5 ms·

That's a conservative straw man. Skyscrapers have much more impact and no one notices.

adrianN 9y ago
I'm pretty sure some people notice. I'm also reasonably sure that if we produce a substantial amount of our energy needs from wind, turbines will far outnumber any skyscrapers.
- ghshephard 9y ago
  "Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually ... compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, " https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/north-america-wind-turbines-kill-around-300000-birds-annually-house-cats-around-3000000000.html https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/north-america-wi...
  - phillc73 9y ago
    The problem is not wind turbines or radio towers. The problem is cats.
  - briandear 9y ago
    That data isn’t true. Multiple studies put that number into the millions. http://www.nature.com/news/the-trouble-with-turbines-an-ill-wind-1.10849 http://www.nature.com/news/the-trouble-with-turbines-an-ill-...
    - ghshephard 9y ago
      Well, the data is definitely questionable - but unclear whether the Ornithological Society (or TreeHugger) cites unbiased studies, I'll give you that. Here is a Stanford Study with some sources: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/white1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/white1/ What I like about it, is that it cites avian mortality in terms of Mortality per MW, (though one might suggest MWh is a better number, but we can extract that by assuming 20% Capacity Factor) which is the more relevant number than total deaths, because are going to see a lot more MW in the future, and presumably deaths will scale linearly. Total Average US was 4.12 Avian Deaths / MW. With California really leading the pack at a high 18.76 per MW. Presuming a 20% capacity factor, and assuming the united states uses about 10 million MwH/day, that means the United States will need 10 million * 5 / 24 MW in capacity, or about 2 million MW capacity (Sanity Check - 2 million MW = 2000 GW which is about 400 GW of nuclear power plants @ 100% Capacity factor - about 400 Reactors,- seems within the realm of reason given the US has about 100 Reactors right now), which means that on average, we'll see about 8 million bird deaths in the future because of wind farms. That compares to (in 2009) - 4 million due to communication towers, 14 million due to fossil fuels, 72 million due to Pesticide, 97 million due to Building Windows, and 110 million due to feral cats.
- cr1895 9y ago
  And bird deaths from cats and skyscrapers will be many orders of magnitude greater. This is well-reasearched, and it's not hard to find the journal articles on this topic. We need not guess.
EGreg 9y ago
If conservatives care so much about wildlife why do they support things that lead to deforestation and desertification and loss of biodiversity and pollution and...?
- smcl 9y ago
  To be a conservative is to hold multiple contradictory positions at once, many of which directly harm your own health or well-being
- mcv 9y ago
  Exactly. All these questionable concerns about the negative impacts of clean energy are straw men conjured up to protect the real devastating energy sources.
briandear 9y ago
How is “protecting birds” a conservative straw man? Non-conservatives routinely block all sorts of projects because of endangered fish or frogs. How often do non-conservatives use the Endangered Species Act as a tool to prevent projects with which they ideologically disagree? It’s like they oppose a project and then find whatever legal means they have available to block it. It isn’t like non-conservatives in California have a profound desire to protect the delta smelt; if they did, then why wouldn’t they oppose the Altamont Pass wind farm that kills 114 golden eagles each year? How about the death of highly endangered condors because of of California wind farms? A skyscraper has never killed a condor but a wind farm has. http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-... Non-conservatives use the same straw man by somehow suggesting fossil fuels harm wildlife. But their own pet projects seem to escape the same scrutiny with which they apply to fossil fuels. My theory is that by restricting fossil fuels they can redirect the balance of economic power towards a direction that is more in line with their particular ideology. My point is that “environment” itself is being used as a straw man with the ultimate goal of changing wealth distribution. Oil spills definitely harm wildlife and windmills also definitely harm wildlife. It’s fair to point out the ecological effects of fields of windmills just as it’s fair to point out the harms of oil spills. Also, we aren’t talking about skyscrapers— we are talking about energy generation. Whether or not skyscrapers harm wildlife and to what degree isn’t relevant because skyscrapers already exist and people aren’t suggesting we cover the countryside with skyscrapers. If that were the topic under debate, then the effects of skyscrapers on wildlife would be a relevant point.
- seqastian 9y ago
  If you want to protect birds, you have to ban people from keeping cats and letting them loose in rural areas. Good luck with that.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    When complaining about loose cats, no one ever seems concerned about all the rats that are also killed.
- 9y ago
r00fus 9y ago
Not to mention cats. Some stats here: http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

I'm pretty sure some people notice. I'm also reasonably sure that if we produce a substantial amount of our energy needs from wind, turbines will far outnumber any skyscrapers.

ghshephard 9y ago
"Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually ... compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, " https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/north-america-wind-turbines-kill-around-300000-birds-annually-house-cats-around-3000000000.html https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/north-america-wi...
- phillc73 9y ago
  The problem is not wind turbines or radio towers. The problem is cats.
- briandear 9y ago
  That data isn’t true. Multiple studies put that number into the millions. http://www.nature.com/news/the-trouble-with-turbines-an-ill-wind-1.10849 http://www.nature.com/news/the-trouble-with-turbines-an-ill-...
  - ghshephard 9y ago
    Well, the data is definitely questionable - but unclear whether the Ornithological Society (or TreeHugger) cites unbiased studies, I'll give you that. Here is a Stanford Study with some sources: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/white1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/white1/ What I like about it, is that it cites avian mortality in terms of Mortality per MW, (though one might suggest MWh is a better number, but we can extract that by assuming 20% Capacity Factor) which is the more relevant number than total deaths, because are going to see a lot more MW in the future, and presumably deaths will scale linearly. Total Average US was 4.12 Avian Deaths / MW. With California really leading the pack at a high 18.76 per MW. Presuming a 20% capacity factor, and assuming the united states uses about 10 million MwH/day, that means the United States will need 10 million * 5 / 24 MW in capacity, or about 2 million MW capacity (Sanity Check - 2 million MW = 2000 GW which is about 400 GW of nuclear power plants @ 100% Capacity factor - about 400 Reactors,- seems within the realm of reason given the US has about 100 Reactors right now), which means that on average, we'll see about 8 million bird deaths in the future because of wind farms. That compares to (in 2009) - 4 million due to communication towers, 14 million due to fossil fuels, 72 million due to Pesticide, 97 million due to Building Windows, and 110 million due to feral cats.
cr1895 9y ago
And bird deaths from cats and skyscrapers will be many orders of magnitude greater. This is well-reasearched, and it's not hard to find the journal articles on this topic. We need not guess.

EGreg 9y ago

If conservatives care so much about wildlife why do they support things that lead to deforestation and desertification and loss of biodiversity and pollution and...?

smcl 9y ago
To be a conservative is to hold multiple contradictory positions at once, many of which directly harm your own health or well-being
mcv 9y ago
Exactly. All these questionable concerns about the negative impacts of clean energy are straw men conjured up to protect the real devastating energy sources.

briandear 9y ago

How is “protecting birds” a conservative straw man? Non-conservatives routinely block all sorts of projects because of endangered fish or frogs. How often do non-conservatives use the Endangered Species Act as a tool to prevent projects with which they ideologically disagree? It’s like they oppose a project and then find whatever legal means they have available to block it. It isn’t like non-conservatives in California have a profound desire to protect the delta smelt; if they did, then why wouldn’t they oppose the Altamont Pass wind farm that kills 114 golden eagles each year? How about the death of highly endangered condors because of of California wind farms? A skyscraper has never killed a condor but a wind farm has. http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-... Non-conservatives use the same straw man by somehow suggesting fossil fuels harm wildlife. But their own pet projects seem to escape the same scrutiny with which they apply to fossil fuels. My theory is that by restricting fossil fuels they can redirect the balance of economic power towards a direction that is more in line with their particular ideology. My point is that “environment” itself is being used as a straw man with the ultimate goal of changing wealth distribution. Oil spills definitely harm wildlife and windmills also definitely harm wildlife. It’s fair to point out the ecological effects of fields of windmills just as it’s fair to point out the harms of oil spills. Also, we aren’t talking about skyscrapers— we are talking about energy generation. Whether or not skyscrapers harm wildlife and to what degree isn’t relevant because skyscrapers already exist and people aren’t suggesting we cover the countryside with skyscrapers. If that were the topic under debate, then the effects of skyscrapers on wildlife would be a relevant point.

seqastian 9y ago
If you want to protect birds, you have to ban people from keeping cats and letting them loose in rural areas. Good luck with that.
- njarboe 9y ago
  When complaining about loose cats, no one ever seems concerned about all the rats that are also killed.
9y ago

r00fus 9y ago

Not to mention cats. Some stats here: http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm