Bird deaths per year is a meaningless stat — coal could easily be generating more bird deaths per year because it simply dwarfs wind in power generation. You wa

Bird deaths per year is a meaningless stat — coal could easily be generating more bird deaths per year because it simply dwarfs wind in power generation. You want that in birds deaths / GW. So, taking the numbers for wind from the article, In [2]: 328_000 / 35 Out[2]: 9371.42857142857 9.3k birds / GW. The article lacks a generation number for coal. Looking it up in [1] it's 3748 TWh/year (sigh…) or 892 GW. Taking the bird deaths per year number from the article, that gives us: In [1]: 7_900_000 / 892 Out[1]: 8856.502242152466 So coal and wind are roughly comparable, with coal being marginally better at not killing birds. Which, TBH, I did not expect. Even so, the problem then with wind is still blown out of proportion. And we should still replace coal with wind, of course. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-coal?tab=table&time=earliest..2009 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-coal?tab=tabl... > For anyone about to suggest this is because there is more coal than wind: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2012.7 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2012.7... > > It estimates that wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh and fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh Something is wrong here, then. If we use those numbers, and use the generation numbers for 2009 from [1], we get ~74,250 deaths due to wind, and ~73,479,800 deaths due to coal. These numbers are an order of magnitude off the first article's absolute death numbers, too low for wind and too high for coal.