5 ms·

Sounds like a false dilemma fallacy to me. Wind turbines and cats aren’t related in any way, and if both are a problem the solutions are completely independent

• hutzlibu 3y ago
  I would think his point is, that the number of bird deaths are simply neglectible compared to what for example house cats do (or windows). So no need for much further research, that could be spend better elsewhere.
• kitd 3y ago
  The point is that efforts to curb wind power due to the threat to birds is irrational if you aren't bothered about the threat from domestic cats.
  • willis936 3y ago
    Many people are bothered by that. If there are low effort means to get ahead of shifting sentiments then they're worth pursuing.
    • dahart 3y ago
      How much of a shifting sentiment is bird death really? It’d be nice if windmills didn’t kill birds, and I agree with the idea that we should just do it if it’s low effort. But this topic has always felt a bit more like a talking point fueled by vested business interests, and less like genuine concern.
      • lapinot 3y ago
        It's definitely a genuine concern, at least for some people (let's say degrowth ecologists). (not to say oil companies aren't using these in bad faith too) Usually this argument exist in the framework of explaining how large wind turbines are actually industrial facilities with associated risks (among which killing birds, waste, need for concrete/infrastructure in agricultural land, ..) and not somehow "free" "green" or "renewable" energy. Modern "wind farms" have basically nothing to do with windmills or small-scale wind power like wind-powered water wells (which typically are used as direct power for mechanical or heat energy): they need global supply-chains and big companies.
        • dahart 3y ago
          This is a fair point. But the part that’s almost always missing is the comparison to what the windmills are replacing. It’s fair to say that wind turbines kill some birds and that they require some resources to build and maintain, etc. When people try to point at the need for infrastructure for windmills as a risk or negative, and they leave out how much infrastructure is needed for the alternatives, it is a sneaky way to leave people with the impression that wind power has some kind of net negative or net risk, when often it’s a massive landslide of a net positive compared to what we will do if we don’t build the wind farm and get power some other way. The degrowth ecologists know this better than most of us. As an example, the usual comparison brought up with birds getting killed is the number of birds killed by cats. We often don’t hear about the number of birds killed by oil spills. Deep water Horizon killed as many birds in a single spill as are killed globally in a year by wind turbines, and spills continue year after year. We don’t talk about the number of birds killed by power lines either.
          • lapinot 3y ago
            I completely agree that in terms of nefariousness of industrial facilities, wind turbines are quite ok (in comparison with other energy infrastructure). But since you're talking about what they replace, i can't help but mention that they almost never replace anything, they're meant to absorb growing demand. That's the single biggest argument for global critics like degrowth: we always talk about switching to better X, but most of the time we also keep the old ones running. We typically picture coal usage as having peaked in the 19c with these images of london in smoke, but in fact it has never been as high as say last year (i didn't look at the numbers, but its basically a steady upwards trend for every primary resource since 200y). Rule of thumb your energy consumption is proportional to your GDP (it's actually pretty accurate). So that's why, sure, wind or renewable (or even nuclear to some lesser extent) is better than fossil in some ways, but this in itself, in our current system, won't translate to much unless our prime effort goes to first maintain consumption at a steady level and then actually reduce it. But i'm getting a bit off-topic! :)
            • dahart 3y ago
    • _aavaa_ 3y ago
      It's not an shifting sentiment though, it's opinion (propaganda) pieces from fossil fuels industries (well their PR firms) that keep stirring up this sentiment. Letting them set the frame for the discussion and then following along is by no mean "getting ahead" it's simply playing their game.
      • willis936 3y ago
        It can be both things. Anyone interested in success should be defending their weaknesses.
        • _aavaa_ 3y ago
          I agree with you. I think what we may be disagreeing on is the nature of the weakness. I see this weakness as being inherently PR rather than being inherently about the birds.
          • yowzadave 3y ago
            Exactly--the mere fact that this discussion is taking up mindshare is a sign of success for fossil fuel PR, and a sign of weakness for environmentalist PR. We need to improve the environmentalist PR!
  • rsynnott 3y ago
    Or, like, buildings. Far more birds die of hitting buildings than hitting turbines.
    • JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Or cars! I hit two birds so far this month. Once I hit a turkey; flew right out of the grass on the median; first I knew it was there, the windshield was splintering. So, yeah, turbines. Birds and turbines are one of those eco-theatre things.
      • Delphiza 3y ago
        You need to read the article. It suggests that you should paint the blades of your car black.
• arghwhat 3y ago
  It is not presented as a dilemma, but as a perspective: The numbers reported are tiny compared to other well-accepted causes of avian deaths. In other words, the numbers lack a good scale for comparison. Minimizing the issue would definitely be positive, but is also largely inconsequential in the big picture, and if such measures slow adoption it would even be harmful as pollution is an indirect cause of avian death.
• _aavaa_ 3y ago
  The point their making is that they're both equally irrelevant to the consideration of using wind turbines to generate electricity. Why are we even having a discussion about bird death from wind turbines? That's the important question. It isn't because people and companies suddenly started caring more about animal deaths from electricity production. It's straight up FUD about renewable energy. Articles like this, and discussion about bird deaths from turbines in general, frame the issues as something that must be talked about and discussed before installing wind turbines. As if the status quo is 0 environmental impact. But it's not. The status quo is oil, fossil gas, and coal. All of which have a significantly higher environmental impact, by orders of magnitude, than however many birds do or do not get killed by wind turbines.
  • smileysteve 3y ago
    This. Wind turbines occasionally kill a bird, but so do windows in houses, so do cars, so do cats. And oil and a warming planet definitely hurt birds. The next argument is the fiberglass waste, of which nobody gave 2 thoughts about the the fiberglass recreational boats that similarly don't break down made over the last 70 years.
• mrweasel 3y ago
  > Wind turbines and cats aren’t related in any way This isn't even about the birds when you get down to it. Sure in a few areas with endangered species of birds, turbines can be an issue. Mostly though, it's about limiting the number of wind turbines installed. Some people hate turbines with a passion and protecting birds is an excuse to fight installation of new turbines.