Thousands of birds paying a high price for green energy

[Bear Dale]

[hide][top]Thousands of birds paying a high price for green energy

Reading up on this and there is a massive amount of bird deaths.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational...-farms/4668750

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/wind-tur...dangered-birds

[blkmcs]

There is indeed a lot of bird deaths from a wide variety of causes.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-dea...t-the-evidence


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60148112000857

[Tannin]

Don't be mislead by unscientific BS, Bear.

Notice that the ABC program you linked to is six years out of date. This same scare story about wind farms and birds gets recycled every couple of years, and you know what? You never see hard numbers. There is a reason: the actual numbers demonstrate beyond doubt that wind turbines are a very minor problem and that the real issue is power lines. This reality doesn't sit well with the agenda of the anti-renewables scare campaigners (mobs like the Waubra Foundation and Malcom madeyes Roberts) in the pay of the climate deniers, but they are expert at pretending to be conservationists when it suits their tactics.

Sadly, good people get caught up in the BS and propagate the falsehoods. Wind turbines do in fact hit birds from time to time and there is room for genuine concern about badly sited turbines. However, the impact of power lines is far worse. But the anti-wind farm nuts don't like to talk about that because Australia's power lines, in the main, were constructed to transmit electricity generated at coal and gas plants. Pointing out their impact on wildlife doesn't advance the anti-wind agenda, so they don't mention it.

(By the way, some years ago I was involved in objecting to the siting of turbines too close to Brolga breeding habitat at Stockyard Hill in Western Victoria. Our objections were rational and successful: the company moved the three or four danger turbines to other sites nearby and the wind farm went ahead without causing any major harm. Everyone happy.)

[Hawthy]

Bob Brown may be one of the "good people caught up in the BS" of the "anti-renewables scare campaigners" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-...crisy/11345200

I fear that this thread will go down the same path as another recently discontinued climate change thread - discontinued because people were becoming strident - so I thought I would get in early.

Nothing that we do is without consequences. We just need to balance the beneficial consequences against the detrimental consequences.

[Tannin]

It was sad to see Bob Brown go down that path, Hawthy. But we should remember two things: (1) he is no longer a young man and we all lose our abilities as we age; (2) his primary objection isn't to the proposed Robbins Island Windfarm itself so much as it is to the proposal to run a massive overhead power transmission line all the way along the beautiful North-west Coast of Tasmania, straight through the middle of farms and communities. Bob Brown has been one of the wisest, most admirable people I have seen in Australian political life - and my memories go back 50-something years so I've seen a few - but I am increasingly doubtful of some of his recent decisions. He still has his heart in the right place but, frankly, it's looking like it's time he retired from public life.

(No reason why this thread should get acrimonious, by the way. I don't think there is too much to disagree on as the evidence is pretty plain.)

[Bear Dale]

It was sad to see Bob Brown go down that path, Hawthy. But we should remember two things: (1) he is no longer a young man and we all lose our abilities as we age; (2) his primary objection isn't to the proposed Robbins Island Windfarm itself so much as it is to the proposal to run a massive overhead power transmission line all the way along the beautiful North-west Coast of Tasmania, straight through the middle of farms and communities. Bob Brown has been one of the wisest, most admirable people I have seen in Australian political life - and my memories go back 50-something years so I've seen a few - but I am increasingly doubtful of some of his recent decisions. He still has his heart in the right place but, frankly, it's looking like it's time he retired from public life.

(No reason why this thread should get acrimonious, by the way. I don't think there is too much to disagree on as the evidence is pretty plain.)

Well he's quoted in the article -

"But former leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, has come out swinging against a giant new wind farm planned for Robbins Island, in the north-west corner of Tasmania.

He says it is in the wrong place, will ruin the view and kill endangered birds like the Tasmanian wedge-tail eagle and the white-breasted sea eagle that live on the island, and potentially migratory birds like the swift parrot and the orange-bellied parrot that travel between Tasmania and the mainland.

"We have alternatives for renewable energy. We don't have alternatives for extinct species of birds," Dr Brown told 7.30.

"We're in an age where it's predicted 30 per cent of Australia's birds will go to extinction this century because of human pressures. And we have to think about biodiversity."

[Mark L]

A month back back I had the chance to enjoy a presentation by Sean Dooley. Who?
He suggests that we have now learned better places to situate wind turbines for lower impact on birds. He was actually specifically ask about this subject and mentioned that in the U.S.A a billion birds die from flying into glass skyscrapers and this simply dwarfs any kill from wind farms. (50,000 estimate)
The night was cool and not based on 6 year old things.
Stuff about the Orange-bellied Parrot and wind farms was a not fact based and an attempt to stop the wind farms. Unfortunately it looks like this bird is heading to extinction anyway..

[Tannin]

Well he's quoted in the article - "But former leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, has come out swinging against a giant new wind farm planned for Robbins Island .....

And in the original message he put out, he went on to say lots more about the gigantic power line, which was the major focus. I read that when it first came out ... oh ... maybe two or three months ago. But more recent second-hand reports leave stuff out if it doesn't fit a narrative.

[ameerat42]

^ and ^. I suppose that's right. It depends on what is reported.

[Bear Dale]

In his own written words -

Besides the impact on the coastal scenery, wind turbines kill birds. Wedge-tailed eagle and white-bellied sea eagles nest and hunt on the island. Swift parrots and orange-bellied parrots traverse the island on their migrations. Multiple species of international migratory, endangered and critically endangered shorebirds use the wetlands for six months of the year: Australian fairy tern, fork-tailed swift, little tern, white-throated needletail, ruddy turnstone, sharp-tailed sandpiper, sanderling, red knot, curlew sandpiper, red-necked stint, great knot, double-banded plover, greater sand plover, lesser sand plover, Latham’s snipe, bar-tailed godwit, eastern curlew, whimbrel, golden plover, grey plover, grey-tailed tattler, common greenshank, terek sandpiper, hooded plover. For which of these species will the wind farm be the thousandth cut?


https://www.bobbrown.org.au/tarkine_updates_090719

[arthurking83]

I'm with Tony on this one, just scare mongering.

If wind turbines had such a gross impact on birdlife, then by extension windmills would also have had the same effect over thousands of years they they've been used.
You can't have one effect without the other ... and history has shown us that birds have survived the impacts of wind mills .. which by common sense would dictate would me far more in sheer numbers around the world than there are power generation turbines!

And as for so called scientific studies on such topics ... first and foremost I want to know WHO paid for the study before it is to be respected as a scientific study!

[Bear Dale]

If wind turbines had such a gross impact on birdlife, then by extension windmills would also have had the same effect over thousands of years they they've been used.

Pretty big difference between a windmill and a wind turbine.

You don't believe that wind turbines kill birds?

[ameerat42]

Just saying...
Not major, but just things to watch out for that can derail arguments:

Don't be mislead by unscientific BS, Bear...

Is the warning in response to a situation, or is it pre-emptive?

Notice that the ABC program you linked to is six years out of date...

Is it really out-of-date, or just 6 years old? - Or worse, its age makes it unreliable?

Pretty big difference between a windmill and a wind turbine.

You don't believe that wind turbines kill birds?

What's the use of getting an answer to that question?
"Yes" or "No", how does it advance the discussion of any facts?
/Just saying...

[Mark L]

I'm with Tony on this one, just scare mongering.

If wind turbines had such a gross impact on birdlife, then by extension windmills would also have had the same effect over thousands of years they they've been used.
You can't have one effect without the other ... and history has shown us that birds have survived the impacts of wind mills .. which by common sense would dictate would me far more in sheer numbers around the world than there are power generation turbines!

And as for so called scientific studies on such topics ... first and foremost I want to know WHO paid for the study before it is to be respected as a scientific study!

Bob Brown is only really referring to this particular wind turbine and transmission lines on Robbin Island.
This should not be confused with him being against all wind turbines.
From same article Bear quotes, "The world needs energy efficiency and renewable energy to replace fossil fuels, and fast. However, as with the Harmony Hotel proposal, this Robbins Island wind farm is an aileron too far."

[Hawthy]

Bob Brown is only really referring to this particular wind turbine and transmission lines on Robbin Island.
This should not be confused with him being against all wind turbines.
From same article Bear quotes, "The world needs energy efficiency and renewable energy to replace fossil fuels, and fast. However, as with the Harmony Hotel proposal, this Robbins Island wind farm is an aileron too far."

It seems that Bob is selective in where turbines should be placed. I don't think it is about the birds. He is against wind turbines in remote places that might make those places no longer remote and pristine. Given the agitation of the Extinction Rebellion protesters about needing to declare an immediate climate emergency and their demands to move to zero net emissions by 2025, has Bob adopted a more conservative approach? He seems to want to take some time to find the right places for wind generation. There are shades of grey, even in the greens.

[Mark L]

It seems that Bob is selective in where turbines should be placed. I don't think it is about the birds. He is against wind turbines in remote places that might make those places no longer remote and pristine.

I don't see a problem with that.
Why not try and preserve remote and pristine places?? We have a wide land to do these things elsewhere.

[John King]

Pretty big difference between a windmill and a wind turbine.

You don't believe that wind turbines kill birds?

Biggest windmill we had on any of our properties was 24 feet diameter (about 8m).

Largest wind turbines today are 165-170 metres in diameter, and in huge clusters. No windmill I have ever seen was part of a cluster of such devices.

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/10-biggest-turbines

[arthurking83]

If we want to save bird deaths in large numbers, then remove, or stop building buildings! ... get rid of all cats in the world, stop producing all pollutants, stop destroying all habitats .. etc.

I didn't say that wind turbines don't cause bird deaths. Lots of things .... cats, cars, buildings ... just about everything we've done or made kill birds.
But if we want to stop killing birds, then lets look at the major causes before we persecute the minor ones.

IIRC hundreds of millions of birds die from cats, and hundreds of millions of birds die from building related deaths, and cars. Not the 'thousands' that windmills contribute.

Look at it this way: there are elements that help to reduce a range of issues(eg. wind farms) and there are things we do(eg. build 100 story glass buildings) that aren't necessary other than as a showcase as to what humans can do!
If one of those sectors had to stop doing it's things to help save birds from dying which would be the more appropriate development to eliminate?

And no one in their right mind would deny that windmills don't also kill birds.
Statistics don't exist on that issue because no one has ever commissioned a study, because there's no billion dollar a year 'interest group' with an agenda to pursue!

[ricktas]

Bob Brown may be one of the "good people caught up in the BS" of the "anti-renewables scare campaigners" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-...crisy/11345200

I fear that this thread will go down the same path as another recently discontinued climate change thread - discontinued because people were becoming strident - so I thought I would get in early.

Nothing that we do is without consequences. We just need to balance the beneficial consequences against the detrimental consequences.

That thread was closed after the mods had to delete several posts towards the end as they became heated and personal. Unfortunately the effect of us deleting the posts means members do no see the real reason the thread was closed.

[Gazza]

If we want to save bird deaths in large numbers, then remove, or stop building buildings! ... get rid of all cats in the world, stop producing all pollutants, stop destroying all habitats .. etc.

I didn't say that wind turbines don't cause bird deaths. Lots of things .... cats, cars, buildings ... just about everything we've done or made kill birds.
But if we want to stop killing birds, then lets look at the major causes before we persecute the minor ones.

IIRC hundreds of millions of birds die from cats, and hundreds of millions of birds die from building related deaths, and cars. Not the 'thousands' that windmills contribute.

Look at it this way: there are elements that help to reduce a range of issues(eg. wind farms) and there are things we do(eg. build 100 story glass buildings) that aren't necessary other than as a showcase as to what humans can do!
If one of those sectors had to stop doing it's things to help save birds from dying which would be the more appropriate development to eliminate?

And no one in their right mind would deny that windmills don't also kill birds.
Statistics don't exist on that issue because no one has ever commissioned a study, because there's no billion dollar a year 'interest group' with an agenda to pursue!

Thanks Arthur; that would have to be one of the more sensible(ist) and certainly one of the most logical solutions I've ever read on the internet.
(I'm assuming you're referring to domestic and disowned feral cats that are creating havoc with all wildlife?)

A little off topic I know, sorry...just wanted to say, thanks -