Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Blue Oceans Solutions is concerned. “If you drive deep enough into the high desert near Casper, Wyoming,” their post states, “you will find a burial ground that shouldn’t exist.”
It isn’t for people. It’s for the “clean energy” revolution. Rows of massive, fiberglass wind turbine blades—cut into thirds with diamond-encrusted saws—are being stacked thirty feet deep in the earth. From the air, they look like the bleached rib cages of leviathans.
“We are literally filling the scars of the fossil fuel age with the waste of the renewable age. ‘Net Zero’ cannot mean ‘Net Landfill’.” (- Blue Oceans Solutions, below)
Blue Oceans Solutions is concerned. “If you drive deep enough into the high desert near Casper, Wyoming,” their post states, “you will find a burial ground that shouldn’t exist.”
It isn’t for people. It’s for the “clean energy” revolution. Rows of massive, fiberglass wind turbine blades—cut into thirds with diamond-encrusted saws—are being stacked thirty feet deep in the earth. From the air, they look like the bleached rib cages of leviathans.
Continuing:
We built wind turbines to save the future, but we forgot to design them for the end. While 85% of a turbine (steel, copper, electronics) is highly recyclable, the blades are not. They are built to withstand hurricane-force winds for 20 years. They are composites of fiberglass and resin, designed specifically never to break down. When they die, they become “Zombie Waste”. You can’t melt them (they just burn). You can’t crush them easily. So, we bury them.
Big problems are ahead:
The scale is staggering. The U.S. alone is decommissioning roughly 8,000 blades a year—a number that will explode to millions of tons by 2050. As municipal landfills (like Casper’s) run out of space or refuse to take them, regulators in states like Wyoming have opened a new door. We are now permitting the burial of these “green” blades inside abandoned coal mines.
We are literally filling the scars of the fossil fuel age with the waste of the renewable age. “Net Zero” cannot mean “Net Landfill”
“Net landfill” is probably an exaggeration given what landfill technology can do to seal the waste (and build a golf course over it). But if wind turbines are dying out far sooner than what is the claim–say 10-15 years instead of 20-30 years–the scale of disposal is an issue.
This is the uncomfortable truth we need to face: We are currently solving a carbon crisis by creating a material crisis. The “bury it and forget it” era is over. The next green billion-dollar opportunity isn’t in erecting more turbines; it’s in closing the loop.
We need blades that can be chemically dissolved, not just buried. We need “Material Passports” that track every blade from factory to grave. If we don’t solve the back end of the green transition, we aren’t saving the planet. We’re just redecorating the landfill.
Recycling industrial wind turbines (blades, etc.) can add cost to cost for a technology that is not competitive to begin with for grid electricity. Landfill disposal is costly too. The ecological bargain by Big Green to support industrial wind and solar is not looking good, particularly if and when retrofits are uneconomic without an extension of expiring tax breaks.
And if industrial wind is on its own (without the PTC or ITC, as scheduled for the end of next year), will decommissions grow and exceed new capacity additions?
The Wyoming wind power permitting authority has a formal hearing beginning on August 31, 2026, to consider the application from a major wind project. An approval decision on this project would be premature, because a crucial piece of environmental data, the projected eagle kills from the project, is still in progress.
Wyoming needs to decide how many eagles it is willing to kill.
The permitting authority is the Wyoming Industrial Siting Council. At issue is the proposed 650-megawatt Laramie Range Wind Project with hundreds of eagle-killing turbines. This is a very large project.
The Siting Council is supposed to carefully consider the environmental impacts of the project, but there is a glaring gap in their information. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is supposed to predict the number of eagles killed by this project but has yet to do so. The Siting Council should wait for this crucial data.
Of particular concern are the golden eagles because Wyoming is central to their population. This population has reportedly declined by an incredible 30% since wind development began two decades ago. See my article, “Wyoming Golden Eagles should be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.”
FWS normally estimates the golden eagle death rate for a wind project when that project applies for a permit to kill eagles under the Eagle Protection Act. In this case, Wyoming should ask FWS to do the calculations directly for them, not via the wind project developer. To the extent the developer’s eagle-related data is being used, it needs to be verified.
The FWS uses what is called a Collision Risk Model to predict golden eagle deaths from a proposed wind turbine array. The model output is a probability distribution, not a single death number. There is a probability for a given number of deaths.
For eagle-kill permitting purposes, the FWS uses the number of deaths with an 80% probability of occurring. The Siting Council might also want to consider numbers like the 50% and 30% death rates, which will be increasingly larger than the 80% rate. These lower-probability death rates are still serious likelihoods, calling for appropriate caution.
If the FWS will not provide these golden eagle death calculations, then Wyoming should develop them itself. The Siting Council must have the relevant eagle death data before it can make an informed decision on the huge Laramie Range Wind Project.
It is likely that the eagle-killing issue will come up at the Siting Council hearing where project opponents will testify.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has provided the following information on viewing the hearing, which begins each day at 10:00 am Mountain Daylight Time:
“Persons wishing to observe day one of the permit hearing on August 31, 2026, may watch the hearing virtually via this information.
“Persons wishing to observe day two of the permit hearing on September 1, 2026, may watch the hearing virtually via this information.”
With a seven-foot wingspan. the golden eagle is the flying monarch of the range. Primarily a western bird, they frequently feed on range rodents making them useful as well as majestic. But wind turbines are taking an ever-increasing toll. A 2025 study — “Estimated golden eagle mortality from wind turbines in the western United States” — estimates that the number killed by wind turbines doubled from 2013 to 2024.
With a seven-foot wingspan. the golden eagle is the flying monarch of the range. Primarily a western bird, they frequently feed on range rodents making them useful as well as majestic. But wind turbines are taking an ever-increasing toll. A 2025 study — “Estimated golden eagle mortality from wind turbines in the western United States” — estimates that the number killed by wind turbines doubled from 2013 to 2024. A major tagging study in Wyoming by biologist Mike Lockhart found that spinning wind turbine blades killed more golden eagles than all other human causes combined. The range states from Texas to North Dakota together have over 50,000 operating wind turbines with many more coming.
There is a huge loophole in the law when it comes to wind machines killing eagles, and Congress needs to close it. Wind turbines can legally kill other birds, but eagles have special protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. On paper, a wind facility has to have a permit to kill an eagle, but, as things stand now, it is far cheaper to pay the fine for killing an eagle without a permit than it is to get a permit. So, a lot of wind facilities are simply not getting permits. Thus, the eagles are not getting the protections the permits call for.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) enforces the Eagle Protection Act. They recently fined two wind facilities for killing an eagle without having a permit. In each case, the fine was around $15,000. This is much less than it costs to get and operate under a permit.
To begin with, the permit application fees start around $26,000 for a simple facility, much more for complex ones. But the permits also include a number of relatively expensive activities which adds a lot to the cost. These include surveying the area slated for wind towers so as to avoid eagle nesting sites. It also includes ongoing monitoring and reporting kills, which can be used to modify turbine operations to reduce the kill rate.
In fact, there are in development eagle detection systems that will be able to automatically shut down wind turbines when eagles approach them. These technologies will be standard permit conditions. They should dramatically reduce the golden eagle kill rate. Since permits must be renewed every five years, they can be retrofitted to existing facilities as well.
So, it is likely that the cost of having a permit is at least ten times the fine for killing an eagle without one, perhaps much greater. And you only get fined if FWS finds out about the kill. Clearly there is a tremendous incentive for wind facilities to not get permits, and there is presently no law saying they have to get one in order to operate. This is the loophole that must be closed.
The Eagle Protection Act should be amended to require that all commercial wind power facilities must have eagle-kill permits as a regulatory condition of their operation. It would be a simple matter to make having an eagle-kill permit a federal requirement for operating a commercial wind power facility. Small home windmills need not be covered, nor would wind powered water pumps, etc. We are talking about the huge wind farms presently dotting the range, with many more coming. It is time to take saving golden eagles seriously.
Another factor that Congress should correct is the secrecy that presently surrounds the killing of eagles by wind turbines. Wind facilities with permits presently patrol and report every dead eagle they find, but FWS refuses to disclose this data. Researchers could use this data to improve Eagle protection measures. Moreover, the public has a right to know how and where eagles are being killed.
Congress must amend the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act so it actually protects golden eagles from wind turbines. Every proposed wind farm presently must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration before it can be built. Adding a permit to kill eagles would not be a big step, and it would help protect the eagles.
Wyoming’s Golden Eagles are in trouble and need the protection of the Endangered Species Act. That things are going badly for the eagles is no secret, but the Wyoming authorities are ignoring this rapidly growing threat.
Wyoming’s Golden Eagles are in trouble and need the protection of the Endangered Species Act. That things are going badly for the eagles is no secret, but the Wyoming authorities are ignoring this rapidly growing threat.
Incredibly, Golden Eagle numbers in Wyoming have declined by nearly a third over the past 20 years according to Teton Raptor Center conservation director, Bryan Bedrosian. This precipitous population drop is clearly serious and must be stopped. Wyoming is America’s Golden Eagle population center, so what happens there potentially affects us all.
Bedrosian warned the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission last October that “We have a quarter of the breeding population of golden eagles in the western United States. We host roughly half of the migrants that come down from Alaska and Canada.”
Another important example is “Comments on Environmental Assessment of the Two Rivers Wind Energy Project on behalf of National Audubon Society and the Wyoming Outdoor Council.”
Here is their special warning with respect to wind power development:
“Wyoming is home to the largest breeding population of Golden Eagles in the lower 48 states and provides critical habitat for wintering and migrating individuals; the state contains some of the most valuable areas for long-term conservation in the western United States.”
“Inadequate protections in a Golden Eagle stronghold experiencing high growth in wind development risks the project area becoming a “population sink” (aka: ecological trap) – an area Golden Eagles are strongly attracted to where they experience high mortality, leading to continued population level declines. When year-round breeding eagles experience mortalities, ‘floater’ eagles are likely to be the ones that fill territory vacancies, which themselves also face the same fate, a downward population spiral becomes possible.”
These dire warnings and many others like them have been ignored by the relevant authorities, so it is time to call in the Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act recognizes two levels of risk to critical populations — endangered and threatened. Endangered means the population is on the verge of extinction. A population is threatened if it is heading for endangered, and Wyoming’s Golden Eagles certainly fit that description.
Once a threatened population is listed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identifies the critical habitat that needs to be conserved in order to protect that population. The Audubon Society comments above allude to this long-term conservation of critical habitat.
Development within the critical habitat is allowed, but it is subject to habitat conservation planning coordinated with FWS. This is the kind of planning that Wyoming authorities have ignored.
Of special concern is the so-called Wyoming Wind Wall. This is a 200-mile-long area in Southeast Wyoming where almost continuous wind farm development is presently being proposed by an array of independent developers.
This kind of unplanned, uncoordinated, and reckless industrial development on a massive scale is potentially just the sort of ecological death trap the Audubon Society warns about. Wind power development may have already contributed to the huge Golden Eagle population losses reported by Bedrosian.
The Wyoming authorities have systematically ignored the cumulative impact of massive scale industrial wind power development. Listing the Wyoming population of Golden Eagles as threatened under the Endangered Species Act may be the only way to save them.
In fact, Wyoming wind power is a double death trap for golden eagles. First, as Audubon says, when the local eagles are killed, this creates a sparsely populated area which other eagles will then come into. Eagles, like most birds, try to spread out, probably to maintain the local food supply for their hatchlings. These new eagles are then also killed, and the cycle is repeated in a true death spiral.
In my last Wyoming wind power article, I noted a National Audubon Society warning that the growing masses of wind farms could be “population sinks” for golden eagles. This means that many eagles will be attracted to them, to then be killed by them. See my article here.
Digging into the scientific literature I found that this is a well-recognized wildlife management issue. It usually goes by the name “ecological trap.” Since being trapped means being killed, I think ecological death trap is more appropriate.
In fact, Wyoming wind power is a double death trap for golden eagles. First, as Audubon says, when the local eagles are killed, this creates a sparsely populated area which other eagles will then come into. Eagles, like most birds, try to spread out, probably to maintain the local food supply for their hatchlings. These new eagles are then also killed, and the cycle is repeated in a true death spiral.
In addition, wind farms kill a lot of other birds, as well as a huge number of bats. Golden eagles are scavengers, so they are attracted by this abundant food supply. In fact, being struck by cars while eating roadkill is a major cause of golden eagle death.
Ecological death traps are not new science, so the Federal and State Wyoming wildlife managers must know about them. To give you the flavor of the science, below are two quotes from a 2002 literature review article entitled “Ecological and evolutionary traps” available here.
“Deterministic models have shown that, as one might expect, when there are major differences in quality between habitats and population sizes are small, behavioral preferences for the habitats that yield no net reproduction (habitat ‘sinks’) can lead to population extinction. More surprisingly, this result appears to hold true even when patches of poor habitat represent a relatively small proportion of the entire landscape. Thus, alteration of only a fraction of the habitat in such a way that the decision-making rules of an organism no longer yield adaptive outcomes can result in the demise of the whole population if the preferences of individuals are strong enough.”
“Organisms often rely on environmental cues to make behavioral and life-history decisions. However, in environments that have been altered suddenly by humans, formerly reliable cues might no longer be associated with adaptive outcomes. In such cases, organisms can become ‘trapped’ by their evolutionary responses to the cues and experience reduced survival or reproduction. Ecological traps occur when organisms make poor habitat choices based on cues that correlated formerly with habitat quality. Ecological traps are part of a broader phenomenon, evolutionary traps, involving a dissociation between cues that organisms use to make any behavioral or life-history decision and outcomes normally associated with that decision. A trap can lead to extinction if a population falls below a critical size threshold before adaptation to the novel environment occurs. Conservation and management protocols must be designed in light of, rather than in spite of, the behavioral mechanisms and evolutionary history of populations and species to avoid ‘trapping’ them.”
Spacing out their nesting and scavenging for food are two deeply rooted survival instincts in golden eagles. Wind farms turn these survival skills into a death trap. Federal and state Wyoming wildlife and energy managers need to recognize this potentially catastrophic fact.
Wind power does more than kill the eagles that happen by; it repeatedly draws them in, then kills them.
A programmatic EIA is a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the massive wind development underway in Wyoming. The growing adverse impact on golden eagles and other wildlife is especially disturbing. What can be done to limit the damage is a big part of the assessment.
A programmatic EIA is a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the massive wind development underway in Wyoming. The growing adverse impact on golden eagles and other wildlife is especially disturbing. What can be done to limit the damage is a big part of the assessment.
There is NEPA language for this. It is called a “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)” looking at “cumulative effects”. The Feds completed two back in 2024. The first one was for multiple offshore wind projects in the New York Bight. They then completed one for the five proposed floating wind projects off California. These are a good precedent for Wyoming.
Of course, both these offshore wind studies were Biden era greenwash jobs that mostly ignored the obvious adverse impact on protected whales and other marine mammals. This does not mean that a good PEIS cannot be done for Wyoming.
A good start on the PEIS issues can be found in the numerous comments already filed in opposition to individual Wyoming wind projects. For example, the Two Rivers Project received over a hundred pages of detailed technical comments, many regarding the extreme threat to golden eagles. Two Rivers is part of what is called the growing “wall of wind” in southeastern Wyoming.
One of the best is “Comments on Environmental Assessment of the Two Rivers Wind Energy Project on behalf of National Audubon Society and the Wyoming Outdoor Council.” It is really a 17-page research report including lots of data and maps. See letter #16 of 18.
Here are two quick quotes to give the flavor of Audubon’s objections to the project:
“Wyoming is home to the largest breeding population of Golden Eagles in the lower 48 states and provides critical habitat for wintering and migrating individuals; the state contains some of the most valuable areas for long-term conservation in the western United States”
This one specifically refers to cumulative effects:
“Inadequate protections in a Golden Eagle stronghold experiencing high growth in wind development risks the project area becoming a “population sink” (aka: ecological trap) – an area Golden Eagles are strongly attracted to where they experience high mortality, leading to continued population level declines. When year-round breeding eagles experience mortalities, “floater” eagles are likely to be the ones that fill territory vacancies, which themselves also face the same fate, a downward population spiral becomes possible. Several existing wind developments (Dunlap and Ekola Flats) are located adjacent to Phase I-III. The proposed Lucky Star Wind Project would be adjacent to Phase IV, among others.”
These telling technical comments, and myriad more filed on other projects, need to be incorporated and addressed in a proper PEIS.
A NEPA PEIS is a federal action, but the State of Wyoming could also conduct a thorough assessment of the cumulative adverse impact of runaway wind power. In some ways, it is better positioned to do so.
NEPA only applies to federal agency decisions, although it can include consideration of non-federal activities that those decisions facilitate, including wind facilities. Moreover, while there is federal protection for endangered species, as well as for golden eagles under the Eagle Protection Act, there is little protection for the many other species threatened by deadly wind turbines.
In contrast, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (and Department) operate under a statutory requirement to care for all Wyoming wildlife. Their website puts it this way:
“In 1937, the Wyoming Legislature granted the Commission authority over all wildlife matters and allowed financial independence. Since then, Wyoming Statute 23-1-103 has guided our work in stating, ‘It is the purpose of this act and policy of the state to provide an adequate and flexible system for control, propagation, management, protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife.’“
It would be best if the Feds and Wyoming teamed up on a comprehensive assessment of how to control the adverse impact of wind generation on wildlife, especially golden eagles. That this assessment needs done is now beyond question.
As European energy expert Samuel Furfari aptly puts it, green hydrogen is “like burning Louis Vuitton handbags for heat.” It’s an extravagant waste, especially in water-scarce Wyoming.
With federal subsidies pouring billions into clean energy hubs, states are lining up for projects like Wyoming’s Pronghorn Clean Hydrogen Center.
A large green hydrogen storage tank stands prominently at an industrial facility. This image highlights the integration of sustainable energy solutions with modern infrastructure.
As European energy expert Samuel Furfari aptly puts it, green hydrogen is “like burning Louis Vuitton handbags for heat.” It’s an extravagant waste, especially in water-scarce Wyoming.
With federal subsidies pouring billions into clean energy hubs, states are lining up for projects like Wyoming’s Pronghorn Clean Hydrogen Center.
Let’s cut through the hype: Green hydrogen is a money pit that costs up to three times the energy to produce than it yields. That’s right — it costs double or triple the energy of the hydrogen made. It can’t handle the intermittency of wind and solar, and it worsens regional water scarcity. Wyoming taxpayers should demand a halt before more dollars vanish into this green financial nightmare.
First, the energy math is damning. Producing one kilogram of green hydrogen — about the same energy as a gallon of gas — via electrolysis requires 50 to 85 or more kilowatt-hours of electricity, yet yields just 33 kWh of usable energy.
That’s a whopping 1.5 to 2.5 net loss.
Factor in all inputs: harvesting and purifying water (10-13 times more water than hydrogen produced), cooling, splitting water with electricity, compression to 10,000 psi — triple an average scuba tank — chilling to near zero (minus 460 degrees for liquefaction), and storage losses to top it off.
Besides energy losses, the full costs for green hydrogen facilities like Pronghorn — including capital for electrolyzers, infrastructure ($1,000 to 2,000 per kW), labor, operations and maintenance — push costs to $5 to $8 per kg. The energy-equivalent gallon of gas costs less than $3.
Grey hydrogen from natural gas (abundant in Wyoming) costs around $2 per kg on an equivalent basis, with a steady supply and existing infrastructure. These hidden expenses make the Pronghorn project a bigger financial black hole for Wyoming taxpayers.
As one energy specialist notes, “Every time you involve hydrogen, you get not small losses but large, substantial losses.”
Why squander electricity on a fuel that devours more power than it delivers? The only reason is climate ideology. Because it doesn’t make any economic sense. And green hydrogen will not change future temperature one iota.
Worse, wind and solar — the backbone of green claims — can’t power these industrial behemoths. Green hydrogen electrolysis plants, like Pronghorn, need 24/7 operation to be economical. They can’t be flipped on and off like a light switch as the wind gusts or clouds roll in.
In Wyoming, wind generates power only 30 percent to 40 percent of the time, solar just 20 percent to 25 percent.
Projects like Wyoming’s Sidewinder Hydrogen Hub envision giga-scale facilities, but intermittency means they would be idle most of the time, further spiking costs.
Proponents tout storage, but using stored hydrogen to generate electricity for more hydrogen? That’s “second-generation” folly, additionally costing an additional 100 percent of the energy yielded, plus leaks and inefficiencies. It’s absurd.
Abundant natural gas provides a steady baseload without additional expense or water stress. Natural gas has a fully built-out infrastructure, ready demand, no need for subsidies, and pays taxes and royalties. None of this is true for green hydrogen.
Water scarcity seals the deal. Green hydrogen guzzles nine to 13 times as much pure water for every kilogram of hydrogen produced, requiring even more for cooling. In arid Wyoming, hydrogen production will compete with agriculture, communities and nature.
They will have to pay for water rights, too — another expense.
Infrastructure nightmares compound the waste. Hydrogen’s tiny molecules escape easily (10 percent storage loss), embrittle metals and risk explosions — remember the Hindenburg? We have zero dedicated pipelines; retrofitting costs billions, and it’s unsuitable for existing gas lines. It will destroy them through embrittlement. Remember, it has to be compressed to 10,000 psi and frozen.
Demand? Where is it? No mass market for hydrogen trucks or planes exists; it’s five times pricier than natural gas, ignoring extras. Big players like BP scrapped 18 projects to save $200 million, and Shell axed Norway ventures for lack of buyers. Australia’s $750 million plant? Canceled as a money-loser. Reasonable people are fleeing green hydrogen money pits.
Federal handouts — $9.5 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act — prop this up, adding to the $38 trillion debt and fueling inflation. Wyoming, rich in natural gas, should pivot to compressed natural gas: easier (stored at 3,500 psi vs. 10,000), no super-wwchilling, infrastructure-ready (1,500-plus stations), and convertible gas engines.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright nails it: Natural gas yes, hydrogen no. These states can’t afford dumb ideas mimicking Europe’s failures. Let’s kill the hubs.
Let markets decide; subsidizing green hydrogen is burning our future — just like burning Louis Vuitton bags. Wyomingites are smarter and more frugal than supporting this waste. Time to rise up and put a stop to this wasteful green folly.
A remarkable discovery in the Rocky Mountains has captured attention worldwide: As alpine ice patches melt due to rising temperatures, researchers have uncovered the remarkably preserved remains of a whitebark pine forest that dates back nearly 6,000 years.
This ancient forest was found on the Beartooth Plateau in northwest Wyoming, part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The trees are located about 180 meters (around 600 feet) above the current tree line, at an elevation of roughly 3,091 meters (10,141 feet).
A remarkable discovery in the Rocky Mountains has captured attention worldwide: As alpine ice patches melt due to rising temperatures, researchers have uncovered the remarkably preserved remains of a whitebark pine forest that dates back nearly 6,000 years.
This ancient forest was found on the Beartooth Plateau in northwest Wyoming, part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The trees are located about 180 meters (around 600 feet) above the current tree line, at an elevation of roughly 3,091 meters (10,141 feet).
Trees dating back almost 6000 years have come to scientists’ attention due to ice melting in the Rocky Mountains, offering a “time capsule” into the past
A 5900-year-old whitebark pine forest has been discovered due to the melting of alpine ice in the Rocky mountains. Scientists found more than 30 trees approximately 3100 metres above sea level – 180 metres higher than the present tree line – while carrying out an archaeological survey on the Beartooth plateau in Wyoming.
This “offers us a window into past conditions at high elevations”, says Cathy Whitlock at Montana State University. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) doesn’t grow at this elevation now, so these ones had to grow at a time when the climate was warmer, she says.
Climate-driven changes in high-elevation forest distribution and reductions in snow and ice cover have major implications for ecosystems and global water security. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of the Rocky Mountains (United States), recent melting of ahigh-elevation (3,091 m asl) ice patch exposed a mature stand of whitebark pine (Pinusalbicaulis) trees, located ~180 m in elevation above modern tree line, that date to themid-Holocene (c. 5,950 to 5,440 cal y BP). Here, we used this subfossil wood record to develop tree-ring-based temperature estimates for the upper-elevation climate conditions that resulted in ancient forest establishment and growth and the subsequent regional ice-patch growth and downslope shift of tree line. Results suggest that mid-Holoceneforest establishment and growth occurred under warm-season (May-Oct) mean temperatures of 6.2 °C (±0.2 °C), until a multi century cooling anomaly suppressed temperatures below 5.8 °C, resulting in stand mortality by c. 5,440 y BP. Transient climate model simulations indicate that regional cooling was driven by changes in summer insolation and Northern Hemisphere volcanism. The initial cooling event was followed centuries later (c. 5,100 y BP) by sustained Icelandic volcanic eruptions that forced a centennial-scale1.0 °C summer cooling anomaly and led to rapid ice-patch growth and preservation of the trees. With recent warming (c. 2000–2020 CE), warm-season temperatures now equal and will soon exceed those of the mid-Holocene period of high tree line. It is likely that perennial ice cover will again disappear from the region, and tree line may expand upslope so long as plant-available moisture and disturbance are not limiting.
A new lawsuit could finally end the secrecy surrounding wind turbines killing eagles. Wyoming’s Albany County Conservancy (ACC) is suing the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for failing to provide the mandatory eagle kill reports for three big wind facilities.
A new lawsuit could finally end the secrecy surrounding wind turbines killing eagles. Wyoming’s Albany County Conservancy (ACC) is suing the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for failing to provide the mandatory eagle kill reports for three big wind facilities.
This is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case. ACC made a proper FOIA request. Five
months later FWS said they had over a thousand responsive document, but ACC could only see a small fraction.
Since ACC is after total kills this fraction is useless. Moreover the reason FWS gave for withholding most of the kill records looks to be invalid. So ACC is asking the Court to require FWS to cough up the kills.
The introduction to ACC’s Complaint is very clear so rather than tell you what it says, here it is:
“1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA or the Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking to compel Defendants U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to comply with their statutory obligation to disclose nonexempt information concerning the mortality and injury of legally protected eagles at three major wind energy projects located in Carbon County, Wyoming.
Understanding the ecological impacts of the emerging and rapidly proliferating wind energy sector is imperative to Plaintiff Albany County Conservancy, which strives to protect the rugged Western landscapes of Wyoming and the sensitive wildlife that call it home. Disclosure of the requested information is particularly warranted here since it concerns the otherwise illegal take of iconic, federally protected species—Bald and Golden eagles—and because collecting this information is a necessary condition of the permits that exempt these energy projects from incidental take liability under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d.
2. Plaintiff Albany County Conservancy (the Conservancy) submitted its FOIA request on October 11, 2024. Defendants issued a final response on March 17, 2025, releasing only 256 pages while simultaneously withholding 910 pages in full under FOIA Exemption 4 without adequate justification, foreseeable-harm analysis, record description, or the segregability review required by law.
3. Defendants also failed to disclose entire categories of records—including mortality reports, correspondence, and known eagle-take incident submissions—despite Plaintiff’s knowledge that such records exist within FWS’s possession.
4. Defendants’ obfuscation and the lack of any coherent justification for withholding this information strongly suggests that Defendants have something to hide. It may well be that eagle mortality stemming from these projects is far outpacing predictions, or FWS may be asleep at the switch. Either way, under FOIA, the public has a right to know. This is especially true where there may be recurring violations of federal wildlife law (i.e., BGEPA).”
The FOIA exemption that FWS cites is for confidential business information. No doubt the wind facilities do not want the public know how many eagle deaths they are reporting but that does not make it confidential business information. Thus the suit looks promising.
I have written at length about the absurd Federal secrecy that surrounds wind turbines killing eagles. See my report “Time for FWS to Stop Wind Power Eagle-Kill Permits” here.
ACC has a compelling reason for wanting this kill data. There was an elaborate Wyoming tagging study that found wind turbines killing more Golden Eagles than all other human causes combined.
That finding is very different from the assumptions made in the FWS eagle-kill permitting program. FWS has ignored this dynamite finding. Thus the requested kill data might call the entire national permitting program into question.
Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this vital litigation proceeds.
A new lawsuit could finally end the secrecy surrounding wind turbines killing eagles. Wyoming’s Albany County Conservancy (ACC) is suing the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for failing to provide the mandatory eagle kill reports for three big wind facilities.
This is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case. ACC made a proper FOIA request. Five
months later FWS said they had over a thousand responsive document but ACC could only see a small fraction.
Since ACC is after total kills this fraction is useless. Moreover the reason FWS gave for withholding most of the kill records looks to be invalid. So ACC is asking the Court to require FWS to cough up the kills.
The introduction to ACC’s Complaint is very clear so rather than tell you what it says, here it is:
“1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA or the Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking to compel Defendants U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to comply with their statutory obligation to disclose nonexempt information concerning the mortality and injury of legally protected eagles at three major wind energy projects located in Carbon County, Wyoming.
Understanding the ecological impacts of the emerging and rapidly proliferating wind energy sector is imperative to Plaintiff Albany County Conservancy, which strives to protect the rugged Western landscapes of Wyoming and the sensitive wildlife that call it home. Disclosure of the requested information is particularly warranted here since it concerns the otherwise illegal take of iconic, federally protected species—Bald and Golden eagles—and because collecting this information is a necessary condition of the permits that exempt these energy projects from incidental take liability under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d.
2. Plaintiff Albany County Conservancy (the Conservancy) submitted its FOIA request on October 11, 2024. Defendants issued a final response on March 17, 2025, releasing only 256 pages while simultaneously withholding 910 pages in full under FOIA Exemption 4 without adequate justification, foreseeable-harm analysis, record description, or the segregability review required by law.
3. Defendants also failed to disclose entire categories of records—including mortality reports, correspondence, and known eagle-take incident submissions—despite Plaintiff’s knowledge that such records exist within FWS’s possession.
4. Defendants’ obfuscation and the lack of any coherent justification for withholding this information strongly suggests that Defendants have something to hide. It may well be that eagle mortality stemming from these projects is far outpacing predictions, or FWS may be asleep at the switch. Either way, under FOIA, the public has a right to know. This is especially true where there may be recurring violations of federal wildlife law (i.e., BGEPA).”
The FOIA exemption that FWS cites is for confidential business information. No doubt the wind facilities do not want the public know how many eagle deaths they are reporting but that does not make it confidential business information. Thus the suit looks promising.
I have written at length about the absurd Federal secrecy that surrounds wind turbines killing eagles. See my report “Time for FWS to Stop Wind Power Eagle-Kill Permits” here.
ACC has a compelling reason for wanting this kill data. There was an elaborate Wyoming tagging study that found wind turbines killing more Golden Eagles than all other human causes combined.
That finding is very different from the assumptions made in the FWS eagle-kill permitting program. FWS has ignored this dynamite finding. Thus the requested kill data might call the entire national permitting program into question.
Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this vital litigation proceeds.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright went to Wyoming last week to cut the ribbon on the first new rare earth mine in the U.S. since the 1950s. Telling the assembled guests and reporters that the “Brook Mine” is critical to breaking China’s “stranglehold on rare earth processing,” he hinted that it might be the first of several. It should be.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright went to Wyoming last week to cut the ribbon on the first new rare earth mine in the U.S. since the 1950s. Telling the assembled guests and reporters that the “Brook Mine” is critical to breaking China’s “stranglehold on rare earth processing,” he hinted that it might be the first of several. It should be.
A few years ago, I visited Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, and when discussing the need for domestic production of vital minerals, he picked up a dark brown rock from the Mojave Desert, explaining that it was mostly composed of a “rare earth” element. He said millions of such rocks littered the desert in his district, yet the United States imported 100 percent of the mineral it contains. That situation has not changed since then, but maybe it soon will.
Many leaders have warned for years about America’s reliance on China for rare earth minerals, several of which are critical in the production of renewable energy and high-tech equipment like cell phones, computers, MRI machines, and satellites. Most Americans don’t spend two seconds wondering where we get these elements with hard-to-pronounce names like ytterbium, dysprosium, and praseodymium. But with China becoming an ever-increasing threat to U.S. security, a passing concern has become a crisis. Unnecessarily.
There is no good reason for the U.S. or its allies to rely on China in the first place. Western economies are heavily dependent upon energy and telecommunications, but nothing about that requires Chinese mining or manufacturing. America has always had its own plentiful supplies but decided decades ago to lock up some of its own most important natural resources.
In fact, the only thing remarkable about Congressman Gosar’s “rare earth” rock is that it isn’t rare at all. The term “rare earth” is a misnomer, applied to 17 specific minerals because they were once considered difficult to extract from the surrounding rock in which they are found. But supplies abound worldwide, including much of the U.S., where our known reserves are at least ten times the entire world’s production.
China now mines 80-90 percent of the world’s rare-earth minerals – and processes virtually all the rest – yet it has only about 37 percent of the world’s estimated reserves. Before the 1960s, the U.S. supplied the world, mostly from one mine in California. Then, China started exporting rare earths, driving prices down, and finally bankrupting that mine in 2002. The U.S. also had a national defense stockpile but sold most of it in 1998, while the last American processing plant in Texas was closing.
During President Trump’s first term, he ordered a list of “critical minerals… essential to the economic and national security of the United States, the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption.” A recent executive order renewed that call for reducing American reliance on imports of critical minerals by increasing domestic production. The new mine is part of that strategy, and as Secretary Wright said, it is a beginning, not an end.
It is impossible to overstate how important such minerals are, not just on a macro-economic level, but in everyone’s daily life. Cell phones are so routine that we rarely ponder where they come from or what they are made of. They just look like glass and plastic, but their batteries are made of lithium, niobium, manganese, and tantalum. The screens and LCD displays contain aluminum. Besides silicon, microprocessors and circuit boards contain important components made from antimony, arsenic, and indium, soldered together with tin. Micro-capacitors are made of tantalum and platinum, the vibration motors have tungsten and neodymium weights, and the speaker magnets are made of arsenic and gallium. The outer casing is a carbon composite that includes magnesium. All those minerals have one thing in common – they are primarily produced in China.
Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman called the new mine “the dawn of a new era in American energy and national security,” adding, “We are reclaiming our independence by tapping into the vast reserves of rare earth elements right beneath our feet.”
The new mine will also eventually feature a processing facility for products like rare earth magnets and semiconductor chips, taking that monopoly away from China for the first time in generations.
The U.S. does not need a trade war with China over critical minerals. It does not require an agreement with Ukraine or anyone else for those minerals. It needs to produce domestically the products America’s economy and security depend on – which it turns out are not that rare.
You must be logged in to post a comment.