5 replies to this topic

[Hayden]

Protesters on private property within 1,000 feet of a blasting zone that is part of an industrial wind power project under construction on Lowell Mountain can be arrested if they don't move when ordered to do so, a state judge ruled Tuesday.

View the full article

[artistry]

It would only make sense, that Green Mountain Power, would not want to endanger anyone's life or have someone injured from the company's blasting. The parameter appears to be reasonable, although  it is impossible to know where the 1,000 feet, would have them placed, in relation to the construction of the road. It also seems that the authorities there, are leaving the protesters to use good judgment around the site, since there have been no arrests.

[Germs]

I guess that's how it should be, its for their own safety rather than to infringe on their human rights.

[Karim Jessa]

What about the protests, though? Aren't they misguided? The protesters want to save the mountain. But the purpose for which this construction is taking place is an environmentally friendly one. It is a wind power project.

Surely if they've picked this location for the project they must have found it an ideal spot for the purpose. If the protesters succeed, which they obviously won't, in stopping this project, what will be the gain? They would have saved one mountain, and lost a wind power plant.

There has to be a balance in the desire to protect the environment and the need for environmentally friendly projects. In this particular case, I think it makes sense to have the project go ahead. The protesters would be better advised to devote their efforts to stopping projects that are not only harmful in themselves, but are aimed at producing products that are also harmful to the environment.

[Ecodisaster]

Karim Jessa, on 07 November 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:

What about the protests, though? Aren't they misguided? The protesters want to save the mountain. But the purpose for which this construction is taking place is an environmentally friendly one. It is a wind power project.

Surely if they've picked this location for the project they must have found it an ideal spot for the purpose. If the protesters succeed, which they obviously won't, in stopping this project, what will be the gain? They would have saved one mountain, and lost a wind power plant.

There has to be a balance in the desire to protect the environment and the need for environmentally friendly projects. In this particular case, I think it makes sense to have the project go ahead. The protesters would be better advised to devote their efforts to stopping projects that are not only harmful in themselves, but are aimed at producing products that are also harmful to the environment.

I would agree with you, except that wind power is not as environmentally friendly as we think it is. Tons of animals die by the wind turbines. I mean, it is way better than a coal factory, that's for sure, but these protesters have a point here. Those mountains are basically going to be destroyed and its inhabitants, all the animals living there will also suffer consequences.

We need to find an alternative to this as well, in my opinion, or change the installation methods.

[Karim Jessa]

Ecodisaster, on 08 November 2011 - 12:24 AM, said:

I would agree with you, except that wind power is not as environmentally friendly as we think it is. Tons of animals die by the wind turbines. I mean, it is way better than a coal factory, that's for sure, but these protesters have a point here. Those mountains are basically going to be destroyed and its inhabitants, all the animals living there will also suffer consequences.

We need to find an alternative to this as well, in my opinion, or change the installation methods.

It seems we just can't win. On the one hand it's a constant battle to find environmentally friendly sources of energy; on the other, the sources which seem the best run aground on the methods of production. So what do we do? You say we need to find alternative sources of supply, or change installation methods.

We've already spent enough time and expense on seeking out and developing alternative sources of power. Now if we're required to spend even more time perfecting it, we'll never slow down global warming, let alone stopping it. Shouldn't we just push on, and do the fine tuning as we go?

It's true that we're in this mess because we rushed into newer inventions and technologies without thinking of the long term consequences. But we also cannot use the mistakes of the past to now restrict any attempts at remedying the situation because we have to make up for the lack of thinking by over thinking.