6 ms·

The main killers of birds are: Cats, cars, glass windows, power lines and pesticides. The amount of birds killed by wind power is tiny in comparison. NIMBYs lik

The main killers of birds are: Cats, cars, glass windows, power lines and pesticides. The amount of birds killed by wind power is tiny in comparison. NIMBYs like to abuse this argument to avoid building wind farms while not caring for birds at all.

stronglikedan 3y ago
I don'[t think it's reasonable to kill birds in the name of questionable science, just because it's not one of the primary killers, and I think we have a responsibility to do everything possible to limit the number of deaths.
- mchanson 3y ago
  No we don't.
- alpaca128 3y ago
  Wind turbines aren't questionable science and actually do reduce bird deaths compared to fossil power plants. In other words, they're fulfilling this responsibility better than expressing vague concerns.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > in the name of questionable science ... Hold on, are you suggesting that it's uncertain whether wind turbines work, or something?
BurningFrog 3y ago
Those are the main human related bird killers. I assume 99% of birds die of other causes.
themaninthedark 3y ago
There is the assumption that there is no difference in the kind of birds killed by cats vs the kind of birds killed by wind turbines. What are the populations and breeding rates of the birds killed by cats vs the birds killed by wind turbines? I would say that anyone who is not looking at that data and is attempting to frame it as cats are worse so who cares is being disingenuous.
- rcpt 3y ago
  Does that data even exist or is this just supposed to be a stump argument?
  - themaninthedark 3y ago
    I don't know if hard data exists, I have heard that wind turbines kill more raptors than other kinds of birds. What I remember is that Wind turbines are build in large open fields that make good habitats for prey as well as creating thermals for them to lift on. If my memory is correct, that means that wind turbines create a trap that draws in apex species by presenting them with what appears to be the ideal hunting ground and then kills them by presenting a hazard that they can not adapt to. I have nothing against wind turbines, I rather enjoy them. But as an aside, I think that the proponents do not listen to those who do have complains (i.e. shadows of the blades on houses, noise) and label them as NIMBY where the same groups have no issue in playing up less rational complaints about nuclear sites. I think it is a disingenuous tactic to bring up cats in the argument as they are not related to the discussion. It is similar to if we were debating Nuclear Power and I bring up that "More people drown in dam reservoirs and rivers". Sure, it is a great thing to know that I am more at risk of drowning but that does not do anything about the concerns of Nuclear Power. Edit: Anther user has also heard the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37481309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37481309

stronglikedan 3y ago

I don'[t think it's reasonable to kill birds in the name of questionable science, just because it's not one of the primary killers, and I think we have a responsibility to do everything possible to limit the number of deaths.

mchanson 3y ago
No we don't.
alpaca128 3y ago
Wind turbines aren't questionable science and actually do reduce bird deaths compared to fossil power plants. In other words, they're fulfilling this responsibility better than expressing vague concerns.
rsynnott 3y ago
> in the name of questionable science ... Hold on, are you suggesting that it's uncertain whether wind turbines work, or something?

BurningFrog 3y ago

Those are the main human related bird killers. I assume 99% of birds die of other causes.

themaninthedark 3y ago

There is the assumption that there is no difference in the kind of birds killed by cats vs the kind of birds killed by wind turbines. What are the populations and breeding rates of the birds killed by cats vs the birds killed by wind turbines? I would say that anyone who is not looking at that data and is attempting to frame it as cats are worse so who cares is being disingenuous.

rcpt 3y ago
Does that data even exist or is this just supposed to be a stump argument?
- themaninthedark 3y ago
  I don't know if hard data exists, I have heard that wind turbines kill more raptors than other kinds of birds. What I remember is that Wind turbines are build in large open fields that make good habitats for prey as well as creating thermals for them to lift on. If my memory is correct, that means that wind turbines create a trap that draws in apex species by presenting them with what appears to be the ideal hunting ground and then kills them by presenting a hazard that they can not adapt to. I have nothing against wind turbines, I rather enjoy them. But as an aside, I think that the proponents do not listen to those who do have complains (i.e. shadows of the blades on houses, noise) and label them as NIMBY where the same groups have no issue in playing up less rational complaints about nuclear sites. I think it is a disingenuous tactic to bring up cats in the argument as they are not related to the discussion. It is similar to if we were debating Nuclear Power and I bring up that "More people drown in dam reservoirs and rivers". Sure, it is a great thing to know that I am more at risk of drowning but that does not do anything about the concerns of Nuclear Power. Edit: Anther user has also heard the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37481309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37481309