The government subsidies are supposedly necessary to make the project economically viable. That alone shoots down capitalism. IF windpower worked, it would attract capitalists looking to make lots of bucks. Since it does not work as promised, at present, it is a LOSER financially. The greenies and others have become so accustomed to Uncle Sugar supporting their ideas, it is a natural progression. I think the common word is PORK.

Regarding birds, the greatest threat to their existence? House Cats. Ask HSUS, PETA, and the other “animal rights” groups. They will all give the same answer. BTW, my 3 cats prefer gield mice and such. I think they are afraid of heights.

This recent global warming blizzard reminded me of a column concerning the costs of nannyism, basically nothing to the supporters. One example was this:

You are rabidly anti-smoking. You are driving in a blizzard and your car breaks down. After a few hours of wind and snow, a car finally approaches. The driver offers assistance. You smell the smoke reeking from him. He explains that he smokes very heavily, and will do so during your journey. Will you accept the ride? At that point, the rubber meets the road. What cost will you bear personally? When the advocates of wind power accept these costs, perhaps it will move forward and become economically viable.

As for your second question, I don’t know if it’s a false dilemma about the birds. If the technology exists, I am not aware of it. Good question for someone who knows.

Do we really have the dilemma of sliced birds vs no windmills? I think its a false one. Are we not technologically talented enough to design wind power that does not devour our feathered friends?

I’ve often thought there was money to be made in clean power and I’m glad the Silicon folks have latched onto something to take the place of the burst tech bubble.

The problem is clean energy projects often face opposition (e.g. the Cape wind project, new hydro dams, nuclear) from the very people (e.g. Robt. Kennedy Jr) who decry our overuse of fossil fuels.

At a certain point we have stop worrying about how the windmills will look or whether they will slice up some birds. Getting our sorry asses out of the embrace of the corrupt Saudis is far more important.

No matter what one thinks of global warming, I think we can all agree that reducing air pollution is an important goal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/technology/14valley.html?em&ex=1174104000&en=2814ff336294ecdb&ei=5087%0A

In response to your comment about our leaders not taking global warming seriously….

Although legislative policies don’t show it by any means, it is rumored that George W. has one of the most environmentally friendly estates in the country.

While he may be concerned about the environment he certainly has the interests of his cronies in industry in mind.

A bit moe humours look at the Algoreism Effect:

‘An Over-Representation of Factual Presentations’

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009785

Terry, I do not take gobal warming seriously. IF people take the time to read and consider the opposing information, the conclusion is not as cut and dried as the CLS folks would have us believe. Algoreism hypocrisy is nothing new, and is to be expected.

My belief is akin to yours. The CLS folks want us all to live as if we were in Darfur. So would they, only they would live like the rulers of the country. Look at the OPEC countries. Obviously the carbon footprint of the majority of natives is miminal at best. However, the aristocracy more than make up for it.

Unfortunately, it’s hard for many people to take global warming seriously when its leaders don’t. They continue to fly around in private jets, consume more electricity than I could ever dream of, and chug around in hybrid limos. How much fossil fuel was burned to get all those celebs to the Academy Awards so that they could lecture us on our gluttony? They do for global warming what big-spending, draft-dodging George W. Bush does for conservatism. Hypocrisy breeds cynicism.

Marshall,

Tell Mike the gas emitted is on Sunday mornings. But please, no more ballet clips when Straight Talk resumes its wall-to-wall Region 1 budget coverage. It makes Mike seem warm and fuzzy — which might hurt his image.