I get opposition to wind. It's highly visible, makes noise and kills birds. But it's absolutely wild to be opposed to solar, a power source with no local externalities and potential to improve agricultural productivity.
The claim that we shouldn’t build wind turbines because they kill birds is vastly overstated. Cats and buildings with glass windows kill more birds by multipe magnitudes. And fossil fuels cause 5.2 avian fatalities per gigawatt hour while wind turbines cause only 0.3–0.4 avian fatalities per gigawatt hour (source).
It’s a hilarious claim too because everyone I’ve seen claim it does not give a single fuck about birds or ecosystems and basically shrugs at their cats or oil demolishing them.
Wind turbines kill vast numbers of birds protected by the migratory bird treaty act. It is bad enough that about a decade ago the Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to fine those bird deaths the way they fine other unauthorized “takings” of protected birds.
Also the blades on the turbines are bad for the environment and cannot be recycled.
If you’re going to advance the argument that the blades create waste, at least be honest enough to state the waste created by fossil fuels as comparison. Look at False Claim #22 in the source I cited above.
This is a talking point nearly invented by and promoted by Trump and MAGA. Oil spills and carbon emissions from fossil fuels negatively affect birds and sea life. It's ideologically motivated.
espressocycle | 5 hours ago
I get opposition to wind. It's highly visible, makes noise and kills birds. But it's absolutely wild to be opposed to solar, a power source with no local externalities and potential to improve agricultural productivity.
Castastrofuck | 4 hours ago
The claim that we shouldn’t build wind turbines because they kill birds is vastly overstated. Cats and buildings with glass windows kill more birds by multipe magnitudes. And fossil fuels cause 5.2 avian fatalities per gigawatt hour while wind turbines cause only 0.3–0.4 avian fatalities per gigawatt hour (source).
Korrocks | 4 hours ago
IMO the anti wind power arguments are mostly pretextual
MidnightIAmMid | an hour ago
It’s a hilarious claim too because everyone I’ve seen claim it does not give a single fuck about birds or ecosystems and basically shrugs at their cats or oil demolishing them.
espressocycle | 3 hours ago
I'm not opposed to wind, I just understand how other people could be.
Pale-Fee-2679 | 56 minutes ago
I’m a bird watcher and state Audubon member. Wind farms will surely kill some birds, but nowhere near as many as climate change.
Jellyfish1297 | 3 hours ago
Wind turbines kill vast numbers of birds protected by the migratory bird treaty act. It is bad enough that about a decade ago the Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to fine those bird deaths the way they fine other unauthorized “takings” of protected birds.
Also the blades on the turbines are bad for the environment and cannot be recycled.
Castastrofuck | 2 hours ago
If you’re going to advance the argument that the blades create waste, at least be honest enough to state the waste created by fossil fuels as comparison. Look at False Claim #22 in the source I cited above.
Jellyfish1297 | an hour ago
Oh, I love renewables. I also understand why people dislike wind turbines
soularbabies | 2 hours ago
This is a talking point nearly invented by and promoted by Trump and MAGA. Oil spills and carbon emissions from fossil fuels negatively affect birds and sea life. It's ideologically motivated.
Jellyfish1297 | an hour ago
The proposed fish and wildlife service rule was pre-Trump. I wrote a formal comment against it