There were a meta-analysis regarding population of birds in areas with/without wind turbines, found no statistically significant difference (unlike coal, where difference was huge)
Like much statistical analysis there are some details that might not be well captured. Much of the opposition to wind power based on bird deaths is caused by the Altamont Pass facility which is placed in a golden eagle breeding area and has significantly disrupted that species. There could be similar risks here if generating equipment like this were to be used in sensitive marine habitats such as the Monterey Bay. It will probably be worth ongoing study to avoid potentially serious problems that broad statistical analysis may not catch.
Yeah, if you're looking to save the birds, the first order of business is to ban cats, because turns out those cute little guys are rather adept at bird murder.
Apparently that isn't true and just shifting the blame away from the pesticide and agricultural industry which have decimated insect populations. Which are the food source for many birds. Much like blaming consumer's personal choices for CO2 emissions.
"We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals." https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
This is the first time I've seen the statistic quoted with the distinction that it's about feral cats, and it makes a heck of a lot more sense now than it did when I had the impression they were saying the cats I've had, which were on the whole utterly useless at catching things, were secretly massacring birds by the dozen. Thanks for the drive by enlightenment :)
I have no doubt that stray and feral housecats in the cities and suburbs are killing great numbers of common house sparrows, but the things that are driving down numbers of endangered birds in rural and remote areas (where feral cats are not a problem) is habitat loss and the decline in food sources (ie. berries and bugs).
Feral cats are extremely common in rural areas (though not in remote areas). Ask anyone who's lived on a farm or ranch about "barn cats".
Regardless, "the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals" sounds unambiguously not great, even if they're mostly not endangered.
How significant is that number? Is it large or small? How much of it is offset by larger populations of well-fed birds and rats in cities? In many countries, people specifically feed stray cats to keep cities rat-free, and predatory birds are often used for pest control (huge crow flocks terrorizing parks etc).
Yep. I mostly meant for or rather caused by this kite. I wouldn't expect it intuitively, as it's just a big object in the water, not moving erratically or obstructing anything.
It has a 39-foot wingspan and moves in a figure 8 pattern on a seabed tether. There's going to be at least some implication for local wildlife, but is it worse than the impacts of fossil fuels? I have no idea. It's definitely an interesting concept. I'm sure it will get more efficient and require a smaller footprint over time, assuming we invest in it.
If tidal energy takes off, I'll guarantee you that - if it hasn't already happened - there will be chilling articles about dead fish and other sea populations.