Hi Everyone,

The discussion on alternative energy options and the pros and cons of each has been excellent, in my view. Even though there are differences of opinion regarding data and approaches, it's clear that everyone who has commented on this string is trying hard to address a very difficult problem and the discussion has been professional and based on issues, and hasn't become personal.

I would like to add some thoughts on one topic that was alluded to in the string. I would emphasize that I don't think this is the forum to start a heated discussion on this topic, because a listserv isn't able to effect issues of that magnitude. I simply point out the following as one person's view of some data, and concerns that it raises in my mind as a serious birder and bird photographer. My concern long-term is this...

Humans are the dominant species on the planet, and dominant species with the ability to out-compete other species will 'win' in the long term. Examples of this in the bird world and many and well-known. It's clear no other species on the planet can out-compete us (except perhaps some developing microbe which becomes deadly to humans before it can be defeated - but that's a whole other topic). So, in my view, as long as population is increasing, humans will do what they need to do to survive at the expense of all other species.

Energy conservation has been mentioned as a high priority goal, and it's hard to argue with that - I totally agree it's a good thing and my wife and I have taken several personal steps in that area. However, the facts out there (to me anyway) say that with projected population growth, as good as energy conservation is, it simply cannot do enough. Richard Carlson is a demographer and I'll defer to him on the exact numbers involved here, but for purpose of this discussion, the following numbers are close enough. The USA currently has somewhere over 300 million people residing in this country - and we already have our hands full fighting an often frustrating battle just to save what isn't already gone, let alone to improve things. Every demographic projection I've ever seen shows the US reaching a population of 500 million people in a relatively few decades. That's a 67% increase over the current number. The math is simple - if this projection is correct, every individual!
and bu
siness in this country will have to figure out how to reduce their energy usage BY TWO THIRDS - JUST TO STAY **EVEN** WITH CURRENT TOTAL CONSUMPTION! I'm trained as an engineer and have worked for almost four decades in a variety of industries. I personally do not see any practical way of making such a large percentage reduction as this happen, absent any significant changes in strategy or technology that aren't in the equation today.

On the other hand, suppose the US population were to stay at its current level. Now the energy conservation math works very much in our favor. A relatively modest percentage decrease in per person energy consumption has a significant effect nationally, and at a minimum buys time to work out bugs with alternative energy sources.

Without the current levels of immigration - the large majority of which is illegal - the US would actually be relatively close to zero population growth. This, I'm sure, is why Richard has referenced immigration policy several times in his notes.

Again, I don't think this is a good forum to get into a discussion on philosophy about immigration control. I simply want to point out the facts and the implication to people who love birds. If immigration continues at the levels currently seen and projected, we are going to have several hundred million more people in this country not that far down the road. I can't personally see how that kind of a population increase can possibly be good for birds, and the discussion on where we're going to get energy to support that population is one good example of the issues we're going to have to face as a result. That kind of population growth drives the necessity of jumping into various alternative energy sources, the pros and cons of which we may not fully understand but as the wind power string has pointed out, there are downsides to birds with every approach.

One stark example of this is the CRP program. The CRP program has been wildly successful from a birder's viewpoint. For anyone not familiar with it, the federal government put incentives in place to encourage farmers to let land revert to a 'natural' state, to the benefit of wildlife. Many thousands of acres in the CRP program have helped various species populations. As CRP program land comes up for renewal, every farmer has to ask him/herself what makes the most economic sense - continue in the program, or put the land back to work raising a crop. In our national rush to biofuel - which on the surface sounds great - a trend is already developing where farmers are opting out of the CRP program and raising corn to convert to ethanol (or some other crop for biodiesel). The problem with this is that converting massive amounts of land to mono-culture, with every square inch of productive land being utilized for a single crop, is a disaster for birds. How many Tweeters loo!
k forwa
rd to birding the dry land wheat farms of eastern WA in the summer? If you're out to see a handful of species (Horned Lark, Mourning Dove and Rock Pigeons around the grain elevators) they're great. Nothing much beyond these species finds endless acres of wheat fields to be suitable habitat. A heavy reliance on biofuels is going to result in vast areas of farming country that host nothing but a handful 'efficiently' farmed crops. It's not a pretty picture if you're a bird, or a birder. Nor, as the e-mail string has pointed out, are other alternatives like wind. There may be disagreement on what the avian fatality rate is, but no one is saying the fatality rate is zero - and even one bird per year per wind turbine multipled by millions of wind turbines is a disturbingly high number.

I don't what the answer(s) is - all I know is that I look at our country's projected population growth, its primary cause and the current lack of any foreseeable solution, and therefore have a very hard time being optimistic about our avian friends down the road.


John Tubbs
Snoqualmie, WA
johntubbs at comcast.net
www.tubbsphoto.com