A nice study in educated derision, Dawie. Starting, I suppose, with the notion that a place "such as San Francisco" could be considered a local community. No doubt there are many functional local communities within it, but the thing itself is a city. Parr probably puts it correctly when he talks of policies - when cities look at policies they don't see the same thing as local communities see.
I share your scepticism of economies-of-scale - just a doctrine indeed, and in whose bible? IMHO when economies of scale become operative, it's too big to serve anybody's best interests except the corporations' - not mom-and-poppable. Eg: "Small family and part-time farms are at least as efficient as larger commercial operations. There is evidence of diseconomies of scale as farm size increases." -- "Are Large Farms More Efficient?" Professor Willis L. Peterson, University of Minnesota, 1997. Download (Acrobat file, 52kb): http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/13411/1/p97-02.pdf Colin Tudge also says that. So does the IAASTD report (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development). So do lots of people, including me. Small farms http://journeytoforever.org/farm.html I also happen to think that birds, like just about everything else that really matters, are more important than corporate profits. All best Keith >'Bird-safe glass is also being developed for use in tall buildings. > >'"Bird-safe building glass is no longer a pie-in-the-sky dream." said >Parr. "Its reality is on the horizon - we are close. The >manufacturers are working with the scientists; they're working with >us. And local communities are getting into the act as well, with more >and more cities - such as San Francisco - looking at policies that >implement bird-friendly construction,"' > >Bird-safe glass indeed! Another engineered intrusion of mass-production into >building construction, a field that has long proved resistant to it >despite all >the prevalent theories (Fuller's Dymaxion house came to naught because the >doctrine of economies of scale is subject to more qualifications than has >generally been understood - qualifications the recognition of which raises >questions about the desirability of the effects of economies of scale). How >would "bird-safe" glass work? Would it use differences between birds' and >humans' light perception in some way? Somehow I'd expect corporations to love >the idea of "bird-safe" glass being indistinguishable from common clear float >glass by the naked eye, as enforcement of legislation in that regard would set >up yet another corporate-friendly burden-of-proof regime. > >I would suspect that birds fly into window panes mainly in a small number of >situations. The glass is too transparent, especially in the sense of >their being >too few glazing bars; or the glass is too reflective, forming a mirror that >reflects open sky until it's too late for the bird to react; or the >glass is in >a place where it ought not to be, e.g. a quarter-mile up in the air. >Small-pane >windows make sense because the plant required to make small panes is >more easily >accessible to a smaller operation. Likewise clear float/drawn/spun glass makes >sense because there are centuries of small-scale craft behind it: it's >mom-and-poppable. And I'd say the tallest building (excepting specialized >tower-structures) that can be effectively managed by the members of >a household >is about four or five storeys. By happy coincidence all this is also >much better >for birds. > >Far better for birds - and humans - to cease to be subject to that >extraordinary >situation in which it makes economic sense for large corporations to >erect tall, >shiny, crystalline buildings. Bird-safe glass, forsooth! > >'New wind technology is in the works for a turbine which would pose >much less risk to birds than the design implemented in wind farms >today. > >'Called an "airborne wind turbine", the idea is to do away with the >tower of a traditional wind turbine and instead use a helium-filled >blimp which would enable the device to be raised much higher than is >currently possible in order to capture the increased wind energy of >higher altitudes. Because its height, the device could emit a >bird-deterring sound too loud for use in lower turbines.' > >*sigh* > >I wonder how birds fare with traditional Dutch-style windmills, or even modern >turbines in the 6-odd-metre size range. I'd think the lower operating speed of >the former would offer some advantage in this regard. > >Regards > >Dawie Coetzee > > > > > >________________________________ >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Fri, 7 January, 2011 22:23:17 >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Help put a ban on nicotinoid pesticides > >http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0106-morgan_bird_kills.html > >"End of Days" bird kill just a fraction of real death toll > >By Morgan Erickson-Davis, mongabay.com >January 07, 2011 > >The sudden en-masse deaths of thousands of birds in the Southern U.S. >on the night of New Year's Eve have created a frenzy of media >attention, but in reality hardly compare to the massive number that >die each year because of human activity. > >Shortly after midnight on January 1st, thousands of red-winged >blackbirds fell from the sky in Beebe, Arkansas. Some were outright >dead, others mortally wounded, all were found to have suffered severe >injury through blunt-force trauma. While there has been speculation >around a number of hypotheses including a climate change-driven >weather phenomenon and even a fluctuation in the earth's magnetism, >as usual the most obvious solution is the most likely: fireworks set >off by people celebrating the holiday flushed the birds into the air >where, unable to see, they collided with houses, trees, and each >other. > >However, these deaths represent just a fraction of the true impact >humans have on birdlife. > >"There are many human-related causes of bird mortality including >buildings, outdoor cats, pesticides, communication towers, >automobiles, wind farms, and lead poisoning from spent ammunition and >lost fishing tackle." said American Bird Conservancy Vice President, >Mike Parr. "But because most of the deaths from those sources often >occur in ones or twos, they often go unnoticed or unreported." > >In total, says Parr, studies have estimated that up to one billion >birds may be killed annually due to collisions with buildings. >Another billion fall prey to domestic cats. Up to 50 million birds >are killed each year after hitting communications towers, and >pesticide poisoning has been linked to the deaths of up to 15 million >birds each year. > >In addition to all these hazards, the increasing presence of wind >turbines is a threat to many birds, especially when they're built in >the path of migration routes. > >"When you look at the totality of human-caused threats to birds, it >has got to give cause for serious concern about our cumulative >effects on their populations," Parr said. > >Strides have been taken in the development, implementation, and >promotion of bird-safe technology. For instance, the prohibition or >restriction of many pesticides most toxic to birds, such as >carbofuran, fenthion, and ethyl parathion, has reduced bird mortality >by as much as 75 percent. > >Bird-safe glass is also being developed for use in tall buildings. > >"Bird-safe building glass is no longer a pie-in-the-sky dream." said >Parr. "Its reality is on the horizon - we are close. The >manufacturers are working with the scientists; they're working with >us. And local communities are getting into the act as well, with more >and more cities - such as San Francisco - looking at policies that >implement bird-friendly construction," > >New wind technology is in the works for a turbine which would pose >much less risk to birds than the design implemented in wind farms >today. > >Called an "airborne wind turbine", the idea is to do away with the >tower of a traditional wind turbine and instead use a helium-filled >blimp which would enable the device to be raised much higher than is >currently possible in order to capture the increased wind energy of >higher altitudes. Because its height, the device could emit a >bird-deterring sound too loud for use in lower turbines. > >However, while airborne wind turbines are on the horizon, today's >turbines are killing hundreds of thousands of birds every year. The >Department of the Interior is currently considering imposing >operational guidelines on wind farms which would lessen their risk to >birds. Parr believes those guidelines should be mandatory. > >"Voluntary guidelines don't work." he said. "We wouldn't expect >people to abide by voluntary drinking and driving limits. We can't >expect the wind industry to follow voluntary environmental guidelines >either." > > >>... Not to mention this: >> ><snip> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
