Impact of So Called "Renewable Energy" on Biodiversity (Not That We Really Care).

[NNadir]

The paper to which I'll briefly refer is this one: Biodiversity Impacts of Land Occupation for Renewable Energy Infrastructure in a Globally Connected World Jingyu Wang, Cai Li, Zhongci Deng, Jamie Carr, Lindsay C. Stringer, Keke Li, Yuanchao Hu, Chen Zeng, Kai Huang, Sha Peng, and Zhen Wang Environmental Science & Technology 2025 59 (19), 9529-9539

I like to say that unlike the bourgeios current membership of the Sierra Club, who never see a wilderness they don't want to turn into an industrial park for energy production with so called "renewable energy," I'm a John Muir type of environmentalist. John Muir founded the Sierra Club to prevent the conversion of wilderness, the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite, into an industrial park for renewable energy.

It was a fight he lost over a century ago.

Here we are today.

As I often point out, although it's unpopular on our end of the political spectrum to acknowledge it as such, the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon in California, on an industrial foot print of about 12 acres, have a long history of producing more energy, more reliably, than all the wind turbines in the State of California. The purpose for tearing the shit out California wilderness to build industrial parks has never been about addressing dangerous fossil fuels. It has always been about attacking nuclear energy. I have not been constrained in pointing out that to my mind this is a fucking disgrace.

The cult of so called "renewable energy" is advertised by our "but her emails" and "too old Joe" media as "green," but as the paper cited at the outset points out in the first few paragraphs, the low energy density of so called "renewable energy" destroys greenery of all kinds:

Humanity is confronted with two interlinked crises: climate change and the sixth mass extinction, necessitating urgent and simultaneous actions to mitigate climate change and conserve biodiversity, despite potential trade-offs between these objectives. (1−4) Climate change, often manifested in escalating global temperatures and extreme weather events, disrupts ecological functioning, reduces species habitats, and further aggravates the biodiversity loss exacerbated by excessive energy consumption. (5) To effectively mitigate climate change, countries have committed to developing renewable energy infrastructure, as reflected in nationally determined contributions and international climate agreements. (6) For instance, China and the US have outlined strategies for their renewable energy infrastructure. China has committed to increasing the share of nonfossil fuels in primary energy consumption to 25% by 2030, and the United States has reiterated its commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. (6) The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that renewable energy will become a significant part of the global energy system, contributing 80% of the power generation capacity and 42% of global electricity generation by 2030. (7)

However, renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power have lower energy densities than traditional fossil fuels. (8) As a result, renewable energy infrastructure requires approximately 10 times more land area to produce the same amount of energy as typical fossil fuel facilities. (9−11) This heightened land demand encroaches on agricultural fields, wilderness areas, and protected habitats, exacerbating biodiversity loss even with conservation efforts. (12−14) This expansion threatens the existence of species and accelerates biodiversity loss at both local and global scales. (12,15−19) For example, wind farms can cause fatalities of avian species due to turbine accidents. (20,21) Additionally, they disrupt natural landscape patterns and the cyclical dynamics of nearby ecosystems by influencing the local climate conditions. This, in turn, can harm biological habitats and lead to significant socioecological costs. (20,22−25) Studies estimate that achieving the Paris Agreement’s targets using solar and onshore wind energy could result in the loss of over 110,000 km2 of natural land, impacting an estimated 1,574 threatened and endangered species. (14) The construction of reservoirs for hydropower leads to a decline in wildlife populations due to the degradation of natural ecosystems in the surrounding area. (26,27) Such conflict is also known as the “green versus green dilemma” in the context of energy transition. (2,28) The ongoing construction of renewable energy infrastructure has the potential to significantly alter the global landscape, despite its current limited coverage of only 0.4% of ice-free land area. (29,30) Consequently, the potential conflicts between biodiversity conservation and the large land demand for renewable energy infrastructure are likely to become more prominent. (12,31−33)...

I added the bold.

You can, if you wish, get into a stupid argument here about the effect of those disgusting short lived wind industrial parks on birds. It's not, in my experience, an argument worth having, since worship of so called "renewable energy" has a certain quality of - how should I say this? - religious dogma. (I once posted here reference to a book I downloaded called "Why Birds Matter" here, but it was a long time ago and I can't find it. The link apparently allows people to download the book for free. I haven't tested the link, since I already downloaded the book at a university library.)

Some graphics from the paper:



The caption:

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of the impacts of land occupation of renewable energy infrastructure on mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Each row represents the impact of different renewable energy infrastructures on the same species group, while each column represents the impact of the same renewable energy facility on different species groups.

The caption:

Figure 2. Land occupation of renewable energy related biodiversity loss embodied in the consumption of countries as well as in international trade. The two-digit country code is based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO3) and is detailed in Table S6. (a) Biodiversity loss footprint of countries; (b)–(d) biodiversity loss embodied in international trade flows. The breadth of the bar in the circle corresponds to the total tele-coupled biodiversity loss consisting of inflows and outflows attached to a country. The vibrant ribbons that link the circle bar charts depict the trajectory and transmission of biodiversity loss from the export countries to the import countries.

The caption:

Figure 3. Cumulative biodiversity losses of four species groups by countries and regions from 2015 to 2060 in RTS, 2DS, and B2DS scenarios (unit: global pdf). “The cumulative biodiversity loss” denotes the total impact due to increased demand across various scenarios from 2015 to 2060 for each country or region. The line chart illustrates the cumulative biodiversity loss within the territories of key countries and regions (including export and local production), while the stacked bar chart illustrates the cumulative biodiversity loss footprint of countries and regions (including import and local consumption).

The caption:

Figure 4. Variations on an annual basis in the biodiversity impact of global renewable energy trade in response to various energy transition scenarios. The final stacked bar chart depicts the species group composition of biodiversity losses embedded in international trade in 2060. The cascade chart illustrates the interannual variations in consumption embedded in international trade under various scenarios.

The authors write:

Escalating global energy demand and the climate crisis have raised widespread concerns about the energy transition, emphasizing that the emerging trade-offs between renewable energy and biodiversity conservation require careful management. (67) Effective development of renewable energy infrastructure is critical to preventing species group extinctions while mitigating the effects of climate change. (12)...

Not to criticize the authors who have raised an important point, let's be clear on something, OK?

There is no "energy transition." We are burning more dangerous fossil fuels than ever before and dumping the waste directly into the planetary atmosphere where it is killing millions of human beings each year, while destroying vast ecosystems. This, of course, is less interesting than whining insipidly about Fukushima. The trillions of dollars squandered on an "investment" in wind and solar energy has not a fucking thing to do with "climate change" which is now better described as "extreme global heating." Things are getting worse faster.

New Weekly CO2 Concentration Record Set at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 430.86 ppm

There isn't "effective management" of renewable energy infrastructure. It's a fucking insane free for all driven by money and public stupidity, running on bulldozers, chain saws, and vast open pit mines that will be leaching toxins for centuries.

If I sound angry, it's because I am.

You can drive your fucking electric car to a Sierra Club meeting and look at pictures of wind turbines all you want. You can declare yourself "green." You can put solar cells on the roof of your McMansion without a single reflection on the nature of electronic waste, patting yourself on your back, and putting a bumper sticker with a Panda on that electric car.

Nevertheless the results are in.

Birds matter and as a result, mass to energy density, land to energy density, matters.

History will not forgive us, nor should it.

Have a nice holiday weekend. Enjoy your cookouts.