Regulations and mandates that force nationwide cuts in carbon dioxide emissions offer only speculative environmental benefits, if any, as a switch to wind and solar power will certainly cause more harm than good to the environment. But command-and-control forces in Congress are headed in that direction, with the House narrowly passing a bill to cap CO2 emissions, and the Senate taking up a companion bill this month.

It's clear that global warming threatens ecosystems and that we need to take action to reduce carbon emissions if we hope to maintain the planet's biodiversity. But one potential solution carries threats of its own that need to be mitigated. ...Although wind development is far less destructive than many types of energy production, such as mountaintop-removal coal mining, wind power's threats to wildlife are not inconsequential. Regions with sustained high winds frequently overlap prime bird habitat, including the sagebrush and grasslands that sustain declining populations of sage grouse and prairie chickens. In addition to habitat issues, bird collisions with wind turbines are mounting.

It was only a few years ago that habitat loss was front and center among causes for concern about the future well-being of the American ecological landscape. Not much has changed to allay this concern; sprawling development continues, and the alteration and loss of natural habitat is largely unchecked. What has changed is the focus of many mainstream environmental organizations. Concerns about the projected future effects of climate change have taken precedence over the immediate and observable effects of habitat loss.

Two of California's highest priority environmental causes, promoting renewable energy and saving the California condor, are on a collision course. The proliferation of prop wind turbines and their well documented history of killing birds of prey have put the future of California condor at great risk. The fact is, in recent years many missing Condors have most likely perished at wind farms in California. Many of the captive bed condors, released into the wild since 1992 have turned up missing. Nearly 1/3 of all the captive bred condors released, perish for unknown reasons. If one looks into the scientific literature, collision is nearly always listed as a major cause of death to Condors.

So why are wind companies not being prosecuted for killing birds? Rob Lee, now retired, was one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead law-enforcement investigators on the problem of bird kills in Western oil fields. Lee said that he doesn't expect to see any prosecutions because the wind industry is politically correct. This suggests a double standard. In protecting America's wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning their backs on the harm done by "green" energy.

The Nature Conservancy released a report last month, "Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America." The conservancy pointed out that wind, solar and renewable energy sources require far more land than nuclear energy and coal. ...The term "energy sprawl" accurately describes the multiple trade-offs that face the nation. The American people need to think through what they are being urged to do.

Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines. Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

Two of California's greatest environmental causes, renewable energy and saving the California condor, are on a collision course. The explosion of lethal prop-style wind farms being built in condor habitat is putting the hard-won future of the condor at risk. Many condors undoubtedly perish at such wind farms, although official reports attribute losses to other causes.

The Star's recent editorial celebrating the prairie was a treat. But it overlooked the biggest threat to our prairies now: commercial wind farms. Few people realize that the state of Kansas has utterly opted out of regulating wind farms. Instead, it has punted the whole question.

The final of three meetings on the highly-controversial issue of wind turbines in the foothills of the Blue Mountains takes place Thursday before the Umatilla County Planning Commission. We've said it before and we'll say it again: The commission should recognize there is a "significant resource" in our Blue Mountains and its foothills. Frankly, we don't see how the commission members could decide otherwise.

With frequent ferocity, The Columbian has expressed editorial support for both: -- Wind energy as an alternative energy source. -- The Endangered Species Act. But what happens when those two advocacies collide, when wind turbines kill birds, especially birds of a threatened species? ...If forced into a corner of mandatory choice, we suspect the proper view would be to support the ESA and the birds, for one simple reason: Extinction is precisely that, irreversible.

In Italy, sprawling prop-style wind turbine ‘farms' are sprouting up in ever-increasing numbers and, as they do, the death toll soars for thousands upon thousands of birds of prey. ..."Wind farm building continues unchecked and within a few years we will witness the almost total disappearance from the Apennine mountains and from Sicily of the Golden Eagle, the Bonelli`s Eagle, the Griffon Vulture, the Red Kite and many others," farmers' organization Coldiretti and national environmental organizations said in a recent report in Life In Italy.com.

Governor Deval Patrick's goal of 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2020 will achieve very little at great cost, according to the state's own data. Nonetheless, he is seeking from the Legislature an unprecedented set of special privileges to benefit the wind industry. ...The 5 percent of our state's electricity provided by 710 wind turbines in the Berkshires will not slow the rise of coastal sea levels, but it will mean the irretrievable loss of a globally rare landscape.

Just when we thought that we were headed in the right direction, we're reminded that humans, with our limited minds, just can't see the whole picture. At least, not until the things that we've put into motion start going wrong. In our search for clean, renewable, eco-friendly alternative "green" energy, wind power sounds like a ‘no-brainer'. ...how can using wind energy possibly have a down side?

It's a dilemma that forward-thinking, environmentally conscious people do not want to face: Will moving toward carbon-free energy sources mean disrupting bird migration routes and having a negative impact on wildlife populations? This weekend sees the July 12 deadline for public comments on the massive NaiKun wind farm proposed for Hecate Strait. ...The problem arises, however, that this exact location, the shallow water around McIntyre Beach and Rose Spit, is a designated important bird area under the BirdLife International program that lists critical sites for bird populations in over 200 countries worldwide.

It is well known that raptors commonly fly at an altitude that puts them at particular risk for collision with wind power blades. Proper siting was touted as the key to green wind power. So why is wind power being sited in an Audubon Important Bird Area, and why is that Important Bird Area slated for border to border wind power development? The answer is simple. Instead of proper planning, Northwest wind power is being allowed to develop wherever infrastructure is available and politicians are agreeable.

To reach the ultimate goal of wind producing 20 percent of the energy used in this country by 2030, tens of thousands of 200-foot-high turbines must be installed nationwide, with many of them slated for gusty public lands in Wyoming, Washington, Oregon and Idaho. That's sparked a fight that looks much like the one waged about natural gas in the past couple of decades. Only this time the battle lines are drawn in unexpected places.

Size and cost alone make this project controversial, but it has become even hotter because, so far, it has been handled so poorly by the people who want to build it, the Transmission Agency of Northern California. TANC is a joint powers agency comprised of 15 publicly owned utilities, including the MID and TID. The agency's commission is chaired by MID's general manager, Allen Short. Not surprisingly, landowners all the way from Lassen and Shasta to Stanislaus and Tuolumne counties are upset -- and angry.

Western governors, animated by President Obama's goal of doubling renewable energy production in the U.S. within three years, have identified dozens of areas rich in "new energy" sources. However, they're now facing some of the same "old energy" obstacles to getting the projects moving. Their challenge risks creating a contradiction in which building environmentally friendly new-energy plants tramples sensitive natural areas.

The Department of Conservation states as its function the management of the country's natural and historic heritage assets for the greatest benefit and enjoyment of all New Zealanders, "by conserving, advocating and promoting natural and historic heritage so that its values are passed on undiminished to future generations". It also claims that its "vision" is to protect New Zealand's natural and historic heritage.