The local birds killed by oil drilling aren't even what we should be comparing to. Even if that number were zero, bird populations world still be better off in a world powered by wind turbines than oil and gas.<p>Global warning is coming for birds too. Global warming poses an "existential threat for two thirds of North American bird species" [1] and obviously a similar proportion of bird species around the globe.<p>1. <a href="https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees" rel="nofollow">https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees</a>
I worked in oil/gas for a long time. In addition to "windmills are killing all the birds", here are a few of the top green energy lies I've heard:<p>1. Solar panels are toxic, require more energy to produce than they generate, and can't be recycled.<p>2. EV's are worse for the environment than ICE vehicles.<p>3. Lithium mining is worse than oil/gas drilling.<p>4. Solar/wind prices are skyrocketing and everyone is abandoning solar/wind.<p>5. Solar/wind can't work because they're too intermittent.<p>6. Climate change isn't real OR climate change is real but natural and unstoppable OR climate change is helpful to the planet (these opposing beliefs are often repeated back to back)
If we cared about birds we would be talking about reducing car traffic and saving more areas for wildlife. The argument against Solar and Wind with regards to wildlife preservation is almost always a distraction.
I wish a proper study on this could get some real funding. The cited study is certainly better than nothing but it's based on a <i>volunteer reported</i> survey with significant response bias (eg. maybe the drop in bird sightings near oil and gas drilling is because people don't want to go birdwatching near an oil field).
It's estimated that cats kill 1.3–4 billion birds each year in the U.S. alone, with 69% of these kills attributable to feral or unowned cats: <a href="https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/faq-outdoor-cats-and-their-effects-on-birds/" rel="nofollow">https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/faq-outdoor-cats-and-thei...</a>
The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
Birds have sensitive lungs, Canary in a coal mine comes to mind.<p>... birds respiratory system being so sensitive, it is vitally important that the bird's breath fresh, pure air. Toxins or pollutants in the air can quickly become a major source of problem and even death for the bird: <a href="https://cdn.ymaws.com/petsitters.org/resource/resmgr/virtual_library_/how_does_a_birds_lungs_work.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://cdn.ymaws.com/petsitters.org/resource/resmgr/virtual...</a><p>Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year[1]. Air pollution must impact birds a lot more than humans.<p>[1]<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p...</a>
Note that there has been a concerted effort to discredit windmills by the oil-and-gas industry to portray them as meat grinders for birds with the same photographs and handy boilerplate text distributed to various "special interest groups" (read: astroturfers) all over the globe to try to stave off the inevitable. And all of this is perfectly legal. They did the same with whales.
Link to the paper pprint <a href="https://ekatovich.github.io/files/Katovich_Birds_and_Energy_Infrastructure_PrePrint.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://ekatovich.github.io/files/Katovich_Birds_and_Energy_...</a>
If we cared about birds, the discussion would be about cats: <a href="https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mor...</a>
How does this compare to the estimates amount of birds that are killed by house cats every year?<p>I had an argument with a vegetarian cat owner about this the other week….
This is broken logic. Working primarily with averages leads directly to repeating the mistakes of the statistician who drown in a lake that was an average of three feet deep. Currently one of the notably large wind farms being operated is in the Altamont Pass in California which also happens to be the preferred spawning site for golden eagles. Does it make sense to assert that since wind farms are generally beneficial that we should not worry about drastically reducing or even eliminating golden eagles in California? The issue isn't wind farms or fossil fuels, it is exactly how we should build and maintain these wind farms and where. Using the critically needed energy transition to wipe out species of wild animals may not be an appropriate strategy.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, it's just a simple case of "follow the money". The fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar per year business and their interest is to keep it this way. So poisoning the well is a good strategy for them. If you thought about it, it was clear the bird argument was always just a talking point nimby types were fed with, so they have something alarming to repeat and to get outraged, without really caring if it's true. The only thing they cared about is not having wind turbines because of their (weird?) aesthetic preferences and desires to have things stay the same forever. Ironically the bird and animal population overall are struggling with the way things are now and how they want to keep it. But again, they don't really care about that.
> with the exceptions of Alaska and Hawaii<p>What is it about these places that made them effect the bird population?<p>Did it negatively effect it?
Our level of consumption, whatever the source of energy, is killing so much life on Earth. There are better ways to coexist. Arguing about the source is a diversion from making steps towards significant decreases in per capita energy consumption.
The entire "it kills birds" feels like such a canard, to me. I don't understand to whom this kind of appeal is directed. It seems to me that the primary interests at stake are 1) the myriad financial interests in the extraction, distribution, and consumption of petroleum-based energy products, and 2) the negative impact on the environment of these same activities.<p>So let's just have that discussion, on those terms?<p>I cannot believe that someone like Donald Trump, for example, actually gives a shit about birds, and that that is what informs his opposition to the use of wind turbines. It seems unlikely, although possible, that that argument would persuade others of a like mind? And there have been other, similarly pitiful positions advanced, such as that an increase in the use of solar and wind power increases our exposure to UV radiation and skin cancer, from the sun?<p>I just don't understand why these arguments are made, and to whom. I cannot imagine that either 1) they would convince anyone who cares about the debate, or 2) that the population of people who WOULD be convinced by such arguments, would amount to much - either in the size of the population or the force of their support.
The article has some logical flaws. The allegation is that wind turbines kill birds, not that they chase them away. There was no evidence at all that oil and gas drilling kills birds, only that their numbers are decreased in that area. Perhaps oil and gas drilling does kill birds; if so, the article's author should have explained how that happens. True, global warming might also kill birds, but none of the evidence in the article was about the effects of global warming.
Nobody uses bug screens on cars anymore because the bugs are fewer.<p>Bee populations are in decline.<p>And we're killing off birds.<p>Have a nice day staring at the smart tablet in your car.
I want to believe, but this article is less than convincing without reading detail about the study’s methods.<p>I didn’t see a link to the paper on my first read. When I decided to go back and get the author’s name, Economist’s paywall kicked in.<p>If anybody can see the full article, it would be lovely if you put the name of the researcher in the comments so I can read the original paper.
tell that to the birds under protection because they're going away that we fetch ded around those wind turbines weekly. including very rare and going away eagles in some countries.
> their blades can spin at well over 200km per hour. It is easy to imagine careless birds getting chopped to bits.<p>Interesting use of the word 'friendlier'.
Or nuclear. There's that. Way less land occupation, no carpeting hillsides with solar panels, no ungainly windmills, no millions of pounds of toxic heavy metals to dispose of when batteries and panels go bad, and...oh....it works regardless of the weather.