I understand that it sucks for people to lose their jobs, but I would much rather that space be used for renewable energy than have us continue to overfish our oceans. There's no need for it; the...
I understand that it sucks for people to lose their jobs, but I would much rather that space be used for renewable energy than have us continue to overfish our oceans. There's no need for it; the sooner we move from involving animal products so heavily in our diets, the better.
The fisherman's argument against the wind farm (that it would disrupt the local habitats and ocean life) has me skeptical, too; isn't mass-fishing just as disruptive? I can't imagine all those fish and crustaceans are being used for much more than food.
Generally if you're disrupting peoples' livelihoods it makes sense to buy them out. Why not just give them part ownership of the utility company that these wind-farms will generate? It could just...
Generally if you're disrupting peoples' livelihoods it makes sense to buy them out. Why not just give them part ownership of the utility company that these wind-farms will generate? It could just be managed as a cooperative.
The company is buying out. The article says they put together a 4.2 million dollar compensation package plus a 12.5 million dollar trust for fishermen affected by the farm. The fishermen don't...
The company is buying out. The article says they put together a 4.2 million dollar compensation package plus a 12.5 million dollar trust for fishermen affected by the farm. The fishermen don't think that covers the cost though.
it's true that we overfish and that eating animal products too much is no good, but I don't think that wind power is a good option. It disturbs the environment and in my opinion takes away from...
it's true that we overfish and that eating animal products too much is no good, but I don't think that wind power is a good option. It disturbs the environment and in my opinion takes away from the natural beauty of nature.
Wind is also not very energy dense. our needs could be met with nuclear power, but that's another issue.
eh, depends on the location really. it's not dense, but it's very nifty in places which don't receive enough sunlight or which have no ability or chance to receive nuclear or hydroelectric power,...
eh, depends on the location really. it's not dense, but it's very nifty in places which don't receive enough sunlight or which have no ability or chance to receive nuclear or hydroelectric power, and you can almost always use the land/sea it's built on which makes economic disruption like this infrequent at best. location is probably the main reason why it's being utilized here, actually. i imagine solar's not very great for the northeast and there's not many places to put it anyways, and nuclear and hydroelectric power are basically off the table for a variety of reasons.
I understand that it sucks for people to lose their jobs, but I would much rather that space be used for renewable energy than have us continue to overfish our oceans. There's no need for it; the sooner we move from involving animal products so heavily in our diets, the better.
The fisherman's argument against the wind farm (that it would disrupt the local habitats and ocean life) has me skeptical, too; isn't mass-fishing just as disruptive? I can't imagine all those fish and crustaceans are being used for much more than food.
Generally if you're disrupting peoples' livelihoods it makes sense to buy them out. Why not just give them part ownership of the utility company that these wind-farms will generate? It could just be managed as a cooperative.
The company is buying out. The article says they put together a 4.2 million dollar compensation package plus a 12.5 million dollar trust for fishermen affected by the farm. The fishermen don't think that covers the cost though.
it's true that we overfish and that eating animal products too much is no good, but I don't think that wind power is a good option. It disturbs the environment and in my opinion takes away from the natural beauty of nature.
Wind is also not very energy dense. our needs could be met with nuclear power, but that's another issue.
eh, depends on the location really. it's not dense, but it's very nifty in places which don't receive enough sunlight or which have no ability or chance to receive nuclear or hydroelectric power, and you can almost always use the land/sea it's built on which makes economic disruption like this infrequent at best. location is probably the main reason why it's being utilized here, actually. i imagine solar's not very great for the northeast and there's not many places to put it anyways, and nuclear and hydroelectric power are basically off the table for a variety of reasons.