449
Trump admin abandons fight against wind energy as clean energy output surges (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -10 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Again, what gives anyone the right to determine what someone else puts on land they own?

You seem to actively want people to have to obey someone else, and if that's not sucking authoritarian cock I don't know what is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    You keep ascribing desires to me when I've done nothing more than explain the current situation... I have not stated a single opinion of mine in this thread thus far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It all goes back to the fact that you tried to blame it all on Trump and his ilk, while I agree that he shares the blame, you are actually refusing to acknowledge the rest of the situation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    In case your attempt to start arguments is sparked from actual ignorance ….

    federal permitting and leasing for wind projects

    • many wind farms are not on owned property. In particular for offshore wind farms there is no land that can be owned. Many projects are in locations leased from the government
    • if turbines are above above a certain height, it affects airspace used for flying, you don’t own
    • even renewables can be bad for the environment. The trope about killing birds has some truth to it, and environmental review keeps it from happening
    • yes, renewables can affect your neighbors and they deserve some consideration
    • yes, it’s conceivable that a wind farm offshore or near a base or a border can have national security implications

    In a nation of laws, things like this are worth considering. However that is different than using them as cover for personal beliefs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Laws?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    There are far too many laws already on the books now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    True, but that doesn't change the fact that laws are what "gives them the right".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Immoral laws should not exist, and when they do they should not be followed.

    Any laws without an actual victim are immoral laws.

    Therefore any law that says I can't build something out in the middle of nowhere, on land I own, with no neighbors within a mile of me where no other land owners could conceivably be affected is itself also an immoral law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Also true but it doesnt change anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I hope you don't mind when I build a 50 meter tall sun blocker to block your land from getting any sunlight since I should be allowed to build what I want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Go for it, a nice shaded area would help me immensely. I do, however hope you've done a ground analysis, because if it falls on my house you're building me another. That's how it works. If it's no longer on just your property, it becomes my problem too.

    Edit to add: Besides, in cases where there's clearly been damage to another person and/or their property, that in itself is at the minimum a civil case.

    One could even argue that environmental concerns could also be a civil problem, as one person's poisonous fumes could easily cross into another person's property and damage their person or effects.

    All these so called environmental laws do is make it legal for any amount under a set limit. Regardless of any damage to people or property it causes. It's a legal amount after all!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent