7 ms·

Aren't these also massive mass bird slayers ? The last I read, over half a million birds were killed (official under-estimate) by wind turbines in UK alone ever

Aren't these also massive mass bird slayers ? The last I read, over half a million birds were killed (official under-estimate) by wind turbines in UK alone every year

triceratops 2y ago
And the Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon were good for birds? Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  It's usually the types of birds that are affected that upset people. Many ideal locations for windmills (in particular mountainous regions, dunno about offshore) happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. Likewise, there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement, especially among whales. It'd be nice to know that we're not replacing one disaster with another, though I'm out of date on my personal research as to whether any of these concerns still warrant further investigation.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > Many ideal locations for windmills...happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. The person I replied to was making a quantity-of-birds argument. Not an endangered species argument. > there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? I don't see much of a movement to ban those. It's almost like people decide the things they want to have for themselves (undisturbed views), then make up whatever noble-sounding reasons (whales, birds) will preserve those things.
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      > Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general, not a limited critique of quantity harmed. I do think the distinction remains important, hence why I made my post. > Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? Given that the ships are itinerant and their turbines are much smaller, I do believe the type of noise pollution they generate is qualitatively less harmful. I imagine the scale is something along the lines of: 1. windmills 2. sonar 3. marine vehicle engine and turbine noise Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. Sonar gets the second for the extreme volume some ships (esp. military) are capable of producing, though there are far fewer of them. Marine vehicles come last. There's a greater danger of animals being hit by fast moving boats (for example, manatees) than discombobulation from engine and turbine noise.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        > Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general I don't know how you got that. I just think a lot of fake bird lovers come out of the woodwork to oppose wind turbines because of $MADE_UP_REASON. Real wildlife lovers recognize that clean energy is good for wildlife.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        > I imagine the scale is something... Do you have sources for this scale? > Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. They're also static, so animals can just avoid them. Their blades spin a hundred feet above the water. Ships move around so their sounds can be anywhere. Their propellers spin in the water. And there are way more large ships than offshore windmills.
- lenkite 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cycomanic 2y ago
    I have trouble believing you are being honest. Piling under wind turbines?! I have yet to see a dead bird under a wind turbine myself (but I acknowledge they do kill some). Published estimated averages are 4 to 18 birds per turbine per year [1]. Compare that to buildings (where we also don't pile up either) which kill man estimated 1 billion birds a year [2] [1] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-de... [2] https://abcbirds.org/news/bird-building-collisions-study-2024/ https://abcbirds.org/news/bird-building-collisions-study-202...
    - lenkite 2y ago
      Yes, explicitly piling up under wind turbines. This was in the Western Ghats in India and my mother was sickened - (she used to be a regular trekker before Covid). I didn't initially believe her either. Btw, they were so effective as bird killers that wind-turbines were even acknowledged officially as "top predator". They change ecology drastically within a couple of years. “Our central discovery is that wind turbines can act as top predators, by reducing the density and activity of birds, their prey are now released from the typical level of predation. This release causes a range of changes in lizards,” explained Dr Maria Thaker of Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science https://iisc.ac.in/wind-farms-are-the-new-top-predator-in-the-food-chain/ https://iisc.ac.in/wind-farms-are-the-new-top-predator-in-th...
      - wzdd 2y ago
        > so effective as bird killers that wind-turbines were even acknowledged officially as "top predator" This is using "top" in the sense of "apex", because turbines have no natural predators. The paper says you could imagine them as something at the top of the trophic web. The paper explores the impact on their prey populations. That's opposed to "top" in the sense of "kills more than other predators" or whatever. I mention it because number-of-kills is what the rest of the discussion seems to be about.
cam_l 2y ago
You are going to freak out when you find out how many birds are killed by buildings generally. But you might want to sit down before i tell you how many are killed by cats.
- lenkite 2y ago
  That number is a heavy under-estimate and deliberately lowered for public consumption. But, you might want to sit down - The real slaughter is well in the millions annually.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- manquer 2y ago
  And all of those numbers pale in comparison in how we cruelly we treat birds used in the food supply chain (eggs, chicken etc). The recent kurzsesagt video is a great intro to the topic ( https://youtu.be/5sVfTPaxRwk https://youtu.be/5sVfTPaxRwk)
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Wild bird populations are potentially at risk, and extinction of a population has massive ecological consequences. Commercially raised chickens and the horrors they are exposed to are completely unrelated to that.
    - tempfile 2y ago
      I would hardly call it "utterly irrelevant" that in a discussion about "killing birds is bad" someone mentions that it is not usually considered bad to kill birds for food.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
IncreasePosts 2y ago
So, 500,000 birds out of 250,000,000? Aka 0.2% of birds. How many birds do coal power plants or other power sources kill?
- lenkite 2y ago
  Real number is well above that. Everyone involved in bird conservation agrees this number is a fraction only reported for public consumption - real number is well into the millions. You can ask organizations like ABC birds.
  - jimjimjim 2y ago
    Everyone agrees? I don't agree.
    - lenkite 2y ago
      Corrected.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    I doubt everyone agrees on anything. If you have contrary numbers please just save all of us the time and share them.
    - lenkite 2y ago
      Ugghh. I meant everyone in bird conservation. The ABC article explains why the official numbers are a heavy underestimate. But this was in 2021 - it has gotten worse since then. This is not unique to the US - my personal experience of this was in India. https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/ https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
      - viraptor 2y ago
        And the recommendation from those people is: choose the sites more carefully. Not stop or slow down, just: > Climate change is a critical threat to birds. Recognizing this fact, ABC supports renewable energy, including wind energy, and the transition away from fossil fuels. However, not every wind project is proposed in a suitable location.
mulmen 2y ago
I doubt that wind turbines are the only power source that kills birds. Marginal bird deaths per unit of power production is the interesting statistic. This MIT post [1] links to a 2009 study [2] which provides that comparison: Wind/nuclear: 0.3-0.4 birds/GWh Fossil: 5.2 birds/GWh So if you’re pro bird you’re pro wind power. [1]: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148112000857?via=ihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...
- kjaleshire 2y ago
  4.98 birds/GWh in the fossil fuel estimate comes from unrealized climate change expectations. They also only looked at two coal power plants for the remainder of the study. The nuclear source bird death estimates are extrapolated from one bad weather incident over two nights from a single plant on the Florida coast. This is not a serious or rigorous study. Is there anything more recent?
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    > comes from unrealized climate change expectations Wow.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” You can dismiss any source by saying “nuh-uh” but you need to back it up to be taken seriously here.
jimjimjim 2y ago
I live in an area where there are a lot of wind mills along a nearby range of hills. There is also another taller hill which allows you to look down on the wind mills. In all the times I've driven up there and stopped to look out at the vista there were no birds at the base of the windmills. None. On any of them.
tw04 2y ago
Did you read a Donald Trump tweet? Because no reputable source has ever said wind turbines are a major risk to birds. If you’re trying to save birds, the first place you should be looking is outdoor cats. https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/ https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mor...
- lenkite 2y ago
  > Did you read a Donald Trump tweet? Because no reputable source has ever said wind turbines are a major risk to birds. I don't care about Donald Trump. (How did this even become about him ?) And your second statement is laughably false as even elementary research would tell you. Do note that there are ~100 million cats and only ~70k wind turbines, if you use US as a reference. Cats are clearly not the top-predators of birds anymore.
  - tw04 2y ago
    > I don't care about Donald Trump. (How did this even become about him ?) You said you “read” about turbines killing birds (shockingly with no citation). There is literally nobody else claiming such stupidity. > Do note that there are ~100 million cats and only ~70k wind turbines, if you use US as a reference. Cats are clearly not the top-predators of birds anymore. Do note, a tiny fraction of the 100m cats are outdoor cats. And yes, they are absolutely one of the top predators of birds and have been for decades.
jodrellblank 2y ago
Humans in the UK killed and ate over 111,000,000 birds just in January 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/poultry-and-poultry-meat-statistics/monthly-statistics-on-the-activity-of-uk-hatcheries-and-uk-poultry-slaughterhouses-data-for-january-2025 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/poultry-and-poultry...
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  They also raised about 110,000,000 birds that otherwise would never have been born. This is completely irrelevant to wind turbines or any other power generation tech - the impact on wild birds is what is of concern, because, by definition, we're not able to raise any number of wild birds we'd like to have.
  - CWIZO 2y ago
    While indeed irrelevant for the original point. I would encourage you to educate[1] yourself on the life these birds have before you make claims we're doing them a favour by bringing them into existence. [1] https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      I made no such claim, I was only mentioning that in relation to the fact that population size of domestic birds is not impacted at all by the massive killing, while population size for wild birds might be dramatically impacted by a much smaller number of deaths. I find the horrors of industrial animal farming horrendous, while not having a moral problem with the idea of raising an animal in decent conditions for slaughter.
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    It isn't completely irrelevant; they didn't mention wild birds, or any wider context - the way they commented was as a shock number, the intent of that is "wind turbines kill $bignum, stop wind turbines". The relevance of the much bigger shock number is to put it in context - human activity slaughters a lot of animals. Okay, something else which affects wild birds: "Bird corpses were counted - and, where possible, identified - at 166 locations throughout Britain during the summer of 1985. The survey covered all roads except motorways. It is the most recent such study, and the most comprehensive. The results were depressing. A minimum of 30 million birds are killed on Britain's roads every year. Depending on the assumptions made in the statistical analysis, the death rate could be even higher: 70 million a year is not impossible."[1] And that's as well as wild rabbits, hedgehogs, badgers, foxes, deer, and so on killed by cars which wind turbines don't affect. So the wildlife in the UK would be much better off if we built more viable alternatives to driving and road trucking than if we scrapped wind turbines. We can also note that people are working on wind turbines that don't kill birds, e.g. [2]. It's not a fixed fact that all wind turbine designs do the same damage. In the context of a world where fossil fuel propaganda really does exist[3] and Trump's recent executive order on unleashing energy generation where he tells government departments to look for all kinds of energy sources on their land - geothermal, hydroelectric, oil, gas, anything - except wind or solar - exists, and in the wider climate change context where there isn't a magically perfect answer - and where the UK is uniquely well suited in Europe to wind power - it can't just be left that "sensational $bignum means stop wind turbines" with nothing else mentioned. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/carnage-on-the-carriageway-millions-of-birds-and-animals-die-each-year-on-britain-s-roads-can-the-death-toll-be-reduced-malcolm-smith-on-the-wildlife-holocaust-1384964.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/carnage-on-... [2] https://www.audubon.org/magazine/surprisingly-simple-solution-protect-birds-wind-turbines-gets-its-biggest-test-yet https://www.audubon.org/magazine/surprisingly-simple-solutio... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX2aZUav-54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX2aZUav-54 - Climate Town video on how the gas industry sets up groups of 'concerned citizens' which pay social media influencers to post about how great cooking with gas is, and agitate politically while obscuring the source of their funding, among other things.

Aren't these also massive mass bird slayers ? The last I read, over half a million birds were killed (official under-estimate) by wind turbines in UK alone every year

triceratops 2y ago

And the Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon were good for birds? Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all.

zdragnar 2y ago
It's usually the types of birds that are affected that upset people. Many ideal locations for windmills (in particular mountainous regions, dunno about offshore) happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. Likewise, there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement, especially among whales. It'd be nice to know that we're not replacing one disaster with another, though I'm out of date on my personal research as to whether any of these concerns still warrant further investigation.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > Many ideal locations for windmills...happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. The person I replied to was making a quantity-of-birds argument. Not an endangered species argument. > there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? I don't see much of a movement to ban those. It's almost like people decide the things they want to have for themselves (undisturbed views), then make up whatever noble-sounding reasons (whales, birds) will preserve those things.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    > Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general, not a limited critique of quantity harmed. I do think the distinction remains important, hence why I made my post. > Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? Given that the ships are itinerant and their turbines are much smaller, I do believe the type of noise pollution they generate is qualitatively less harmful. I imagine the scale is something along the lines of: 1. windmills 2. sonar 3. marine vehicle engine and turbine noise Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. Sonar gets the second for the extreme volume some ships (esp. military) are capable of producing, though there are far fewer of them. Marine vehicles come last. There's a greater danger of animals being hit by fast moving boats (for example, manatees) than discombobulation from engine and turbine noise.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general I don't know how you got that. I just think a lot of fake bird lovers come out of the woodwork to oppose wind turbines because of $MADE_UP_REASON. Real wildlife lovers recognize that clean energy is good for wildlife.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > I imagine the scale is something... Do you have sources for this scale? > Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. They're also static, so animals can just avoid them. Their blades spin a hundred feet above the water. Ships move around so their sounds can be anywhere. Their propellers spin in the water. And there are way more large ships than offshore windmills.
lenkite 2y ago
[flagged]
- cycomanic 2y ago
  I have trouble believing you are being honest. Piling under wind turbines?! I have yet to see a dead bird under a wind turbine myself (but I acknowledge they do kill some). Published estimated averages are 4 to 18 birds per turbine per year [1]. Compare that to buildings (where we also don't pile up either) which kill man estimated 1 billion birds a year [2] [1] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-de... [2] https://abcbirds.org/news/bird-building-collisions-study-2024/ https://abcbirds.org/news/bird-building-collisions-study-202...
  - lenkite 2y ago
    Yes, explicitly piling up under wind turbines. This was in the Western Ghats in India and my mother was sickened - (she used to be a regular trekker before Covid). I didn't initially believe her either. Btw, they were so effective as bird killers that wind-turbines were even acknowledged officially as "top predator". They change ecology drastically within a couple of years. “Our central discovery is that wind turbines can act as top predators, by reducing the density and activity of birds, their prey are now released from the typical level of predation. This release causes a range of changes in lizards,” explained Dr Maria Thaker of Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science https://iisc.ac.in/wind-farms-are-the-new-top-predator-in-the-food-chain/ https://iisc.ac.in/wind-farms-are-the-new-top-predator-in-th...
    - wzdd 2y ago
      > so effective as bird killers that wind-turbines were even acknowledged officially as "top predator" This is using "top" in the sense of "apex", because turbines have no natural predators. The paper says you could imagine them as something at the top of the trophic web. The paper explores the impact on their prey populations. That's opposed to "top" in the sense of "kills more than other predators" or whatever. I mention it because number-of-kills is what the rest of the discussion seems to be about.

cam_l 2y ago

You are going to freak out when you find out how many birds are killed by buildings generally. But you might want to sit down before i tell you how many are killed by cats.

lenkite 2y ago
That number is a heavy under-estimate and deliberately lowered for public consumption. But, you might want to sit down - The real slaughter is well in the millions annually.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
manquer 2y ago
And all of those numbers pale in comparison in how we cruelly we treat birds used in the food supply chain (eggs, chicken etc). The recent kurzsesagt video is a great intro to the topic ( https://youtu.be/5sVfTPaxRwk https://youtu.be/5sVfTPaxRwk)
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Wild bird populations are potentially at risk, and extinction of a population has massive ecological consequences. Commercially raised chickens and the horrors they are exposed to are completely unrelated to that.
  - tempfile 2y ago
    I would hardly call it "utterly irrelevant" that in a discussion about "killing birds is bad" someone mentions that it is not usually considered bad to kill birds for food.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

IncreasePosts 2y ago

So, 500,000 birds out of 250,000,000? Aka 0.2% of birds. How many birds do coal power plants or other power sources kill?

lenkite 2y ago
Real number is well above that. Everyone involved in bird conservation agrees this number is a fraction only reported for public consumption - real number is well into the millions. You can ask organizations like ABC birds.
- jimjimjim 2y ago
  Everyone agrees? I don't agree.
  - lenkite 2y ago
    Corrected.
- mulmen 2y ago
  I doubt everyone agrees on anything. If you have contrary numbers please just save all of us the time and share them.
  - lenkite 2y ago
    Ugghh. I meant everyone in bird conservation. The ABC article explains why the official numbers are a heavy underestimate. But this was in 2021 - it has gotten worse since then. This is not unique to the US - my personal experience of this was in India. https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/ https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
    - viraptor 2y ago
      And the recommendation from those people is: choose the sites more carefully. Not stop or slow down, just: > Climate change is a critical threat to birds. Recognizing this fact, ABC supports renewable energy, including wind energy, and the transition away from fossil fuels. However, not every wind project is proposed in a suitable location.

mulmen 2y ago

I doubt that wind turbines are the only power source that kills birds. Marginal bird deaths per unit of power production is the interesting statistic. This MIT post [1] links to a 2009 study [2] which provides that comparison: Wind/nuclear: 0.3-0.4 birds/GWh Fossil: 5.2 birds/GWh So if you’re pro bird you’re pro wind power. [1]: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148112000857?via=ihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...

kjaleshire 2y ago
4.98 birds/GWh in the fossil fuel estimate comes from unrealized climate change expectations. They also only looked at two coal power plants for the remainder of the study. The nuclear source bird death estimates are extrapolated from one bad weather incident over two nights from a single plant on the Florida coast. This is not a serious or rigorous study. Is there anything more recent?
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  > comes from unrealized climate change expectations Wow.
- mulmen 2y ago
  “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” You can dismiss any source by saying “nuh-uh” but you need to back it up to be taken seriously here.

jimjimjim 2y ago

I live in an area where there are a lot of wind mills along a nearby range of hills. There is also another taller hill which allows you to look down on the wind mills. In all the times I've driven up there and stopped to look out at the vista there were no birds at the base of the windmills. None. On any of them.

tw04 2y ago

Did you read a Donald Trump tweet? Because no reputable source has ever said wind turbines are a major risk to birds. If you’re trying to save birds, the first place you should be looking is outdoor cats. https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/ https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mor...

lenkite 2y ago
> Did you read a Donald Trump tweet? Because no reputable source has ever said wind turbines are a major risk to birds. I don't care about Donald Trump. (How did this even become about him ?) And your second statement is laughably false as even elementary research would tell you. Do note that there are ~100 million cats and only ~70k wind turbines, if you use US as a reference. Cats are clearly not the top-predators of birds anymore.
- tw04 2y ago
  > I don't care about Donald Trump. (How did this even become about him ?) You said you “read” about turbines killing birds (shockingly with no citation). There is literally nobody else claiming such stupidity. > Do note that there are ~100 million cats and only ~70k wind turbines, if you use US as a reference. Cats are clearly not the top-predators of birds anymore. Do note, a tiny fraction of the 100m cats are outdoor cats. And yes, they are absolutely one of the top predators of birds and have been for decades.

jodrellblank 2y ago

Humans in the UK killed and ate over 111,000,000 birds just in January 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/poultry-and-poultry-meat-statistics/monthly-statistics-on-the-activity-of-uk-hatcheries-and-uk-poultry-slaughterhouses-data-for-january-2025 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/poultry-and-poultry...

tsimionescu 2y ago
They also raised about 110,000,000 birds that otherwise would never have been born. This is completely irrelevant to wind turbines or any other power generation tech - the impact on wild birds is what is of concern, because, by definition, we're not able to raise any number of wild birds we'd like to have.
- CWIZO 2y ago
  While indeed irrelevant for the original point. I would encourage you to educate[1] yourself on the life these birds have before you make claims we're doing them a favour by bringing them into existence. [1] https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    I made no such claim, I was only mentioning that in relation to the fact that population size of domestic birds is not impacted at all by the massive killing, while population size for wild birds might be dramatically impacted by a much smaller number of deaths. I find the horrors of industrial animal farming horrendous, while not having a moral problem with the idea of raising an animal in decent conditions for slaughter.
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  It isn't completely irrelevant; they didn't mention wild birds, or any wider context - the way they commented was as a shock number, the intent of that is "wind turbines kill $bignum, stop wind turbines". The relevance of the much bigger shock number is to put it in context - human activity slaughters a lot of animals. Okay, something else which affects wild birds: "Bird corpses were counted - and, where possible, identified - at 166 locations throughout Britain during the summer of 1985. The survey covered all roads except motorways. It is the most recent such study, and the most comprehensive. The results were depressing. A minimum of 30 million birds are killed on Britain's roads every year. Depending on the assumptions made in the statistical analysis, the death rate could be even higher: 70 million a year is not impossible."[1] And that's as well as wild rabbits, hedgehogs, badgers, foxes, deer, and so on killed by cars which wind turbines don't affect. So the wildlife in the UK would be much better off if we built more viable alternatives to driving and road trucking than if we scrapped wind turbines. We can also note that people are working on wind turbines that don't kill birds, e.g. [2]. It's not a fixed fact that all wind turbine designs do the same damage. In the context of a world where fossil fuel propaganda really does exist[3] and Trump's recent executive order on unleashing energy generation where he tells government departments to look for all kinds of energy sources on their land - geothermal, hydroelectric, oil, gas, anything - except wind or solar - exists, and in the wider climate change context where there isn't a magically perfect answer - and where the UK is uniquely well suited in Europe to wind power - it can't just be left that "sensational $bignum means stop wind turbines" with nothing else mentioned. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/carnage-on-the-carriageway-millions-of-birds-and-animals-die-each-year-on-britain-s-roads-can-the-death-toll-be-reduced-malcolm-smith-on-the-wildlife-holocaust-1384964.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/carnage-on-... [2] https://www.audubon.org/magazine/surprisingly-simple-solution-protect-birds-wind-turbines-gets-its-biggest-test-yet https://www.audubon.org/magazine/surprisingly-simple-solutio... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX2aZUav-54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX2aZUav-54 - Climate Town video on how the gas industry sets up groups of 'concerned citizens' which pay social media influencers to post about how great cooking with gas is, and agitate politically while obscuring the source of their funding, among other things.