4 ms·
The exact numbers re: what kills birds here aren't really what matters. What matters is the relative orders of magnitude. Even if the number for cats is a WAG
by actually_a_dog 4y ago
The exact numbers re: what kills birds here aren't really what matters. What matters is the relative orders of magnitude. Even if the number for cats is a WAG and wildly off by a factor of 2 in either direction, we can safely say that buildings and windows are far more dangerous to birds than Felis catus.
If cats are in fact half as dangerous to birds as estimated, then the danger is still of the same order of magnitude as that from power lines, vehicles, and pesticides. If they are twice as dangerous as estimated, then the danger is still not far off from those other things in terms of order of magnitude.
Ultimately, these things are all factors to keep in mind in terms of how we can prioritize actions that benefit the bird population.
TL;DR: focus on orders of magnitude here, don't get fixated on exact numbers.
- devonkim 4y agoI think part of my point should be taken further that we don’t even have the correct order of magnitude for cats and the numbers for windmills are so small it’s probably negligible although care should be taken to see if there is some disproportionate externalities observable now such as when Australia changed its own ecosystems with changes to farming practices. What isn’t under so much debate though that does unequivocally matter is the amount of land necessary to convert to renewables which is a function of energy density in urban areas where land use is much more expensive and total energy used per area is quite high. While systems do get more efficient over time the efficiency isn’t exponential and portable energy is a big issue that is mostly orthogonal to renewable sources in funding mechanisms yet also part of the incredibly complex energy supply chain of the world economy.