on the principle of Economy of Mass.
Locally we see this in dairy farms and their manure slurry disposal. To me
that is a huge human health problem as well as the cause of the
disappearance of small wetlands, diversion of streams and destruction of
hedgerows and woodlots, all of which are highly imperiled by the recent
SCOTUS decision.

I hope that we can have such discussion without attacking each other.

Pax,
John



On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 10:05 PM  wrote:

> Hi Carl,
>
> I see no need for any fire storm, but I do disagree with your premise.  I
> want to be a climate activist precisely *because* I want to be a
> conservationist preserving what we have locally on the planet as a whole.
> Unless we can reduce climate change, it will wipe out many many more plants
> and animals - it already is doing that.  The weather patterns that result,
> including extreme droughts and resulting wildfires, increased summer heat
> in many areas, warming oceans that increase the frequency and severity of
> coastal storms, sea level rise, more intense inland storms due to warmer
> air holding more moisture - all these factors lead to the destruction of
> plant and animal life with dramatic effectiveness.  As you point out, even
> though some animals can move (assuming there is time and opportunity for
> them in a particular situation, and they have habitat to support them in a
> different area), plants often can't.
>
> That doesn't mean that putting a wind turbine in the middle of a known
> migration route and running it during migration is a good decision IMO.
> Similarly, building solar projects without considering the overall needs of
> grassland birds is not good conservation (although at least where I live
> the grasslands are being gobbled up by new vineyards and new housing and
> parking areas rather than solar projects).  People like you who see value
> in conserving what is here can look at the options and help ensure that
> green energy projects are designed and & sited in ways that protect as much
> of the existing ecology as possible.  Only if people who care & are
> knowledgeable about the damage that can be done by poor design or location
> speak up during the permitting process, and also are willing to comment
> during the regulatory process so that better regulations guide green energy
> projects, only then will those projects be undertaken in ways that minimize
> the effects on the local habitat.  This doesn't mean that every grassland
> can be protected, but it could mean that there is protection for enough
> grasslands in enough different areas to ensure plenty of nesting space
> available.
>
> I hope you will take another look at this and see if maybe you don't see a
> role for yourself in ensuring that the long term survival of the plants and
> animals you clearly are devoted to is protected, and that projects are
> designed and sited with sensitivity to the local ecology.
>
> Best wishes -
>
> Alicia Plotkin
>
>
> On 6/3/2023 5:05 PM, Carl Steckler wrote:
>
> Well, let me state right out front that I am about to ignite a fire storm.
>
> Are we conservationists or are we ecologists? Hope to instruct things like
> green energy and the impact on wildlife.
>
> For the ecologists among you, you place a high value on green, renewable
> energy, but at the same time you are ignoring the fact that green energy is
> detrimental to wildlife and plant life
>
> Wind, turbines, kill hundreds of birds and bats every year. Both of these
> activities are illegal but the fact that it is green energy seems to
> overlook the fact that we’re destroying what we seek to keep.
>
> More and more grassland is disappearing under the covering of silicon,
> solar panels not only are the wildlife dispossessed, but so too is the
> flora. Wildlife can relocate, although it may not be to a suitable habitat,
> but the plants cannot relocate and often end up dying, because the sun that
> gives them nourishment is now blocked by solar panels
>
> Unfortunately, the argument about green energy global warming has become
> more political than environmental
> The science of green energy global warming clim

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[tess]

Hi Carl,

I see no need for any fire storm, but I do disagree with your premise.  
I want to be a climate activist precisely /because/ I want to be a 
conservationist preserving what we have locally on the planet as a 
whole. Unless we can reduce climate change, it will wipe out many many 
more plants and animals - it already is doing that.  The weather 
patterns that result, including extreme droughts and resulting 
wildfires, increased summer heat in many areas, warming oceans that 
increase the frequency and severity of coastal storms, sea level rise, 
more intense inland storms due to warmer air holding more moisture - all 
these factors lead to the destruction of plant and animal life with 
dramatic effectiveness.  As you point out, even though some animals can 
move (assuming there is time and opportunity for them in a particular 
situation, and they have habitat to support them in a different area), 
plants often can't.

That doesn't mean that putting a wind turbine in the middle of a known 
migration route and running it during migration is a good decision IMO.  
Similarly, building solar projects without considering the overall needs 
of grassland birds is not good conservation (although at least where I 
live the grasslands are being gobbled up by new vineyards and new 
housing and parking areas rather than solar projects).  People like you 
who see value in conserving what is here can look at the options and 
help ensure that green energy projects are designed and & sited in ways 
that protect as much of the existing ecology as possible.  Only if 
people who care & are knowledgeable about the damage that can be done by 
poor design or location speak up during the permitting process, and also 
are willing to comment during the regulatory process so that better 
regulations guide green energy projects, only then will those projects 
be undertaken in ways that minimize the effects on the local habitat.  
This doesn't mean that every grassland can be protected, but it could 
mean that there is protection for enough grasslands in enough different 
areas to ensure plenty of nesting space available.

I hope you will take another look at this and see if maybe you don't see 
a role for yourself in ensuring that the long term survival of the 
plants and animals you clearly are devoted to is protected, and that 
projects are designed and sited with sensitivity to the local ecology.

Best wishes -

Alicia Plotkin


On 6/3/2023 5:05 PM, Carl Steckler wrote:
> Well, let me state right out front that I am about to ignite a fire 
> storm.
>
> Are we conservationists or are we ecologists? Hope to instruct things 
> like green energy and the impact on wildlife.
>
> For the ecologists among you, you place a high value on green, 
> renewable energy, but at the same time you are ignoring the fact that 
> green energy is detrimental to wildlife and plant life
>
> Wind, turbines, kill hundreds of birds and bats every year. Both of 
> these activities are illegal but the fact that it is green energy 
> seems to overlook the fact that we’re destroying what we seek to keep.
>
> More and more grassland is disappearing under the covering of silicon, 
> solar panels not only are the wildlife dispossessed, but so too is the 
> flora. Wildlife can relocate, although it may not be to a suitable 
> habitat, but the plants cannot relocate and often end up dying, 
> because the sun that gives them nourishment is now blocked by solar panels
>
> Unfortunately, the argument about green energy global warming has 
> become more political than environmental
> The science of green energy global warming climate change whatever you 
> want to call it is flawed
> Some like to say that global warming climate change is caused by 
> humans. Well, I’ve seen many studies that support that and many 
> studies that disprove that.
> what I haven’t seen yet is a good scientific reason why the earth goes 
> into an Ice Age and why the earth comes out of an Ice Age
> And yet again, there are many theories, but they are just that theories
> Without knowing the causes of an ice age or the causes of an ice age 
> ending, we are missing a big chunk of cause-and-effect
>
> Does anyone disagree that when an ice age ends it gets warmer? 
> Conversely, when an ice age starts, it gets colder and it has been 
> doing that for a lot longer time than humans have been on this earth.
>
> So think about it do we want to be climate activist or do we want to 
> be conservationist preserving what we have on this planet preserving 
> the ecosystem that the animals and plants of this planet so 
> desperately need
>
> I am not arguing, one way or another I have my beliefs, and you 
> probably have yours. My purpose is to take a good look at the 
> differences between conservation and ecology.
> Carl Steckler
> --
> *Cayugabirds-L List Info:*
> Welcome and Basics 
> Rules and Information 

RE: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[Deb Grantham]

Well countered, John,

Deb


From: bounce-127447541-83565...@list.cornell.edu 
 On Behalf Of Karen
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2023 8:19 PM
To: Carl Steckler ; CAYUGABIRDS-L 
; John Confer 
Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology



On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 05:05:55 PM EDT, Carl Steckler 
mailto:simmshil...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Well, let me state right out front that I am about to ignite a fire storm.

Are we conservationists or are we ecologists? Hope to instruct things like 
green energy and the impact on wildlife.
This is a false dichotomy based on an incorrect definition. I taught ecology. I 
have had over 70 peer-reviewed publications in professional journals. I have 
had major NSF research grants. I am an ecologist. I know what ecology is. This 
is not a correct definition of ecology. Ecology is a science. Ecology tries to 
describe things. Ecology tries to develop testable predictions: if A occurs 
then B will follow. Ecology is an objective scientific study. Ecologists often 
have strong, personal feelings/beliefs about conservation. I have had 
conservation grants, too. They are quite different. If you do not know the 
difference between them you do not have the knowledge background to criticize 
them.

For the ecologists among you, you place a high value on green, renewable energy,
But at the same time you are ignoring the fact that green energy is detrimental 
to wildlife and plant life
No. I am also a conservationist. I am concerned about balancing competing needs 
for the natural habitat that supports wildlife.

Wind, turbines, kill hundreds of birds and bats every year. Both of these 
activities are illegal but the fact that it is green energy seems to overlook 
the fact that we’re destroying what we seek to keep.
No. Things are illegal when they violate a relevant law. The permitting process 
for almost everyting, but certainly for installation of solar panel farms goes 
through a permitting proceess and is approved by law. It is not illegal.

More and more grassland is disappearing under the covering of silicon, solar 
panels not only are the wildlife dispossessed, but so too is the flora. 
Wildlife can relocate, although it may not be to a suitable habitat, but the 
plants cannot relocate and often end up dying, because the sun that gives them 
nourishment is now blocked by solar panels
The question isn't if solar farms reduce wildlife. The question is what source 
of energy is less deterimental.

Unfortunately, the argument about green energy global warming has become more 
political than environmental
The science of green energy global warming climate change whatever you want to 
call it is flawed
Some like to say that global warming climate change is caused by humans. Well, 
I’ve seen many studies that support that and many studies that disprove that.
what I haven’t seen yet is a good scientific reason why the earth goes into an 
Ice Age and why the earth comes out of an Ice Age
And yet again, there are many theories, but they are just that theories
Theories are the highest level of certainty that science provides. But, I grant 
that you are intending to use "theory" with a meaning that is not the use 
employed in a science discussion. The lack of understanding about this 
distinction weighs on the merit of your arguements.

Without knowing the causes of an ice age or the causes of an ice age ending, we 
are missing a big chunk of cause-and-effect
The ice-age lasted over millions of years for reasons that are irrelevant to 
our current. The causes for cooling/warming associated with the major advances 
and retreats of glacies over a totally different geological time scale are 
virtually irrelevant to the causes for our present rate of warming, which has 
largely occurred in around 100 years. The physical process for our current 
warming is similar to the familiar event of a car warming in the sun. Visible 
radiation comes in, strikes a surface and warms it up. The heat is emitted but 
most of it cannot get through the glass. We accept this because as infants or 
children we know about this. The physics of global climate change is virtually 
the same. For our earth, the visible radiation passes through the atmosphere. 
It strikes the earth's surface, and is reemitted as heat. The heat is absorbed 
or retained in the atmosphere by CO2 or methane, The ability of gasses to 
retain heat is easily and accurately measured. We know why the earth is warming 
now. The causes of ice age cooling and warming over hundreds of thousands of 
years is almost totally irrelevant to the causes of our current warming within 
a century. Anthropogenic global climate change was predicted by physicists a 
century ago due to well-measured physical properties of gasses and due to the 
emission of greenhouse gasses by industrilization. The physics of current 
warming is known and it is caused by the so-called greenhouse gasses.

Does anyone disagree that when an i

Re: [cayugabirds-l] Conservation vs Ecology

[Karen]

 

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 05:05:55 PM EDT, Carl Steckler 
 wrote:  
 
 Well, let me state right out front that I am about to ignite a fire storm.
Are we conservationists or are we ecologists? Hope to instruct things like 
green energy and the impact on wildlife.This is a false dichotomy based on an 
incorrect definition. I taught ecology. I have had over 70 peer-reviewed 
publications in professional journals. I have had major NSF research grants. I 
am an ecologist. I know what ecology is. This is not a correct definition of 
ecology. Ecology is a science. Ecology tries to describe things. Ecology tries 
to develop testable predictions: if A occurs then B will follow. Ecology is an 
objective scientific study. Ecologists often have strong, personal 
feelings/beliefs about conservation. I have had conservation grants, too. They 
are quite different. If you do not know the difference between them you do not 
have the knowledge background to criticize them.
For the ecologists among you, you place a high value on green, renewable 
energy, But at the same time you are ignoring the fact that green energy is 
detrimental to wildlife and plant life No. I am also a conservationist. I am 
concerned about balancing competing needs for the natural habitat that supports 
wildlife. 
Wind, turbines, kill hundreds of birds and bats every year. Both of these 
activities are illegal but the fact that it is green energy seems to overlook 
the fact that we’re destroying what we seek to keep. No. Things are illegal 
when they violate a relevant law. The permitting process for almost everyting, 
but certainly for installation of solar panel farms goes through a permitting 
proceess and is approved by law. It is not illegal.
More and more grassland is disappearing under the covering of silicon, solar 
panels not only are the wildlife dispossessed, but so too is the flora. 
Wildlife can relocate, although it may not be to a suitable habitat, but the 
plants cannot relocate and often end up dying, because the sun that gives them 
nourishment is now blocked by solar panels The question isn't if solar farms 
reduce wildlife. The question is what source of energy is less deterimental.
Unfortunately, the argument about green energy global warming has become more 
political than environmental The science of green energy global warming climate 
change whatever you want to call it is flawed Some like to say that global 
warming climate change is caused by humans. Well, I’ve seen many studies that 
support that and many studies that disprove that. what I haven’t seen yet is a 
good scientific reason why the earth goes into an Ice Age and why the earth 
comes out of an Ice AgeAnd yet again, there are many theories, but they are 
just that theories Theories are the highest level of certainty that science 
provides. But, I grant that you are intending to use "theory" with a meaning 
that is not the use employed in a science discussion. The lack of understanding 
about this distinction weighs on the merit of your arguements. 
Without knowing the causes of an ice age or the causes of an ice age ending, we 
are missing a big chunk of cause-and-effect The ice-age lasted over millions of 
years for reasons that are irrelevant to our current. The causes for 
cooling/warming associated with the major advances and retreats of glacies over 
a totally different geological time scale are virtually irrelevant to the 
causes for our present rate of warming, which has largely occurred in around 
100 years. The physical process for our current warming is similar to the 
familiar event of a car warming in the sun. Visible radiation comes in, strikes 
a surface and warms it up. The heat is emitted but most of it cannot get 
through the glass. We accept this because as infants or children we know about 
this. The physics of global climate change is virtually the same. For our 
earth, the visible radiation passes through the atmosphere. It strikes the 
earth's surface, and is reemitted as heat. The heat is absorbed or retained in 
the atmosphere by CO2 or methane, The ability of gasses to retain heat is 
easily and accurately measured. We know why the earth is warming now. The 
causes of ice age cooling and warming over hundreds of thousands of years is 
almost totally irrelevant to the causes of our current warming within a 
century. Anthropogenic global climate change was predicted by physicists a 
century ago due to well-measured physical properties of gasses and due to the 
emission of greenhouse gasses by industrilization. The physics of current 
warming is known and it is caused by the so-called greenhouse gasses.  
Does anyone disagree that when an ice age ends it gets warmer? Conversely, when 
an ice age starts, it gets colder and it has been doing that for a lot longer 
time than humans have been on this earth.
So think about it do we want to be climate activist or do we want to be 
conservationist preserving what we have on this planet pre