Is environmentalism just an agenda? Do they really care? Do they do more harm than good?

Oh the irony!

Is there a point you're trying to make? Wind turbines are evil because some birds are killed by the ones at Altamont Pass, or something equally trite?

"One reason why other parts of the country may not be experiencing high levels of raptor mortality is partly because wind developers have used information from Altamont Pass to site new turbines in hopes of avoiding similar situations.

A September 2005 decision by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a plan currently being implemented, to protect birds in the Altamont Pass, requiring that half the turbines be shut down each year in November and December, and the other half shut down in January and February. In addition, the 100-200 oldest and most dangerous turbines will be removed, and the entire project must be repowered, with newer, larger turbines replacing the smaller turbines."

"Dana isn't intelligent enough to understand the larger picture here."

...says the dumbass.

Perhaps some of you would be interested in reading a book called Limits to Growth circa 1969.

One of many themes in the book was for every problem science solves it usually creates many other problems, some of which may not seem serious at the time but prove to be nearly impossible to deal with later on.

I have thought about the problems with turbines and perhaps the solution may be some sort of sound frequency that would cause the birds to fly around areas where the turbines are located. I don't really know but I am sure scientists are trying to come up with some ideas to prevent that...

So much shredded tweet. It's a shame.

The problem of many of the 'progressive' ideas that are implemented is that they never think about the negative aspects of their programs.

While I think that many environmentalists are well meaning, many at the top of the discussion (Al Gore comes to mind for one) don't care about either the environment or the negative effect on the vast majority of people in general and Americans in particular.

For example, DDT used to be an effective tool against malarial mosquitoes. The environmentalists had it banned. Since the ban went into effect millions of people in the third world died unnecessarily due to the the increase in malaria.

From your additional details, then, the answer to your questions are:

What does does "just an agenda" mean, if anything?

Yes, they do care, and

No, they don't do more harm than good - just the opposite.

Finally, what is "the larger picture here" ?

EDIT -for SPLATT. The people who were most effective in getting laws against widespread DDT use were epidemiologists and tropical disease specialists who realized that, through misapplication, we were about to lose an effective tool that is still in use today for malaria control. Many of these people would be happy to biff you in the snoot for your misrepresentation of the facts.

.

Hey, c'mon, what are you trying to say here? It's all about the green for them! ;-)

@ Virtualg -

Ummm . . . any source (any source at all) for your contention? Nope? Didn't think so.