This report on regulations just announced to improve the siting of wind turbines away from important bid deaths is getting mixed reviews - considering the location in important bird areas that Ontario's environmental ministry considers allowing industrial wind turbines at, the voluntary aspect of the regulations would be of great concern here
The guidelines call on the wind industry to eliminate from consideration areas that would pose high risks to birds and other wildlife, and to take steps to alleviate problems by restoring nearby habitat and other actions. If developers follow the guidelines, they are unlikely to be prosecuted under federal law in the event of bird deaths, said Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.The full article is at the Huffington Post site
The American Bird Conservancy, an advocacy group that has pushed for mandatory standards, said voluntary guidelines are largely unenforceable and will do little to protect millions of birds killed or injured by wind turbines.
The group "supports wind power when it is 'bird-smart.' Unfortunately, voluntary guidelines will result in more lawsuits, more bird deaths and more government subsidies for bad projects," said Kelly Fuller, the group's wind campaign coordinator.
From the article:
ReplyDelete"David Yarnold, president & CEO of Audubon, called the guidelines a good compromise that reflects years of consultation with interested groups, including environmental groups. "Conservationists can't have it both ways: We can't say we need renewable energy and then say there's nowhere safe to put the wind farms," Yarnold said."
Why does Yarnold presume that wind turbines need to be a part of the renewable energy mix? Any resources that are allocated to these first generation technologies are taken away from developing truly sustainable energy sources.
As long as the Audubon Society fails to recognize the inherent problems of intermittent power it's hard to view them as having any credibility or good intentions.